All this probably goes hand in hand to why Frank Johnson was fired and D'Antoni was hired to promote an uptempo style to push the ball and find the open man as it don't matter who shoots. In order to eliminate players complaining about not getting enough shot attempts. Make the game more fun for the players and get the chemistry back. Now you guys want to say that Marbury didn't buy into that system and was a ball hog and attribute that as to why he was moved. Even if he didn't buy into the system at that time. Which really has no proof other than Hardaway saying so. As none of us watched or remember the games to know how he ran the system. I don't feel that why he was moved. Though these things above and in this paragraph up are both attributed to it. If they felt these things were as big as you do. Then they would have traded Marbury to Layden a lot earlier for cheaper just to get him off the team. In this system of D'Antoni's they could have moved Marbury to SG. So even if Marbury didn't play PG the way D'Antoni preferrd he could have still played a vital role in that system off the ball away from the PG duties. What did D'Antoni state about Barbose? He stated that he learn from his mistake in trying to turn Barbosa into a PG. The same thing would have happend with Marbury if they weren't "upstream financially", or "stuck" and he wasn't payed so much.

Which takes me to why Marbury was traded. Which I don't really need to get into my thoughts on as it ware in my last post on this topic yesterday. When Colangleo was asked directly about the chemistry issue in that quote I posted above. He could have easily stated. How Marbury was hurting the teams chemistry, and had to move him in order to get the chemistry back if that was the case. Instead in a direct question about chemistry he down played it and talks about how they were stuck and needed to make a move of that magnitude to gain the flexabiltiy needed to become a true NBA contender down the line.

Posted by newyorknewyork:

The difference is I take everything in.

I don't think you do. I think you are ignoring that Isiah told us why Marbury was available:

"When we got him here in New York, the reason why we were able to get him is because he has flaws," said Isiah Thomas....it was like nobody could say if he was doing anything wrong. Teammates were afraid. So everybody kind of sniped behind his back, as opposed to trying to help him and teach him."

Thomas speculated that Marbury had tried to lead through intimidation. That certainly seemed to be the case in New Jersey, where Marbury publicly criticized Kerry Kittles and Keith Van Horn; and in Phoenix, where Amare Stoudemire and Shawn Marion reportedly grew weary of his demeanor.


Straight from the horses mouth and nothing about finances. A prosecution could rest on that evidence alone.


You ignore Colangelo saying he felt he had to make a move because the chemistry was gone and without it they were no longer very good. He complained of poor body language, poor effort and guys not being in the trench together. All that is confirmed by Hardaway, and we see from D'Antoni that all that improved immediately after the trade.

We've also seen those same patterns bedevil Steph's NJ and NY teams, and we hear the complaints of those teammates.

So how much of that are you taking in?

Your arguement appears to that if he wasn't as big a cancer as in NJ that he probably wasn't one at all. I think the words of Isiah, Hardaway, Colangelo and d'antoni clearly refute that.

But you are also guy who doesn't think Steph is a cancer here either, in spite of two years of woeful effort and cohesion; two years of franchise worst slides; two teammates wanting to kick his arse and another calling him his worst teammate ever; his constant bickering with his coach; one HOF coach quitting and another on the verge of being fired; and reports that no teammates like him, etc. So if you can witness all that with your own eyes I certainly don't expect anything from his more subdued Phoenix years to sway you.

As to your argument that if Phoenix was desperate to move him they'd have done it much sooner. Who said they were desperate? They just thought it was the right way to go. I think Steph's been a worse cancer here and I don't see Isiah rushing to move him, so it's not about timing.

In addition, who's to say it wasn't Layden who was the one dragging his feet?

First off he wanted to see what was going to happen when Dyess returned. If Dyess played like a monster and Houston was recovering well I doubt Layden would have done the deal, Layden was a character guy and he'd have hated managing Steph, but as things where developing he needed a star(bury)phuching deal to save his job.

Layden may have also been reluctant to give up both Ward and Eisley, leaving himself with no backup PG and no defense in the backcourt. He probably also had rightful concerns about chemistry issues between Steph and Van Horn. So perhaps he was trying to work a different deal, perhaps even a 3-way. There was still over a month to go before the trade deadline so there was no desperation to consummate a bad deal so quickly. Layden was a reluctant traded in every regard, unlike Isiah who would not only give Colangelo everything he asked for but he'd throw in Lampe as well just as a "thank you" gift.

Thanks NY.

I'm willing to believe that Steph was less destructive in Phoenix than here or NJ. On the Nets and here I think he new the hammer could justifiably come down at any time, while in Phoenix I think he was shocked when it did. So he probably hadn't reached the level of an incurable "cancer" in Phoenix, but he was still Steph being Steph, a leopard who hadn't changed his spots. I jut think Colangleo saw the writing on the wall and was looking for a brighter path.

I also agree that the size of the deal was compelling for Colangelo. I don't think he would have traded Steph straight up for mcDyess, for instance. I think the ability to dump Penny also played it's part. It's rumored that Googs hated Steph since Minny, and penny also hated him, so the three together formed a major sore spot. However Googs was expiring so he was just a short term problem. But in dumping Steph and Hardaway they could get under the cap and make some noise in the Kobe/Nash off-season.

That said, while they might not have traded just Steph for an expiring, they might have decided that they couldn't include Hardaway to clear cap room they might have resigned to their financial misfortune and tried to trade Steph for an alternative all-star type player.

Layden, knowing the friction between Penny and Steph (and Steph and Van horn) probably didn't want Penny in the deal; he wouldn't have wanted to wholesale import all of Phoenix's troubles, and such reluctance would have been a major holdup.

So i agree that many factors went into their decision. I fully acknowlege they were pleased with Steph coming off the Spurs series, but I think his new leadership position and salry extension may have gotten into his head, but regardless, things went south fast to start the new season and "steph was in the middle of all the turmoil."

And it didn't help that D'antoni didn't like him at the point:

"I think a lot of people expect him to be a great point guard, but I don't think that's his main suit," D'Antoni said.

The No. 1 thing we lacked last year was leadership and Basketball IQ. And with Steve running the show now, we think we have improved dramatically in both of those areas.

It all played it's part.

Lastly, I didn't mean to imply that Steph alone played with woeful effort last year but that the team did when it fell apart around him. We went 2-17 and then had an additional 9 game losing streak later in the season. Some fans thought we were playing so poorly we must be tanking. Our collective effort became woeful and I think that parallels what happened in Phoenix, NJ, and even for us this year. I believe it's a result of poor chemistry and a team not playing like a team. How many times do we have to hear about guys "not being in the trenches together", or guys "not sacrificing for the team", etc, before we acknowledge this is a pattern that consistently accompanies "Starbury" and his turmoil?