Posted by oohah:

Posted by 4949:

Posted by oohah:

D'Antoni should not have offered Marbury playing time in this manner. It doesn't matter what Marbury did last year or the year before. He got jerked around this season and this was another jerk around type of maneuver.

Fair is fair. Either a player is part of the plan in one way or another and playing or he isn't. If D'Antoni wanted him to be part of the team going forth he should have made that clear.

Marbury may have poor character, but he was well within his rights to refuse to play. D'Antoni does not have the right to walk all over Marbury, and he should have kept quiet about the exchange if he really wasn't mad.

oohah


[Edited by - oohah on 22-11-2008 12:48 AM]

Wow! You must have missed the last several years of the Marbury antics. He single handedly wreck this team. Have you noticed how much better they were playing without him for instance?

I fail to see your point. That has absolutely nothing to do with what happened tonight.

oohah

Marbury deserves 'no rights'.

Posted by GallOfFame:

This is So Not Swell.

Coward move by both parties.

Except the player was given liberty to be a Coward, whereas the suits Chose to be one in this case.

He never should have been asked to play.

Is Mobley, Tim, and Harrington part of the future?

Posted by CrushAlot:

I think he opened the door for the team to take disciplinary action against him. He is still being paid and is an employee. He refused to do his job. He also will not negotiate a buyout. The team at this point has a reason to suspend him, seek Stern's assistance in negotiating a 'fair' buy out, or to fine him. This hiccup by Marbury may spell the end. Up to this point he has not done anything that would give the Knicks any ground in their attempt to get out of his contract. I am sure a media policy violation is not far behind.

Posted by oohah:

Posted by CrushAlot:

I think he opened the door for the team to take disciplinary action against him. He is still being paid and is an employee. He refused to do his job. He also will not negotiate a buyout. The team at this point has a reason to suspend him, seek Stern's assistance in negotiating a 'fair' buy out, or to fine him. This hiccup by Marbury may spell the end. Up to this point he has not done anything that would give the Knicks any ground in their attempt to get out of his contract. I am sure a media policy violation is not far behind.

I'm pretty sure you are wrong considering his benching while healthy and after playing through the preseason. The players union would get involved and say he is being mistreated. They would win. It is best for the Knicks to play it cool.

oohah

The Knicks aren't obliged to play Marbury, and I don't see why you place so much emphasis on him getting some PT in preseason. Preseason is when the undrafted dudes who wont even make the team get played.

The players union can have no more to say about Marbury than they did about TT in Chi, or Harrington in GS. I'm guessing that all the Knicks are required to do is fulfill the terms of his contract consistent with the CBA.

So do you think his contract states that if he's given token PT in preseason the Knicks are obliged to have him in their regular rotation throughout the season? And do you think it's in his contract that its up to his discretion when he plays, or to not play at all if he so chooses?

Why are you trying to make Steph more special than other players? He does enough of that on his own.

[Edited by - blueseats on 11-22-2008 02:07 AM]

Posted by BlueSeats:

Posted by oohah:

Posted by CrushAlot:

I think he opened the door for the team to take disciplinary action against him. He is still being paid and is an employee. He refused to do his job. He also will not negotiate a buyout. The team at this point has a reason to suspend him, seek Stern's assistance in negotiating a 'fair' buy out, or to fine him. This hiccup by Marbury may spell the end. Up to this point he has not done anything that would give the Knicks any ground in their attempt to get out of his contract. I am sure a media policy violation is not far behind.

I'm pretty sure you are wrong considering his benching while healthy and after playing through the preseason. The players union would get involved and say he is being mistreated. They would win. It is best for the Knicks to play it cool.

oohah

The Knicks aren't obliged to play Marbury, and I don't see why you place so much emphasis on him getting some PT in preseason. Preseason is when the undrafted dudes who wont even make the team get played.

The players union can have no more to say about Marbury than they did about TT in Chi, or Harrington in GS. I'm guessing that all the Knicks are required to do is fulfill the terms of his contract consistent with the CBA.

So do you think his contract states that if he's given token PT in preseason the Knicks are obliged to have him in their regular rotation throughout the season? And do you think it's in his contract that its up to his discretion when he plays, or to not play at all if he so chooses?

Why are you trying to make Steph more special than other players? He does enough of that on his own.

[Edited by - blueseats on 11-22-2008 02:07 AM]

Actually, I am not trying to make Marbury more special than the other players. I am looking at him like I would any other player. But you are doing exactly the opposite. You are relishing every humiliation. You don't have any objectivity when it comes to Marbury. I feel like if Marbury got beat down in the street, you would post: "Oh he deserves it.".

Look at the situation objectively: D'Antoni goes public and says Marbury is not part of the teams future, essentially not a part of the team. A trade happens and he dresses Marbury to stay within league rules, and offers Marbury minutes for 1 game, or possibly 2. Let me remind you at this point that the coach has publicly stated that Marbury is not part of the team's present or it's future. Marbury would be stupid to play, just stupid. He isn't required to bend over for D'Antoni.

I wonder Blue, if it was any other player would you have the same opinion? I doubt it. I don't like Marbury, but I can be objective. Don't let your hate blind you.

oohah



[Edited by - oohah on 22-11-2008 02:25 AM]

Posted by oohah:

Posted by BlueSeats:

Posted by oohah:

Posted by CrushAlot:

I think he opened the door for the team to take disciplinary action against him. He is still being paid and is an employee. He refused to do his job. He also will not negotiate a buyout. The team at this point has a reason to suspend him, seek Stern's assistance in negotiating a 'fair' buy out, or to fine him. This hiccup by Marbury may spell the end. Up to this point he has not done anything that would give the Knicks any ground in their attempt to get out of his contract. I am sure a media policy violation is not far behind.

I'm pretty sure you are wrong considering his benching while healthy and after playing through the preseason. The players union would get involved and say he is being mistreated. They would win. It is best for the Knicks to play it cool.

oohah

The Knicks aren't obliged to play Marbury, and I don't see why you place so much emphasis on him getting some PT in preseason. Preseason is when the undrafted dudes who wont even make the team get played.

The players union can have no more to say about Marbury than they did about TT in Chi, or Harrington in GS. I'm guessing that all the Knicks are required to do is fulfill the terms of his contract consistent with the CBA.

So do you think his contract states that if he's given token PT in preseason the Knicks are obliged to have him in their regular rotation throughout the season? And do you think it's in his contract that its up to his discretion when he plays, or to not play at all if he so chooses?

Why are you trying to make Steph more special than other players? He does enough of that on his own.

[Edited by - blueseats on 11-22-2008 02:07 AM]

Actually, I am not trying to make Marbury more special than the other players. I am looking at him like I would any other player. But you are doing exactly the opposite. You are relishing every humiliation. You don't have any objectivity when it comes to Marbury. I feel like if Marbury got beat down in the street, you would post: "Oh he deserves it.".

Look at the situation objectively: D'Antoni goes public and says Marbury is not part of the teams future, essentially not a part of the team. A trade happens and he dresses Marbury to stay within league rules, and offers Marbury minutes for 1 game, or possibly 2. Let me remind you at this point that the coach has publicly stated that Marbury is not part of the team's present or it's future. Marbury would be stupid to play, just stupid. He isn't required to bend over for D'Antoni.

I wonder Blue, if it was any other player would you have the same opinion? I doubt it. I don't like Marbury, but I can be objective. Don't let your hate blind you.

oohah



[Edited by - oohah on 22-11-2008 02:25 AM]

Its got nothing to do with relishing the humiliation. Sure, I get small satisfacton from it, but given the choice of having him humiliated or simply gone, I'd have chosen gone.

But in refusing a buyout he's equal party to still being here. I don't care that he didn't play tonight, I'm not holding that against him (though the team might be well in their rights to fine him for it).

What bothers me is fans like you that think he's owed something for showing up in shape, for a change, or for getting 20 mins PT in preseason.

I wouldn't mind one bit if he were being squeezed for prior years here, but I don't even think that's what's going on. I think D' had misgivings of his own about Steph from their time in Phoenix. Recall it was D'who traded him to us in a culture cleanup. I think he and Walsh agreed on a clean slate approach to all players, but D' knew that in Steph's case he'd need to see something unexpectedly improved from him to be impressed. But D found that the locker room hated him, and he refused to come off the bench, and he has taken an arrogant and embattled position about the buyout, and in short, has in no way distinguished himself as better than he was in Phoenix or the reputation which preceeds him.

As I've demonstrated many times over with my infamous collection of Marbury articles, Marbury has infected the culture of every club he's ever been on, and D' has had the misfortune to see it first hand twice. D' wanted Steph out of Phx ASAP and the toxicity is magnitudes of orders greater here. He's confronted with the enormous task of trying to clean up after Isiahbury and that is best accomplished with Marbury as removed as possible from the team. Unfortunately, Marbury isn't willing to break even on salary with a chance to play for a contender, instead he wants to extract maximum money from the Knicks with no compunction for how it affects his career or the rest of the franchise - a franchise mind you which has already been crippled and humiliated by him.


One could argue that the Knicks could just as easily remedy the situation by paying his full salary, but they are at a disadvantage in doing so because then they lose the ability to play him if they need him, or trade him if it would benefit them. So giving up those rights and instead paying him to play for another team should come at a discount. But if Marbury compromised he loses nothing monetarily but he gets to play. Obviously everybody gains if Marbury compromises, but he refuses. Which shows he's less interested in money and playing than he is in screwing the franchise further.

Yet you find a way to feel sorry for him and act light he's the victim. "Poor Steph had to come into camp in shape, and poor Steph had to showcase himself in preseason, and poor Steph had to sit on the bench or be asked to play when his pride told him not too." Well my counterpoint to you is "poor Knicks fans for ever giving this guy a chance, and for cheering him on, and for allowing themselves to be duped for a second that this guy was about anything but himself.

I don't give one damn if Marbury plays, or is humiliated, or if he lives happily ever after - but I can't countenance people feeling sorry for him like he's the one who got shafted. No way. Not in my truck...




[Edited by - blueseats on 11-22-2008 03:53 AM]

Posted by Travla:

I think it was more like, he'd play Steph tonight and tomorrow night (maybe) and then exile him again. Steph isn't going to be a fool for a coach that he know doesn't want him on the team and has humiliatingly made that point. I wouldn't have played either unless I was told I'd play good minutes until traded or released.