[ IMAGES: Images ON turn off | ACCOUNT: User Status is LOCKED why? ]

Q-Rich On Marbury: ''He Isn't My Teammate''
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum
Page 3 of 4 ‹ Previous 1  2  3  4 Next ›
« Reply To Topic
Author Thread
GallOfFame
Posts: 20554
Alba Posts: 4
Joined: 11/6/2008
Member: #2320
USA
11/27/2008  8:35 PM
The "Clean Slate" mantra was jokes,(at least according to coach). Listen to his interview on the ESPN club page before our game with the Cavs on PTI...


As of now it's about the 6th video down


http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/clubhouse?team=nyk





He specifically said...


I didn't want anyone looking over their shoulders(namely Duhon, Nate, and Crawford)


Because of his contract situation

and

Because of different things that happened in the past


In the coach's mind it was already made up he wasn't going to give Steph a clean slate, although the GM said every player would get one before the season started. The underlined statement says it all. So if coach is running the show instead of the Nyquil GM, by exiling Steph from the team at the beginning of season with no choice given, no need to give him a choice now to rejoin the team until Mobley's additional heart tests come back good. Tell him to suit up and be ready when his number is called. If he doesn't respond, then Steph hangs himself with his own rope. It appears our coach is afraid of Steph and what he could potentially do during the game, appears he doesn't have balls to deal with Steph like a man and doesn't want to risk the chance of being showed up in a game. Which in all honesty I doubt it happens, because Steph knows the protocol and wants his money. He's being Prickish with our mgmt, in particular the coach.


So coach rather have these (Al Queda In Caves) discussions with Marbury pregame to setup him up for a fall, serving it up to the press on a silver platter. He knows well in advance what Marbury's response is going to be, so he keeps going back to him with this foolishness pregame, although he told us about 1-2weeks ago this wouldn't be a distraction. Now you have Swollen Chipmunk Q talking to the press about his own teammate.










[Edited by - GallOfFame on 11-27-2008 8:46 PM]
AUTOADVERT
TMS
Posts: 60684
Alba Posts: 617
Joined: 5/11/2004
Member: #674
USA
11/27/2008  9:08 PM
Now you have Swollen Chipmunk Q talking to the press about his own teammate.

add that to the list... i love this forum

Dinglebury
Big Turd
Fishlips
25 Cent
Robersuck
Crawful
Fat Albert
After 7 years & 40K+ posts, banned by martin for calling Nalod a 'moron'. Awesome.
BlueSeats
Posts: 27272
Alba Posts: 41
Joined: 11/6/2005
Member: #1024
11/27/2008  10:29 PM
Posted by oohah:
Posted by BlueSeats:

What he (and oohah) don't understand is that he will never, and should never, be given a "clean slate" in the NBA. There is no reason to ever presume that he will put the team first - he will always be tested. Being a teammate, let alone leader, is a constant test, of which Marbury has constantly failed.

I could have sworn just yesterday you posted that Marbury did have a clean slate and he "Shat all over it". Or was that the other Blueseats? Now, he will never get a clena slate? So why did D'Antoni even bother saying it?

Great, you've proven I left a word out. I should have said he will never *again* be given a clean slate.

A clean slate is an opportunity to prove your reputation wrong. Marbury reported to camp saying he wouldn't accept a bench role, confirming his reputation as a team killer.

Is it possible I'm wrong and some desperate team will have faith that he's really a swell guy who'll integrate well with their team and accept whatever role he's given? I suppose in an infinite universe anything is possible, I just don't see it - and in spite of all the contortions you're going through, I'd be very surprised if you do either.

[Edited by - blueseats on 11-27-2008 10:54 PM]
BlueSeats
Posts: 27272
Alba Posts: 41
Joined: 11/6/2005
Member: #1024
11/27/2008  10:52 PM
Posted by oohah:

Okay, now I'll explain it to you Blueseats. Marbury does not have a choice in playing, you do understand that right? He cannot refuse. Just like Marbury said: "refusing to play is when the coach tells you to go into the game and you don't go in"

D'Antoni has positioned himself as the complete dictator of the team. D'Antoni benches Marbury or banishes Marbury at his pleasure. Marbury cannot refuse to play. D'Antoni does not have to ask him. That is a fact, whether you want to believe it or not. If Marbury is suited up and refuses to play, he is in violation of his contract and can be suspended without pay.

D'Antoni is sitting in his own mess now. Marbury did not banish himself. Marbury did not trade all the guards making it so he was needed again. D'Antoni and Walsh got themselves into this situation.

Marbury is not a nice guy. He is selfish. Having said all of that, this is not Marbury's creation. They don't want Marbury, but now all of a sudden they want him. So he has to want to play? Why is that? The rules of human feelings do not cease to exist for Marbury however much of a jerk he is. MOney doesn't change that either. He has every right to not want to play, but he has no right to refuse to play! And considering the way D'Antoni has handled Marbury, why in Sam Hill would you believe that he would let Marbury make the decision?

The Knicks have not taken disciplinary action against Marbury, why do you think that is Blueseats?

When they suspend or fine him without pay, I'll believe that Marbury "refused to play". Until then, it looks to me like the coach is trying to railroad him.

If I were D'Antoni, I wouldn't want to play Marbury after banishing him and I wouldn't trust Marbury. Would you?

And if I were Marbury, in no way would I trust D'Antoni or want to do him any kind of favors. Would you? That is a fair view, isn't it?

I really feel you are viewing this through "Marbury hate goggles". I am not trying to insult you, I want you to see this craziness for what it is: A creation of D'Antoni. It doesn't mean you have to like Marbury or anything like that. But this one isn't his mess.

P.S. I remember when we were arguing just a couple of weeks ago and you thought this would not be a distraction, and that D'Antoni had handled it wonderfully, etc. Are you ready to admit how wrong your were about that yet?

oohah



[Edited by - oohah on 27-11-2008 8:50 PM]

Oohah, we discussed all this already, why are you bringing up the fines? I told you my feeling on that. D'antoni didn't require him to play, he offered and/or requested him to. You know those are my feelings, so why pretend we have a disagreement over that when we don't.

But while D' can "make" (or at least demand) Steph to play, he can't make him be a good teammate, and that is what he wants of his players on the floor. That can only be requested, or invited.

It ain't that deep.

As to whether or not I think D' is handling the situation well or not...

I think Walsh handled the situation badly by sticking D' with Marbury. Where we differ is that you think there's abest way to handle Marbury and I don't. I knew if he was here it would just be a matter of time before it blew up. This is hasn't occurred because of mishandling, it was an inevitability.

It just amazes me that people think if D' had an some intimate chat with Marbury every thing would have been copacetic. That's what Isiah did last year and Steph split, derailing the season. Do you really forget such things so quickly?

To think this is some freak happening causedmy ablundering D'antoni just strikes me as wild considering all the coaches Marbury has done in just in NY, let alone his career.

What's really ironic is that you seem to think that a rookie coach, like Mark Jackson, would have been better equipped to handle Marbury.
if having to compete for playing time with Rod Strickland could turn Jackson into a depressed, insecure pudgeball, imagine what competing with Marbury would do to him.
CrushAlot
Posts: 59764
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/25/2003
Member: #452
USA
11/27/2008  11:09 PM
D'Antoni wanted nothing to do with Marbury and my guess is that he expressed this to Walsh when he was hired. The Duhon signing initially appeared to confirm this. Also, D'Antoni's predraft interviews with point guards where he said he needed an engine for the team would appear to indicate he had no plan of using Marbury. Walsh was unable to get rid of Marbury and for some reason did not waive or buy him out. D'Antoni messed up in his handling of the situation but he should not have had to handle it. Marbury should not be an issue. He should be home, away from the team, getting absolutely no media attention, and hoping that he gets offered a buyout. Walsh put Mike D. in a bad spot
I'm tired,I'm tired, I'm so tired right now......Kristaps Porzingis 1/3/18
oohah
Posts: 26600
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 4/7/2005
Member: #887
11/28/2008  2:33 AM
Oohah, we discussed all this already, why are you bringing up the fines? I told you my feeling on that. D'antoni didn't require him to play, he offered and/or requested him to. You know those are my feelings, so why pretend we have a disagreement over that when we don't.

I don't think I knew your feelings on that, maybe I forgot the conversation.
But while D' can "make" (or at least demand) Steph to play, he can't make him be a good teammate, and that is what he wants of his players on the floor. That can only be requested, or invited.

It ain't that deep.

Right, and that is why D'Antoni, banished Marbury from day 1 correct? But then D'Antoni wanted to turn around and offer Marbury minutes for 1-2 games when he was desperate for players. I don't find that to be consistent, but rather self serving and convenient on D'Antoni's part. Marbury is not part of the team's present or future, he should just roll with that. To villainize Marbury for this particular issue seems to me off-base. there are plenty of issue to legitimately villainize Marbury for, but this isn't one of them.
As to whether or not I think D' is handling the situation well or not...

I think Walsh handled the situation badly by sticking D' with Marbury. Where we differ is that you think there's abest way to handle Marbury and I don't. I knew if he was here it would just be a matter of time before it blew up. This is hasn't occurred because of mishandling, it was an inevitability.

This goes back to my saying Walsh and D'Antoni weren't on the same page, something I argued with many posters on this board, including you I believe. My idea was to feature and trade Marbury just like they unloaded Randolph and Crawford. I don't think that is craziness.

D'Antoni knew Marbury was on this team when he joined up. So I don't feel sorry for him. It looks like Walsh wanted Marbury to play so he could trade him. It was up to D'Antoni and Walsh to come up with a sensible way to handle Marbury. This has not been a sensible way to do it. Indiana exiled Tinsley. That was sensible, this was not.
It just amazes me that people think if D' had an some intimate chat with Marbury every thing would have been copacetic. That's what Isiah did last year and Steph split, derailing the season. Do you really forget such things so quickly?

To think this is some freak happening causedmy ablundering D'antoni just strikes me as wild considering all the coaches Marbury has done in just in NY, let alone his career.

? I don't think I ever suggested any such thing. What I have suggested is that D'Antoni has handled this very poorly and inconsistently, and didn't really think through the repercussions.

Regardless of what D'Antoni thinks of Marbury, he should treat him like a man. Let Marbury be the douchebag. D'Antoni walked in ready to shyt on Marbury, then he shyt on him. Marbury is not required to let people shyt on him no matter how poorly he has behaved throughout his career.

I remember once when I was a teenager, we had a neighbor that my father would always say hi to. Sometimes she said hi back, and other times she ignored him quite rudely. I said to my father: Why do you even bother saying hi to her? He replied: "Let her be the rude one, I'm going to behave like a proper neighbor".

This applies to Marbury too by the way, but I don't think anyone should be surprised that he hasn't reacted like Gandhi. And I think he does have a right to be unhappy with D'Antoni, just as coaches and teammates have rightfully be unhappy with Marbury in the past. Should Marbury play voluntarily? Maybe, that is tough question that involves information that we do not have. But on the face of it I would be inclined to tell D'Antoni to screw off as well. (I don't always take my father's advice. When people intentionally treat me poorly I don't feel the need to be sweet to them.)
What's really ironic is that you seem to think that a rookie coach, like Mark Jackson, would have been better equipped to handle Marbury.
if having to compete for playing time with Rod Strickland could turn Jackson into a depressed, insecure pudgeball, imagine what competing with Marbury would do to him.

It is not ironic because after the first week of D'Antoni's naming as coach, I really have not brought up Mark Jackson as possible coach. So you're pretty much just making up this Mark Jackson angle from no place. I prefer to root for my team and not dwell on that particular decision. My feeling was that you don't bring in D'Antoni for a true rebuild, but I could be wrong about that.

Your characterization of why Jackson showed up out of shape in his 3rd season, right after he made the all-star team is pretty off base and really just conjecture, but that is a different argument. Suffice it to say that Mark Jackson had a far better career than Strickland, who was Marbury before Marbury.

In regard to how Jackson would have handled the Marbury situation: I am not sure how he would have done it, but it would be pretty hard to handle it worse than D'Antoni has. My guess is that Jackson would have respected the wishes of his GM and tried to get some value out of Marbury so they could unload him. Jackson was one of the smartest players of his generation who related to his teammates pretty well and I think that would have come through with his coaching.

D'Antoni on the other hand is kind of a jerk. He's a good game coach but I don't like his personal style at all.

oohah



[Edited by - oohah on 28-11-2008 02:33 AM]
Good luck Mike D'Antoni, 'cause you ain't never seen nothing like this before!
eViL
Posts: 25412
Alba Posts: 9
Joined: 1/21/2004
Member: #561
USA
11/28/2008  3:15 AM
1) Crawford's contract affects the Knicks longterm goals, Marbury's doesn't -- why would one prioritize shipping Marbury before Crawford? Do you remember what Crawford looked like in preseason playing with Marbury? He looked terrible. Once Marbury was out of the rotation and Craw was featured as the main scoring guard -- Craw's stock rose high enough for us to unload him (something many thought was impossible). If choosing between playing both and keeping Marbury's ego intact, or maximizing Crawford's talent and value around the league -- a smart GM and coach would choose the latter.

2) How has Marbury been treated poorly? D'Antoni cut him out of the rotation, said he wasn't part of the team's "future." He acknowledged that Steph is the type of player you don't fool around with. You either play him 30 minutes or you don't play him. He said that Steph has been doing everything they asked. He never dogged Steph and he even kept open the chance that a spot might become available. Then, when the team's personnel changed and a spot did indeed open up -- he offered it to him. He did exactly what he said he would do. Now, this is where Steph could have seized the moment and actually grown up a bit. He could have seen this as a chance to prove all his doubters wrong, but what did he do? He went the petty route which so many people here apparently support.

3) Marbury blew a golden opportunity. MDA and Walsh -- they have blown nothing. They do not lose here. Their plan is for 2010. They got the most out of Crawford and Zach and they cleared the space. Marbury disappears one way or another. Players around the league are not gonna avoid the Knicks because of this. Everyone knows Marbury is a looney tune. MDA is still going to be a favored coach among NBA players because of his offense and his general reputation for being a player's coach. Does D'Antoni have a rep for clashing with players? Or does Marbury have a rep for clashing with coaches? NBA players know the answers to these questions.
check out my latest hip hop project: https://soundcloud.com/michaelcro http://youtu.be/scNXshrpyZo
oohah
Posts: 26600
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 4/7/2005
Member: #887
11/28/2008  3:37 AM
1) Crawford's contract affects the Knicks longterm goals, Marbury's doesn't -- why would one prioritize shipping Marbury before Crawford? Do you remember what Crawford looked like in preseason playing with Marbury? He looked terrible. Once Marbury was out of the rotation and Craw was featured as the main scoring guard -- Craw's stock rose high enough for us to unload him (something many thought was impossible). If choosing between playing both and keeping Marbury's ego intact, or maximizing Crawford's talent and value around the league -- a smart GM and coach would choose the latter.

D'Antoni could have easily said: Let me take care of Crawford first then you'll get your chance. Or he could have said: You're in the plans now that Crawford has moved on. But Marbury wasn't in the plans because he though Mobley was on his way.

Walsh is on the record as saying he thought Marbury would be playing and he wasn't aware that Marbury would be benched, so publicly GM and coach are not on the same page.
2) How has Marbury been treated poorly? D'Antoni cut him out of the rotation, said he wasn't part of the team's "future." He acknowledged that Steph is the type of player you don't fool around with. You either play him 30 minutes or you don't play him. He said that Steph has been doing everything they asked. He never dogged Steph and he even kept open the chance that a spot might become available. Then, when the team's personnel changed and a spot did indeed open up -- he offered it to him. He did exactly what he said he would do. Now, this is where Steph could have seized the moment and actually grown up a bit. He could have seen this as a chance to prove all his doubters wrong, but what did he do? He went the petty route which so many people here apparently support.

According to the information we have, Marbury was offered time on a 1-2 game basis while players were taking physicals. Marbury asked if he was still in the plans and D'Antoni said no. This has not been denied by D'Antoni so I tend to believe it. Maybe Marbury was petty, but so was D'Antoni for offering him to 2 game equivalent of "5 minutes", or fooling around with him as you put it. That strikes me as petty as well. I think we should judge both by the same stick.
3) Marbury blew a golden opportunity. MDA and Walsh -- they have blown nothing. They do not lose here. Their plan is for 2010. They got the most out of Crawford and Zach and they cleared the space. Marbury disappears one way or another. Players around the league are not gonna avoid the Knicks because of this. Everyone knows Marbury is a looney tune. MDA is still going to be a favored coach among NBA players because of his offense and his general reputation for being a player's coach. Does D'Antoni have a rep for clashing with players? Or does Marbury have a rep for clashing with coaches? NBA players know the answers to these questions.

To my understanding, D'Antoni has clashed with Joe Johnson, Shawn Marion, and Amare Stoudemire. He also clashed with Suns management, and this is documented. To his credit he has coached good teams despite these troubles.

And I think Walsh and D'Antoni lose here as well. An expiring contract has value if you can use it. This has become much more difficult. But teams are more likely to wait for a waiving, buyout or for Marbury to simply expire now rather than trading an asset for him.

Do you recall Sam Cassell's comments on how the Knicks were handling Marbury? Isn't he a well respected player? So I wouldn't make any snap judgements on how players view this situation. I don't think that is the major concern anyway.

More importantly we lose. More drama, unnecessary drama. Bench the man, state you are going in a different direction, maintain that stance. No need to flip flop. A guard can be acquired on ten day contract. But D"Antoni wanted a good player so he could have a chance to win. He kind of shot himself in the foot don't you think?

oohah

Good luck Mike D'Antoni, 'cause you ain't never seen nothing like this before!
GallOfFame
Posts: 20554
Alba Posts: 4
Joined: 11/6/2008
Member: #2320
USA
11/28/2008  3:41 AM
Anyone hear what Kenny Smith had to say tonight about our situation on TNT?
JesseDark
Posts: 22827
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 9/9/2003
Member: #467
11/28/2008  10:10 AM
Posted by Knicksfan:

This is one of the most ridiculous, embarrassing and silly situations. This is terrible for the NBA and worse for the Knicks. This was handled terribly from the start and to let it get to this point and become such an issue is alarming for the many people that thought the days of the Knicks being the laughingstock of the league were over. This is sad and nothing different from what we had with Isiah. This must somehow stop.

Amen to that. It's time for Walsh to take control of this situation and make it stop. This is beyond bad for Knicks. I can't imagine why a top tier free agent would consider joining this circus.
Bring back dee-fense
eViL
Posts: 25412
Alba Posts: 9
Joined: 1/21/2004
Member: #561
USA
11/28/2008  2:01 PM
Posted by oohah:

D'Antoni could have easily said: Let me take care of Crawford first then you'll get your chance. Or he could have said: You're in the plans now that Crawford has moved on. But Marbury wasn't in the plans because he though Mobley was on his way.

Walsh is on the record as saying he thought Marbury would be playing and he wasn't aware that Marbury would be benched, so publicly GM and coach are not on the same page.

D'Antoni could have said whatever he wanted to Steph. He could have said nothing to Steph. At the end of the day, Steph does not need to be reported to for personnel decisions. His contract states that he plays basketball for the Knicks and that's it. D'Antoni does not answer to him. Beyond that, in every interview I've seen with D'Antoni the man has said the same basic things:

1) Steph has been great. He's done all that we asked him to do.
2) We're sorry that this is so tough on him.
3) (Before the trades) There is just no room for him now because I want to feature guys that will be a part of our future. You can't play Steph spot minutes. If a trade or injuries happen, we'll revisit the situation.
4) (After the trades) He approached Steph informing him that minutes have opened up. Multiple sources have reported that D'Antoni actually swallowed his pride and offered him the starting job for the rest of the year.

I just don't get what is wrong with this. Sure -- they aren't pampering the guy, but they aren't killing him either. Sorry. That just doesn't strike me as "mistreatment." Steph is a player and he should play when told to play.

Whether D'Antoni or Walsh are on the same page cannot be determined by what is said in the media. It could be as simple as playing "good cop, bad cop." And even if they aren't on the same page, I don't see anything wrong with two men having differences of opinion. A problem would exist if they failed in dealing with that difference. As it stands, neither Walsh nor D'Antoni appear to be frustrated with the other. Everyone can't agree all the time so this same page thing is not of paramount importance to me. I rather they have healthy debates and respect each other than just be "yes men" who fall in line with everything that is said and done by the other.
Posted by oohah:

According to the information we have, Marbury was offered time on a 1-2 game basis while players were taking physicals. Marbury asked if he was still in the plans and D'Antoni said no. This has not been denied by D'Antoni so I tend to believe it. Maybe Marbury was petty, but so was D'Antoni for offering him to 2 game equivalent of "5 minutes", or fooling around with him as you put it. That strikes me as petty as well. I think we should judge both by the same stick.

D'Antoni is not infallible. Without a doubt I'm sure there are many instances in his life where he has been petty. However, if he had made a habit of that in his personal and professional dealings, I'm sure it would follow him and affect his reputation. Notice how your buddy Larry Brown (sarcasm) has a laundry list of issues that checker his past. Unless I'm ill informed, D'Antoni is a basketball man in pretty good standing. Sure, he had disagreements with Steve Kerr and Suns management. We'll see if Steve Kerr ever gets the Suns as close to a chip as D'Antoni did. That notwithstanding, it appears that D'Antoni and the Suns handled their problems amicably.

And it should be noted that we have to look at things in terms of degree. I know you are a fan of nuance. Well, of course D'Antoni could approach certain situations better than he has. He's not perfect. However, to whatever degree he has clashed with people in the past, it pales in comparison to Steph's track record for frustrating teammates and coaches. So if I have to sit here and piece together media snippets to figure out the whole story (which is what we're all doing) -- I will have to let history and track record fill in some of the blanks. D'Antoni's history of clashing with players and management pales in comparison to Steph's. Sorry, but that's the way I'm going to judge this. It's not about hating Steph. It's about appropriately allocating the benefit of the doubt. Steph has extinguished whatever benefit he has, but even if we grant him the benefit -- comparing each man's history leads one to believe that the problem probably lies more with Steph than it does with D'Antoni.
Posted by oohah:

To my understanding, D'Antoni has clashed with Joe Johnson, Shawn Marion, and Amare Stoudemire. He also clashed with Suns management, and this is documented. To his credit he has coached good teams despite these troubles.

And I think Walsh and D'Antoni lose here as well. An expiring contract has value if you can use it. This has become much more difficult. But teams are more likely to wait for a waiving, buyout or for Marbury to simply expire now rather than trading an asset for him.

Do you recall Sam Cassell's comments on how the Knicks were handling Marbury? Isn't he a well respected player? So I wouldn't make any snap judgements on how players view this situation. I don't think that is the major concern anyway.

More importantly we lose. More drama, unnecessary drama. Bench the man, state you are going in a different direction, maintain that stance. No need to flip flop. A guard can be acquired on ten day contract. But D"Antoni wanted a good player so he could have a chance to win. He kind of shot himself in the foot don't you think?

oohah

To whatever degree he has clashed with the players you named, it doesn't seem to stand in the way of people speculating that those players will want to be Knicks in 2010. I've heard Amare's and Joe Johnson mentioned as potential second-tier free agent grabs. I've heard the Marbury for Marion rumors. I'm not saying that this means there was no disagreements between D'Antoni and those players. It just shows that to whatever degree there was a problem, it was not enough to eliminate those players from potentially reconnecting with their old coach.

Again, the man is not perfect -- I doubt he has gotten along with everyone he's dealt with. By comparison, Marbury seems to have gotten along with no one. Who likes him? Flip Saunders?? As I said, D'Antoni's clashes with Suns' management are not forgotten, but again -- disagreement doesn't necessarily indicate problems. It's all about how you deal with it. There were no circuses in Phoenix. Drama does not follow D'Antoni. It follows Marbury at every stop he's had in the NBA.

As far as the value of Marbury's expiring contract. I never thought there was much value there to begin with. No GM is going to trade for Marbury when they know he will inevitably be let go and purchased on the cheap. I think part of the Knicks hard-line "no buyouts" stance on Marbury was an attempt to generate trades. It hasn't worked. They showcased him in pre-season, but they wisely pulled him so that Crawford could be featured. No matter how the rest of this turns out, I think they achieved their primary purpose there (i.e. featuring and trading Crawford to get out from under his contract).

I recall what Sam Cassell said. I just don't think that, in two years, LeBron is going to say to himself: "I can't go to the Knicks, look what they did to Marbury." First off, LeBron probably hates Marbury after Marbury threw some thinly veiled shots his way while promoting his Starbury brand. Second, every elite player in the league has the benefit of personal experience with D'Antoni. He's the freaking offensive coach of the Dream Team. I'm sure whatever judgments players form will be based more on their personal experience with the man than on his dealings with a noted malcontent who has alienated players, coaches, management and fans during every stop of his NBA career.

In conclusion, no D'Antoni is not perfect. He could have handled this better. But there is no way he shoulders most of the blame for this drama. We haven't even gotten into the fact that Marbury refuses to hire an agent or accept a buyout which has been standard practice around the league for years now. The drama doesn't bother me that much. I'm glad the Knicks are not giving in to this baby. We're going to see a conclusion to this soon and it will disappear a lot faster than anyone thinks. Again, I will be shocked if this episode has any long-term negative impact on the franchise. Ultimately, I think the Knicks, with whatever mishandling they have done along the way, will be better for it. That's right, the Knicks didn't handle this perfectly, but there's no way to perfectly handle such an imperfect situation.

One thing we can all agree on is that we'll be much happier when it's all in the past.
check out my latest hip hop project: https://soundcloud.com/michaelcro http://youtu.be/scNXshrpyZo
BlueSeats
Posts: 27272
Alba Posts: 41
Joined: 11/6/2005
Member: #1024
11/28/2008  2:08 PM
Posted by oohah:
Oohah, we discussed all this already, why are you bringing up the fines? I told you my feeling on that. D'antoni didn't require him to play, he offered and/or requested him to. You know those are my feelings, so why pretend we have a disagreement over that when we don't.

I don't think I knew your feelings on that, maybe I forgot the conversation.

http://www.ultimateknicks.com/forum/topic.asp?t=29019&page=7

Mr "Photographic Memory" forgot this 8 page conversation from 2 days ago?

The rest of your post is too long, repetative and amorphous to pick apart, let me just work off the first piece.
But while D' can "make" (or at least demand) Steph to play, he can't make him be a good teammate, and that is what he wants of his players on the floor. That can only be requested, or invited.

It ain't that deep.

Right, and that is why D'Antoni, banished Marbury from day 1 correct? But then D'Antoni wanted to turn around and offer Marbury minutes for 1-2 games when he was desperate for players. I don't find that to be consistent, but rather self serving and convenient on D'Antoni's part. Marbury is not part of the team's present or future, he should just roll with that. To villainize Marbury for this particular issue seems to me off-base. there are plenty of issue to legitimately villainize Marbury for, but this isn't one of them.

This is my hunch:

D' didn't want Marbury as his starting PG, and he'd prefer he not be on the team. But watching how Walsh operates, I suspect he said to D' something like "Dolan doesn't want to pay him full salary and get nothing for it. I'm gonna try to move him and maybe we can buy him out, but would you do me a favor and give him a try? He says he's found god, and he gave a sane interview with Bruce Beck, so can you just see if it could work? If I can't trade him by the deadline we'll cut him, so just see what you can do for till then."

So D' says that's fair, and figures he can use him like Nate: off the bench to backup the one or two. Then camp begins and Marbury comes in dictating his role, and his teammates spirits drop when he's around, and D' just knows it's not going to work out and he tells Walsh so. Maybe he even asks if Steph can be Hardawayed.

Walsh says he's working really hard to move him, but he's also looking to move Jamal and others, and we might get really thin in the back court, so since the dude is pulling 22M and we might need an extra body can he keep him on-call until the deadline or a buyout, whichever comes first, and D' again acquiesces. D' knows if he will need to call on Marbury he needs to be around the team, but all the while he is he's a distraction. He's on the sidelines riding his bike rather than scrimmaging, sometimes he talks with teammates other times not. He'sjust a drag, but he's stuck with him.

But he does make himself clear and consistent, the teams preference is to buy Marbury out, he will not have a featured role, but so long as he wants all his money the team reserves the right to use him on an as needed basis.

The rest is what we've seen playout.

Blaming D' for the Marbury situation is like blaming your doctor for not curing you of cancer. He can try a few things, and you might second guess him, but he is not the cancer.

[Edited by - blueseats on 11-28-2008 2:12 PM]
GallOfFame
Posts: 20554
Alba Posts: 4
Joined: 11/6/2008
Member: #2320
USA
11/28/2008  2:35 PM
Posted by BlueSeats:
Posted by oohah:
Oohah, we discussed all this already, why are you bringing up the fines? I told you my feeling on that. D'antoni didn't require him to play, he offered and/or requested him to. You know those are my feelings, so why pretend we have a disagreement over that when we don't.

I don't think I knew your feelings on that, maybe I forgot the conversation.

http://www.ultimateknicks.com/forum/topic.asp?t=29019&page=7

Mr "Photographic Memory" forgot this 8 page conversation from 2 days ago?

The rest of your post is too long, repetative and amorphous to pick apart, let me just work off the first piece.
But while D' can "make" (or at least demand) Steph to play, he can't make him be a good teammate, and that is what he wants of his players on the floor. That can only be requested, or invited.

It ain't that deep.

Right, and that is why D'Antoni, banished Marbury from day 1 correct? But then D'Antoni wanted to turn around and offer Marbury minutes for 1-2 games when he was desperate for players. I don't find that to be consistent, but rather self serving and convenient on D'Antoni's part. Marbury is not part of the team's present or future, he should just roll with that. To villainize Marbury for this particular issue seems to me off-base. there are plenty of issue to legitimately villainize Marbury for, but this isn't one of them.

This is my hunch:

D' didn't want Marbury as his starting PG, and he'd prefer he not be on the team. But watching how Walsh operates, I suspect he said to D' something like "Dolan doesn't want to pay him full salary and get nothing for it. I'm gonna try to move him and maybe we can buy him out, but would you do me a favor and give him a try? He says he's found god, and he gave a sane interview with Bruce Beck, so can you just see if it could work? If I can't trade him by the deadline we'll cut him, so just see what you can do for till then."

So D' says that's fair, and figures he can use him like Nate: off the bench to backup the one or two. Then camp begins and Marbury comes in dictating his role, and his teammates spirits drop when he's around, and D' just knows it's not going to work out and he tells Walsh so. Maybe he even asks if Steph can be Hardawayed.

Walsh says he's working really hard to move him, but he's also looking to move Jamal and others, and we might get really thin in the back court, so since the dude is pulling 22M and we might need an extra body can he keep him on-call until the deadline or a buyout, whichever comes first, and D' again acquiesces. D' knows if he will need to call on Marbury he needs to be around the team, but all the while he is he's a distraction. He's on the sidelines riding his bike rather than scrimmaging, sometimes he talks with teammates other times not. He'sjust a drag, but he's stuck with him.

But he does make himself clear and consistent, the teams preference is to buy Marbury out, he will not have a featured role, but so long as he wants all his money the team reserves the right to use him on an as needed basis.

The rest is what we've seen playout.

Blaming D' for the Marbury situation is like blaming your doctor for not curing you of cancer. He can try a few things, and you might second guess him, but he is not the cancer.

[Edited by - blueseats on 11-28-2008 2:12 PM]



A lot of what you're saying doesn't make sense because in one conjuncture you're trying to portray what may have been said behind closed doors and presenting quotes from coach and/or the GM while at the same time ignoring the fact just as recently as 3days ago on PTI coach stated Marbury hasn't done anything wrong

To quote coach off of PTI

"Steph has been great"

"He's done everything we've asked"

This was right before the Cleveland game at the Garden. Which should take into account his decline to play in Milwaukee before this game. Seems like he's definitely done wrong at that point(he really hasn't). Now the organization has decided to suspend him. I wonder why coach told the guys on PTI the above statements but then Greyhounds him to the NY media?

So I guess we only qualify what's necessary to prove an AGENDA, while missing many links to the chain.

You need to admit our organization hasn't handled this well. Since when did Marbury gain enough trust after his first refusal to play 30-35min be given a starting spot for the rest of the season? This in of itself is preposterous... to go to him again and offer him that kind of responsibility. The only reason he did it because he knew what Marbury's response would be and he calculated these moves.

[Edited by - GallOfFame on 11-28-2008 2:37 PM]
spreeeewell
Posts: 20286
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/20/2003
Member: #436
11/28/2008  2:41 PM
I just cant wait until they get rid of Marbury,just to see to whom they put the blame on next.
I'd rather die on my feet, than live on my knees!
BlueSeats
Posts: 27272
Alba Posts: 41
Joined: 11/6/2005
Member: #1024
11/28/2008  2:48 PM
Posted by GallOfFame:

A lot of what you're saying doesn't make sense because in one conjuncture you're trying to portray what may have been said behind closed doors and presenting quotes from coach and/or the GM while at the same time ignoring the fact just as recently as 3days ago on PTI coach stated Marbury hasn't done anything wrong

To quote coach off of PTI

"Steph has been great"

"He's done everything we've asked"

This was right before the Cleveland game at the Garden. Which should take into account his decline to play in Milwaukee before this game. Seems like he's definitely done wrong at that point(he really hasn't). Now the organization has decided to suspend him. I wonder why coach told the guys on PTI the above statements but then Greyhounds him to the NY media?

So I guess we only qualify what's necessary to prove an AGENDA, while missing many links to the chain.

You need to admit our organization hasn't handled this well. Since when did Marbury gain enough trust after his first refusal to play 30-35min be given a starting spot for the rest of the season? This in of itself is preposterous... to go to him again and offer him that kind of responsibility. The only reason he did it because he knew what Marbury's response would be and he calculated these moves.

[Edited by - GallOfFame on 11-28-2008 2:37 PM]

My hunches may change as more details are released, I can only go off what I've seen.

But to your point, I don't think you make a convincing case either. If D'antoni is calculating to set Marbury up, what does it serve to say:

"Steph has been great"

"He's done everything we've asked"

You're not making a very strong case for anything.

Marbury has earned no trust, D'antoni just doesn't want to burn out his remaining players. His backcourt is depleted by trades and injuries, he needs a warm body, and Marbury is one they have and they pay 22M for the right to play him as they see fit. They are in their right to do so, he is not in his right to refuse.
GallOfFame
Posts: 20554
Alba Posts: 4
Joined: 11/6/2008
Member: #2320
USA
11/28/2008  3:52 PM
Posted by BlueSeats:
Posted by GallOfFame:

A lot of what you're saying doesn't make sense because in one conjuncture you're trying to portray what may have been said behind closed doors and presenting quotes from coach and/or the GM while at the same time ignoring the fact just as recently as 3days ago on PTI coach stated Marbury hasn't done anything wrong

To quote coach off of PTI

"Steph has been great"

"He's done everything we've asked"

This was right before the Cleveland game at the Garden. Which should take into account his decline to play in Milwaukee before this game. Seems like he's definitely done wrong at that point(he really hasn't). Now the organization has decided to suspend him. I wonder why coach told the guys on PTI the above statements but then Greyhounds him to the NY media?

So I guess we only qualify what's necessary to prove an AGENDA, while missing many links to the chain.

You need to admit our organization hasn't handled this well. Since when did Marbury gain enough trust after his first refusal to play 30-35min be given a starting spot for the rest of the season? This in of itself is preposterous... to go to him again and offer him that kind of responsibility. The only reason he did it because he knew what Marbury's response would be and he calculated these moves.

[Edited by - GallOfFame on 11-28-2008 2:37 PM]

My hunches may change as more details are released, I can only go off what I've seen.

But to your point, I don't think you make a convincing case either. If D'antoni is calculating to set Marbury up, what does it serve to say:

"Steph has been great"

"He's done everything we've asked"

You're not making a very strong case for anything.

Marbury has earned no trust, D'antoni just doesn't want to burn out his remaining players. His backcourt is depleted by trades and injuries, he needs a warm body, and Marbury is one they have and they pay 22M for the right to play him as they see fit. They are in their right to do so, he is not in his right to refuse.


His commentary about Steph on PTI are unrelated to calculating to set him up. How you can't distinguish this is baffling. They aren't connected to each other at all.

The problem with coach is that he regurgitates the same things over and over, which makes him sound like an idiot at times, given current situations. He's stuck to the same script since the beginning of the season concerning Steph's situation. He said this of Steph I would assume to explain why he has the current role/non role on the team but he puts his foot in his mouth by being so repetitive. Because if he's done no wrong as he stated(Steph recently refused to play as you say is not in his right to do so) then why is he being suspended? How is our GM making decisions on the situation when he isn't traveling with the team and not completely aware of all the details? I'm staying on point with how Steph is being handled, not if Steph has done something wrong or not. Now Steph has a valid case to file a grievance, which if you want to put some money up let's do so, he's going to win this.

You put up quotes from the paper showing Steph voluntarily giving up freedom to practice, to make room for the other guards, then all of a sudden he's participating in the past couple of practices so well that coach felt confident enough to give him a Lion's share role? See how this doesn't make sense? According to coach he's done everything right, but according to you he's really been a problem from the get go. He got axed out of the equation early, we go through a little shuffling of the roster and an injury to the back court, now he needs to decide if he wants to roll with the team or not? Q didn't want him back regardless and coach also said on PTI he doesn't want guys in the back court looking over their shoulders concerning Steph but Lo and Behold here's a starting role for you Steph at the 2 guard spot. I mean ROFTLOL @ all of this CARNAGE

Let me help you out here.. The calculation came in this instance...


When Steph was first asked if wanted Crawford's minutes coach said Steph asked if it would be "PERMANENT" and then said "I THOUGHT YOU SAID I'M NOT IN YOUR PLANS"


Keep in mind no refusal here


Steph said after the exchange coach responded with "I SEE WHAT YOU MEAN STEPH, I GOT YOU"


Nate goes down 2gms later with a hamstring injury not a season ending injury and coach goes back to Steph this time with


"DO YOU WANT TO BE OUR STARTING 2 GUARD FOR THE REST OF THE SEASON"


This was asked to challenge his inquiry of is it "PERMANENT" and "I THOUGHT YOU SAID I'M NOT IN YOUR PLANS"...calculated move. To be honest I don't think coach was sincere with the offer, more so I'm going to bust you. Unprofessionalism at it's best.


There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to offer him a starting role since he hasn't shown a willingness to consistently practice of his own volition as you highlighted and I'll go so far as to say offering him starting minutes, after his so called first refusal. This is right up there with Isiah demoting him, sending him to his hotel and then allowing him to return at his first opportunity, playing him 78min in his first 2gms. I'm sure Isiah felt the same way after seeing how his team performed the 1gm without him in Phx and then contemplating where to go from there. It doesn't matter you have to swallow some pride and not pick and choose when you want to rely on a dead beat.


Then our GM making the call to suspend him from afar while eating pumpkin pie boning on a turkey leg, is comical. He didn't even sit down and hear both sides of the story of the 2 Pakistanian Mountain Conversations between Coach and Marbury.
oohah
Posts: 26600
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 4/7/2005
Member: #887
11/28/2008  4:03 PM
There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to offer him a starting role since he hasn't shown a willingness to consistently practice of his own volition as you highlighted and I'll go so far as to say offering him starting minutes, after his so called first refusal. This is right up there with Isiah demoting him, sending him to his hotel and then allowing him to return at his first opportunity, playing him 78min in his first 2gms. I'm sure Isiah felt the same way after seeing how his team performed the 1gm without him in Phx and then contemplating where to go from there. It doesn't matter you have to swallow some pride and not pick and choose when you want to rely on a dead beat.

Now that you point it out, the similarity to last years Isiah/Marbury incident is remarkable. The prevailing opinion is that Isiah handled it terribly. I wonder does that apply to D' as well?

oohah
Good luck Mike D'Antoni, 'cause you ain't never seen nothing like this before!
GallOfFame
Posts: 20554
Alba Posts: 4
Joined: 11/6/2008
Member: #2320
USA
11/28/2008  4:18 PM
Posted by oohah:
There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to offer him a starting role since he hasn't shown a willingness to consistently practice of his own volition as you highlighted and I'll go so far as to say offering him starting minutes, after his so called first refusal. This is right up there with Isiah demoting him, sending him to his hotel and then allowing him to return at his first opportunity, playing him 78min in his first 2gms. I'm sure Isiah felt the same way after seeing how his team performed the 1gm without him in Phx and then contemplating where to go from there. It doesn't matter you have to swallow some pride and not pick and choose when you want to rely on a dead beat.

Now that you point it out, the similarity to last years Isiah/Marbury incident is remarkable. The prevailing opinion is that Isiah handled it terribly. I wonder does that apply to D' as well?

oohah



I've mentioned it several times already.

Everyone knows Marbury was a clown in that situation but Isiah was challenging him for the MORON "SHINY STUFF!"

Remember it was mentioned the team voted not to have him back but Isiah blew them off. Q says he didn't want Marbury back this yr regardless of the team situation, he was supposedly stricken from having a role at season's beginning after coach possibly talked to the team about him, Duhon stated he could care less if he plays. If the team is willing to fight without him and really what are we talking about here maybe 1-2weeks tops being a little depleted in the back court then why is our coach trying to get in the Octagon with Marbury before games trying to change his unwanted role?

Simply put his trying to be D*** to prove how much of D*** everyone already knew Marbury was/is.

Thanks for wasting everyone's time and causing more unnecessary embarrassment to our franchise mgmt
BlueSeats
Posts: 27272
Alba Posts: 41
Joined: 11/6/2005
Member: #1024
11/28/2008  4:55 PM
Gall, I don't see what's inconsistent in a coach saying a player will not get time at present, but we retain the right to do so later in the event of trades and injuries, in which case he might even start - and then when trades and injuries occur they ask him to play and possibly start.

Other than some fan wanting Marbury's ego and testicles stroked, what is the problem?
Bippity10
Posts: 13999
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/26/2004
Member: #574
11/28/2008  4:57 PM
Does all this mean that Eddie Curry and Jerome James can refuse to play when asked to as well?
I just hope that people will like me
Page 3 of 4 ‹ Previous 1  2  3  4 Next ›
« Reply To Topic
Q-Rich On Marbury: ''He Isn't My Teammate''
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum

©2001-2025 ultimateknicks.comm All rights reserved. About Us.
This site is not affiliated with the NY Knicks or the National Basketball Association in any way.
You may visit the official NY Knicks web site by clicking here.

All times (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time.

Terms of Use and Privacy Policy