maybe in the court of public opinion, however, the players union seems to think he has a leg to stand on

When Marbury doesn't play I'm happy, when he refuses to play I'm very happy. This is working out perfectly. The last thing I want to se is Marbury in a NYK uniform I hope I have seen the last of it.

Posted by McK1:

I really don't understand how those of you who cheered boistrously about MDA putting Steph in his place are now scolding Steph for remaining there

What's to understand Marbury is being paid, MDA had no responsibility to tell his employee how he was going to be used. He didn't put him in his place he stated the obvious that Marbury would not be on the team next year and so would get limited playing time this year. Being used only if needed. Now Marbury had decided that even though he wants to get every cent due him he wants to do nothing to earn it. What exactly did the employer do wrong? He's not being asked to do anything horrible - he's being asked to play basketball - when the TEAM (a concept has never understood) needs him.

I think if Marbury was asked to go into a game and refused he could be suspended. I don't think Marbury has violated his contract up to this point because D'Antoni is asking Steph prior to games. I do think it is time to send him away from the team and to forbid him from talking to the media. Steph should not be relevant at this point. The organization is dealing with this similar to Isiah. There is a failure to bring closure to a horrible dysfunctional situation that has an easy resolution. If Dolan, Walsh and D'Antoni want to have a pissing contest with Steph send him home, refuse to answer questions about him, and don't allow him to talk to the media. My guess is things would be resolved much quicker this way.

Posted by OldFan:


No intention to be get into it with you just a real question. Do you really think Marbury is in the right or do you just like a good debate?

It's your lucky day because you won't even get a conversation from me because that question is stupid. Rephrase and I'll be happy to discuss with you.

oohah

Posted by oohah:

Moreover, assuming that D'Antoni didn't attempt to fine/suspend Steph the first time around because Steph was within the terms of his contract is both naive and premature; there are a variety of reasons why D'Antoni may have been reluctant, including avoiding a distraction with the team and media, hoping that without further anatagonism Steph might later decide to be compliant, or simply waiting until the growing case against Steph was bulletproof.

Hi Code.

After the first "asking", D'Antoni stated in no uncertain terms that he "Asked Marbury to play", not told him to play. Are we to take D'Antoni at his word or is he lying?

If we are to take him at his word, then there are no grounds to fine or suspend Marbury.

I believe that is pretty much factual.

oohah

Naturally, you believe that.

Unfortunately, the context of D'Antoni's offer and the context of Marbury's refusal matter. D'Antoni "asking" Marbury to play carries with it implicit professional expectations; thus, the offer can and should only be construed as an inquiry into his physical readiness, the only qualifying "adequate excuse" as spelled out by the collective bargaining agreement. Objective context always trumps isolated quotations in a legal setting; regardless of the ambiguity of what was said, it remains the player's contractual burden to assure the coach that he will provide the agreed-upon services when summoned and, over the course of two refusals, it becomes far less probable that this obligation was met. Its even less plausible to believe that D'Antoni was unaware of his authority over Marbury and resorted to a long-term plan of begging. So, again, the paramount objective context has the cards stacked against Marbury and Donnie, who has a legal background, has not surprisingly gone forward with the suspension.

Lets also not conveniently ignore the fact that there have been 2 refusals, the second of which may likely have been quite a bit more incriminating.

Naturally, you believe that.

Unfortunately, the context of D'Antoni's offer and the context of Marbury's refusal matter. D'Antoni "asking" Marbury to play carries with it implicit professional expectations; thus, the offer can and should only be construed as an inquiry into his physical readiness, the only qualifying "adequate excuse" as spelled out by the collective bargaining agreement. Objective context always trumps isolated quotations in a legal setting; regardless of the ambiguity of what was said, it remains the player's contractual burden to assure the coach that he will provide the agreed-upon services when summoned and, over the course of two refusals, it becomes far less probable that this obligation was met. Its even less plausible to believe that D'Antoni was unaware of his authority over Marbury and resorted to a long-term plan of begging. So, again, the paramount objective context has the cards stacked against Marbury and Donnie, who has a legal background, has not surprisingly gone forward with the suspension.

Lets also not conveniently ignore the fact that there have been 2 refusals, the second of which may likely have been quite a bit more incriminating.

Let's not conveniently ignore the fact that D'Antoni stated he wasn't mad at Marbury, "Marbury has done all we asked" etc. That is part of the context as well. More context exists in the now emerging details of D'Antoni informing Richardson that he was going to bench Marbury without informing Marbury himself.

To state that the offer can and only should construed as questioning Marbury's state of physical readiness: "Do you want to play?" is completely different from "are you ready?". D'Antoni saying "I'm not mad at him" doesn't speak to physical readiness either. Marbury's physical readiness has not been in play at all.

You are correct that it isn't plausible that D'Antoni isn't aware of his authority over Marbury, and he has made this clear. That is why the question or hypothetical situation of 'begging' is not relevant or believable, nor is Marbury's alleged blunt refusal to play particularly credible, especially considering he suited up and prepped himself physically to play this past Friday.

Taking all of that into account leads me to believe that a) Marbury's fine(s) will not be upheld upon arbitration, and b) the true objective context is that D'Antoni has been purposefully trying to railroad Marbury in a deeply personal and unprofessional manner. To what end? I don't know.

oohah



[Edited by - oohah on 28-11-2008 3:30 PM]

Posted by oohah:

Naturally, you believe that.

Unfortunately, the context of D'Antoni's offer and the context of Marbury's refusal matter. D'Antoni "asking" Marbury to play carries with it implicit professional expectations; thus, the offer can and should only be construed as an inquiry into his physical readiness, the only qualifying "adequate excuse" as spelled out by the collective bargaining agreement. Objective context always trumps isolated quotations in a legal setting; regardless of the ambiguity of what was said, it remains the player's contractual burden to assure the coach that he will provide the agreed-upon services when summoned and, over the course of two refusals, it becomes far less probable that this obligation was met. Its even less plausible to believe that D'Antoni was unaware of his authority over Marbury and resorted to a long-term plan of begging. So, again, the paramount objective context has the cards stacked against Marbury and Donnie, who has a legal background, has not surprisingly gone forward with the suspension.

Lets also not conveniently ignore the fact that there have been 2 refusals, the second of which may likely have been quite a bit more incriminating.

Let's not conveniently ignore the fact that D'Antoni stated he wasn't mad at D'Antoni, "Marbury has done all we asked" etc. That is part of the context as well. More context exists in the now emerging details of D'Antoni informing Richardson that he was going to bench Marbury without informing Marbury.

To state that the offer can and only should construed as questioning Marbury's state of physical readiness: "Do you want to play?" is completely different from "are you ready?". D'Antoni saying "I'm not mad at him" doesn't speak to physical readiness either. Marbury's physical readiness has not been in play at all.

You are correct that it isn't plausible that D'Antoni isn't aware of his authority over Marbury, and he has made this clear. That is why the question of 'begging' is not relevant, nor is Marbury's alleged blunt refusal to play particularly credible, especially considering he suited up and prepped himself physically to play this past Friday.

Taking all of that into account leads me to believe that a) Marbury's fine(s) will not be upheld upon arbitration, and b) the true objective context is that D'Antoni has been purposefully trying to railroad Marbury in a deeply personal and unprofessional manner. To what end? I don't know.

oohah

I'm not particularly impressed by your interpretation. The distinction between "do you want to play" and "are you ready" is entirely framed by the context of D'Antoni's authority and CBA rules and expectations. Why don't we see whether the suspension stands after arbitration? Perhps we'll talk after that - there is no chance that this conversation will move forward before then.

With regard to Marbury suiting up for game number 1, it certainly seems mitigating. Yet, there's a clear difference between wearing a jersey and shorts and actually playing and its not beyond Marbury to draw some arbitrary emotional line based on the hurt he felt from "not being in the plans." The fact that D'Antoni went back a second time and offered/gave Marbury a major role as the "starting shooting guard for the rest of the year," only to be refused with character aspersions again, further brings into question Marbury's willingness to play and, without further clarification, its only reasonable to assume that his stated motivation and future actions would be in concordance with each other. He balked again at a substantial playing role because "his heart wasn't into it"; given his documented disdain for the coach and team, there now arise reasonable concerns about whether Marbury would attempt a sabotage.

Again, the contractual burden is on Marbury to unquestionably assure D'Antoni that he would play and play responsibly if called upon; it is not the coach's responsibility to test hypotheses about player availability or obedience mid-game. When Marbury stated, without qualification, that he "didn't want to play" because "his heart wasn't into it," he failed and failed miserably to meet that standard. As far as I'm concerned, there is zero question that this will hold under arbitration; if for no other reason then precedent, this garbage from players will not be allowed to continue.

Haven't got the time to post for a few days. It seems like you've got multiple Marbury arguments going at once, so that should hold you over. Have a nice Thanksgiving weekend.

I'm not particularly impressed by your interpretation. The distinction between "do you want to play" and "are you ready" is entirely framed by the context of D'Antoni's authority and CBA rules and expectations. Why don't we see whether the suspension stands after arbitration? Perhps we'll talk after that - there is no chance that this conversation will move forward before then.

With regard to Marbury suiting up for game number 1, it certainly seems mitigating. Yet, there's a clear difference between wearing a jersey and shorts and actually playing and its not beyond Marbury to draw some arbitrary emotional line based on the hurt he felt from "not being in the plans." The fact that D'Antoni went back a second time and offered/gave Marbury a major role as the "starting shooting guard for the rest of the year," only to be refused with character aspersions again, further brings into question Marbury's willingness to play and, without further clarification, its only reasonable to assume that his stated motivation and future actions would be in concordance with each other. He balked again at a substantial playing role because "his heart wasn't into it"; given his documented disdain for the coach and team, there now arise reasonable concerns about whether Marbury would attempt a sabotage.

Again, the contractual burden is on Marbury to unquestionably assure D'Antoni that he would play and play responsibly if called upon; it is not the coach's responsibility to test hypotheses about player availability or obedience mid-game. When Marbury stated, without qualification, that he "didn't want to play" because "his heart wasn't into it," he failed and failed miserably to meet that standard. As far as I'm concerned, there is zero question that this will hold under arbitration; if for no other reason then precedent, this garbage from players will not be allowed to continue.

Haven't got the time to post for a few days. It seems like you've got multiple Marbury arguments going at once, so that should hold you over. Have a nice Thanksgiving weekend.

I'm not particularly impressed by your interpretation either, which seems more based in "maybe this" and "maybe that" than in what we know about the sitation.

When the arbitration comes out in Marbury's favor I'll doubt you'll change your opinion then either.

Have a wonderful holiday weekend!

oohah