Oohah, who's misrepresenting who? I was the one making the point the Marbury situation should have been handled before the season began. But once Dolan/Walsh stuck D'antoni with him, and Marbury came in as his usual self, demanding terms and conditions, D' was put in a position that left him virtually no uncontroversial maneuvers.
Here is a non-controversial position for D'Antoni: D' does exactly with Marbury what he did with Curry. He told everyone Curry wouldn't be playing. He hasn't offered Curry to come back to the team. No controversy.
And no, I have not misrepresented you. You have stuck Marbury with the majority of the blame of this situation, when it was not Marbury's situation to control.
I think Marbury has some blame, but very little compared to team management. If it were me, I might have taken the offer to play, but I am not sure. But I really don't blame Marbury for saying no if he had the option, which is almost certainly true.
Every time I have brought up D's culpability in this side show you have made it Marbury's fault. Mainly because of one quote. How about we look at his other quotes or even his behavior? Marbury has started a lot of sideshows, but not this one in particular.
Right, you don't read it as a direct refusal even though Berman told us exactly how he meant it, but I'm the one who can't see past my agenda?
Did you read how Berman wrote it? Don't you know this guy is a hack? Do you even listen to Marbury's interviews? He can barely speak. Berman is worthless to everyone until this one quote, now he is gold. The quote is a floating quote.
Talk about misrepresenting someone... I'm the one who showed both of Berman's articles to demonstrate that Steph allowed some 10 days to pass before changing his tune. How can I deny he eventually changed it if I'm the one who showed you it took him 10 days to do so?
You didn't show me anything. I already knew what happened. You went on about how Marbury refused to play off the bench until I pointed out that you never said a word about how he backed off of those statement. Then you posted about how it took 10 days for him to recant. Check the timeline bro.
Now it's D' and Walsh? I thought you said the whole thing was on D'? And how is D' the "genesis" of the problem if Marbury is the one stating terms and conditions on the first day of camp, and the one with a history so egregious that he requires a plan to be formulated before the start of camp?
This has been going on between us for weeks. I have been speaking about how the coach and the GM were not on the same page for weeks. You argued with me the opposite, don't you recall? I was right and you were wrong.
The controversy has been mainly in D's lap because he is the one playing games. The GM is culpable too because he is supposed to be in communication with his coach and they should have resolved this before the season intelligently. I hope that is clear now.I think one needs to pull back a bit for perspective. If the season began with D' here and Marbury not would we be in this situation now? No.
If Marbury were here and D' not would we be in this situation now? Almost certainly. He would have resisted his role, fought with a teammate, took an his coach in the press, abandoned his teammates, etc, it would become a distraction and a suspension and buyout would ensue. We've seen he same machinations year after year, the only difference is that then he had dirt on Isiah and his contract was too long to buyout. But the "genesis" of the problem is always the same.
I'm really not interested in hypothetical scenarios. All I can say is that Marbury is a pretty selfish guy, and he has caused most of his own problems. Sometimes though, the coach starts with him. It does happen. That is a realistic view.
If you feel your position has been made clear, by all means let it ride. I just don't think it has if you're still putting the brunt of the blame on the coach.
I won't argue that D' has handled this in the best of possible ways, and neither would he. I just have empathy for the impossible position he was put in between Dolan/Walsh and Marbury.
But you're right, we have been through this too many times already. I may join the fray as news develops, but for the most part I'm going to try to reserve judgemnt on D' as a coach until AFTER this Marbury episode is over. It's been embarassing for all parties, including D', but I'm still more impressed with him than not.
Walsh, on the other hand, gets very mixed reviews from me. I respect the rebuild plan, I approve the trades, but the fact that Marbury and Isiah - the two faces of death - are still here is a very poor showing. Woeful, in fact.
The brunt goes on the coach because he has been playing games. If a guy is not in the plans, be a man and treat him like a man, let him know that he will not play and then don't try to bring him back for a cameo.
I knew it would blow up in D's face. And you know I love to say I told you so...
Crawford corroborated that management handled this poorly. Crawford stated that Marbury was not a distraction and behaved professionally. He has no reason to lie. Management includes D' and Walsh. What else do you want?
We can hold a trial for Marbury's past crimes, but let this trial stand alone I say.
oohah
[Edited by - oohah on 01-12-2008 7:43 PM]
