Posted by Bippity10:

It's pretty obvious that Malik Rose is not a part of our future. Would it be okay for him not to practice or play for us?

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

Posted by oohah:

Posted by BlueSeats:

The analogy doesn't hold up. Marbury did not return to a depleted roster with only 2 healthy guards, so the players did not wish his reinsertion. This year the team needed another backcourt body - any backcourt body - so they may have wished his return, even if temporary.

Last year Isiah put Marbury above the team. This year D' put the team above Marbury.

In both cases Marbury is a bust.

The analogy certainly does hold up as long as you don't add in all sorts of extra-ness to change it! the situation does not have to be the same down to the word. Marbury was being shown who is boss by the coach, but when the coach decided he needed him, that stuff went out the window. Same story.

Q said he didn't want Marbury back this past Friday. Many reporters have stated how the lockerroom was "galvanized" by Marbury being exiled. So now you are theorizing that the team "may have wished" for Marbury back? None of them is the coach, so who really cares? But we already have Q the captain's word that he didn't want Marbury back so that is quite the stretch on your part.

Isiah needed Marbury because he did not have an adequate backcourt solution last season. D' needed Marbury because he did not have an adequate backcourt solution this year.

When both coaches were in need of a backcourt player, they discarded their principles and decided that they would try to win instead of making a point, holding to their principles and "putting Marbury in his place".

If the team wanted Marbury back temporarily (Which is strictly conjecture on your part in order to not admit the fact that the situations are eerily similar.) after they were so happy he was gone, then they are guilty of exactly what Isiah was guilty of last year, just what D' is guilty of this year. I guess nobody has principles except for what they want at any given moment including Marbury, D' and the team? Craziness!

oohah

oohah, it's not your fault but I'm exhausted by this. There are similarities and differences to last year. I don't want to pick them a part with a fine tooth comb.

The point is that any time a coach - any coach - tries to reduce Marbury's role he leaves the team, be it physically or figuratively, and he's gone. He's not somebody a coach ever wants to have to work with.

A coach wants to be able to play a player when he wants to, and bench him when he wants to. From everything I've seen throughout his career I don't believe that's possible with Marbury.

However, if it serves you to think there was some tightrope D' could have walked to somehow work that out with Steph, god bless you, let me not try to divest you of that notion.

Marbury is not someone a coach should have to go through all these conniptions over. He's not that good. He's no longer durable. He's nuts. He gets his sister in the truck and does god knows what with her. He acts the fool at the courthouse. He's an *******. He turns on HOF coaches and his mentor. He destroys all esprit de corps... There's just no reason to get a bender over this guy. He's simply trash waiting to be picked up, yet we have guys who are pissed that the coach doesn't lick his balls the way he likes it.

D' inherited the worst problem child in the NBA and guys are raking him over the coals because it's been challenging. The beauty of it now is that there are no more chances for Marbury. It's just a countdown until he's off the club, and then the nightmare will be behind us. Some other coach can masturbate him or be held hostage to another tantrum involving the players union, a courtroom, arbitration, lockerroom fights, backstabbing, what have you.

I'm sad for any coach trying to preach teamwork and chemistry with Marbury around.

Posted by BasketballJones:

I'm shocked by all this hatred for Marbs. Where's it coming from?

Posted by oohah:

Posted by BlueSeats:

The analogy doesn't hold up. Marbury did not return to a depleted roster with only 2 healthy guards, so the players did not wish his reinsertion. This year the team needed another backcourt body - any backcourt body - so they may have wished his return, even if temporary.

Last year Isiah put Marbury above the team. This year D' put the team above Marbury.

In both cases Marbury is a bust.

The analogy certainly does hold up as long as you don't add in all sorts of extra-ness to change it! the situation does not have to be the same down to the word. Marbury was being shown who is boss by the coach, but when the coach decided he needed him, that stuff went out the window. Same story.

Q said he didn't want Marbury back this past Friday. Many reporters have stated how the lockerroom was "galvanized" by Marbury being exiled. So now you are theorizing that the team "may have wished" for Marbury back? None of them is the coach, so who really cares? But we already have Q the captain's word that he didn't want Marbury back so that is quite the stretch on your part.

Isiah needed Marbury because he did not have an adequate backcourt solution last season. D' needed Marbury because he did not have an adequate backcourt solution this year.

When both coaches were in need of a backcourt player, they discarded their principles and decided that they would try to win instead of making a point, holding to their principles and "putting Marbury in his place".

If the team wanted Marbury back temporarily (Which is strictly conjecture on your part in order to not admit the fact that the situations are eerily similar.) after they were so happy he was gone, then they are guilty of exactly what Isiah was guilty of last year, just what D' is guilty of this year. I guess nobody has principles except for what they want at any given moment including Marbury, D' and the team? Craziness!

oohah

Yeah you can't absolve any of the 3 parties from blame, separate from each other. David Lee admitted earlier this yr Marbury hasn't been a distraction to the team and almost sounded like he may have wanted him to play but Q and Duhon both the coaches pets BTW, could care less or were desensitized to him being a teammate of theirs.... yet coach felt the need to discard his principles and exercise due diligence to a player who doesn't fit the direction the team is going in, nor has a great relationship with his teammates, and who was probably rusty as FUCH from not practicing with the team of his own volition. Like I said weren't we talking about a 1-2week period at most the team would lack depth in the back court? No need to feel pressured to go to him in expectation that he wouldn't let anyone down, especially when you give him every reason to do so by giving him a choice. Tell Q, Duhon, Roberson to strap em up tight for 2-3gms and look for a 10 day contract player in the meantime, until Mobley settles in. If this would have been done, no bad publicity comes our way besides what's already been there. Wasn't Marbury this low energy zapper player who usually set tones for us to come out the gate slow, and get down big in games, yet somehow we expected so much of him because we're in dire straits?

Another thing I don't get is, why does he keep telling the media he "Hates it for Steph?" Didn't Steph in part put himself in this situation according to him, by looking at his past history? Does he hate it for him because he disowns and then crutches him within a 24hr period?

[Edited by - GallOfFame on 11-28-2008 9:11 PM]

Posted by TMS:

Posted by BasketballJones:

I'm shocked by all this hatred for Marbs. Where's it coming from?

he's a victim i tell ya... the whole world is just a buncha racist hatters.

Posted by nyk4ever:

Posted by TMS:

Posted by BasketballJones:

I'm shocked by all this hatred for Marbs. Where's it coming from?

he's a victim i tell ya... the whole world is just a buncha racist hatters.

I wonder how Papabears turkey went down yesterday

I just don't think it's fair to fault D' when it was Walsh or Dolan who stuck him with Marbury. What I don't subscribe to are the notions that D' is focusing efforts on coercing or masterminding Marbury. I think he's just a coach trying to keep his team moving forward; something that's been a near impossibility for any of Marbury's 12 or so coaches across his career. Starting the season with Marbury on the roster virtually guaranteed a blowup, so lets not suggest some small tactical error after that fact is at fault.