Posted by martin:

Posted by Cosmic:

BIP: So, if we were 4-6 would you agree this situation is a distraction that needs to be resolved? I tend to disagree with that reasoning for regardless of our record I think the biggest point here is to move on from the past. To do that you gotta get rid of this guy whether or not the team on the court has moved on from him. He's still here, it's still a problem, and it should be GONE. I can't fathom any player being fine with this or any Knick being fine with him still practicing with them and talking to them in the lockerroom! Can YOU!?

what have you heard that came out of the locker room that would give you this idea? I think it's the opposite.

Posted by Cosmic:

Posted by martin:

Posted by Cosmic:

Posted by martin:

Cos, if you can't tell the difference between a writer like Berman and the others, there is a problem. Berman, Isola, Adamek, Hahn, Dougherty, Beck. All with clearly different levels of reporting and sensationalizing.

I can but I think they all have their problems. Hahn? You mean the guy that guaranteed three trades this summer that never got close to taking shape? Come'on, he's no more credible than anyone else. Isola? You mean the guy that Dolan exiled? Yeah, I'm sure he's unbiased after that. All these guys have agendas and their writing shows it. All of them get tidbits of info and try to fill in the blanks. All have their own personal opinions and try to turn them into a factual piece of writing. It's not just Berman.

Come'on now... we all know Berman is Marbury's mouthpiece but that doesn't mean he's writing fiction. We know the Knicks and Marbury are at odds and clearly now, only since the NBAPA got involved, trying to come to terms and go their separate ways.

dude, when you say things like "I think they all have their problems" you throw down a gauntlet and make yourself look not so good. Tell me how Howard Beck of the NYTimes has problems? Or Adamek or Dougherty or Hahn? And I don't mean throwing out sentences like "You mean the guy that guaranteed three trades this summer that never got close to taking shape" without so much as any shred of backup.

Berman doesn't write fiction, and I never said he did, but if you can't tell the difference between a paper that sensationalizes stories and a beat writer like Beck who is reporting what he sees and then adds his own experience into it, then you better check into reading 101.

I'm not worried about myself looking not so good.

I think the facts speak for themselves that reporters - all reporters - fabricate things, over dramatize things, try to turn opinion into fact or a legit rumor when it's just their own idea, and write to make money. This goes for all of them man. Not just one just because you dislike him or the player he seems to represent.

That requires reading 101 (why get personal?).

If you're going to like a specific reporter because his opinion fits your own then you're doing exactly what you're trying to accuse me of. Of which I'm not doing at all.

Berman isn't the only one to report that the Knicks and Marbury are at odds on how to terminate their marriage. So I guess everyone not reporting that this is a perfect and serene situation that doesn't effect anyone at all is... a bad reporter that shouldn't be listened to? And, anyone that does report (nobody has) that everything is perfect with how the Marbury situation has been handled is the reporter(s) we should be listening to?

Well, sorry, I don't buy that thinking.

Posted by Cosmic:

Posted by martin:

Show me where Adamek, Hahn, Dougherty, and Beck have fabricated something about the Knicks.

I'm not going around to sift through story after story to show you that journalists put their own spin on anything they write. Hahn as you should already remember guaranteed us blockbuster trades were about to go down and it turned out they were either three week old rumors or nothing more than a simple feeling out that never got beyond that. So there's that.

As to this, it's obvious we're never going to agree about it, so I guess we should just drop it.

As to Marbury "not being a distraction" come'on man... Nobody likes him, he doesn't like anybody, everyone wants him gone, he wants to be gone, Knicks management has been incredibly slow on the process. How is this _not_ a problem just by virute of a logical conclusion?

It's a train wreck that just keeps on going.

Meanwhile, as I've posted numerous comments before in this thread, here's another one. Sure, you can also discount this by saying he's one to talk, but, it just underscores my main point of view in all of this: It's a distraction that will continue to fester and it needs to be dealt with in a TIMELY manner!

Sam Cassell weighed in from the outside with a veteran's perspective on Stephon Marbury's current situation with the New York Knicks.

"They should let him go," Cassell told The Post before the Celtics beat the Knicks on Tuesday night. "They always tell us to be professional. Be professional about it. Let the man go. Why not?

"I've know Steph for years," Cassell added. "I said a long time ago he was special. That he's still going through all this, it's crazy. Let him go."

Posted by BlueSeats:

I can't imagine that Marbury and his situation isn't some level of distraction.

However, in the past the organization would have been derailed by his gloom, or kowtowed to his needs, or been victimized by his manipulations, etc, and this time they're just rollin' on. Maybe they're learning to "play through" the adversity.

Curry is probably a distraction now too, though of a different kind. And Many clamored to bring in Artest, who's another perrenial distraction that teams need to play through. Heck, early last year Kobe was a distraction but the Lakers went to the finals. Rodman used to an enormous distraction, but he never derailed the Bulls or Spurs.

Point being, I'm happy to see the Knicks evolve to the point that they no longer allow themselves to surrender to Marbury's dark powers. My hunch is without the discount a buyout would provide they'd hold onto him through the trade deadline, just in case something freakish develops out there.

By then the team would also know if it they are in the playoff hunt or not. If not, he's gone right after the deadline, but if so they might just keep him on if other backcourt members are injured or wearing down.

So the issue isn't whether Marbury is a distraction or not - he always is. It's whether he's an insurmountable distraction, or one that doesn't override the benefits holding onto his contract may yield.