Posted by Bippity10:

Posted by BlueSeats:

Posted by Bippity10:

Thanks for keeping me honest but you are a BS artist in this circumstance my friend. First of all in this quote

you accused people of suggesting Marbury's shoe gig is "bad" even though you had to admit no one actually said anything along those lines.

Then you tell me, inside a thread devoted to bashing Isles for views he posted on another board, that threads run afoul when haters don't accept lovers' opinions. Oh the hypocrisy.

What does one have to do with the other. Are you saying I don't accept your views. I don't understand the point. People do suggest Marb's shoe gig is a bad thing whether you want to admit it or not. "Do they come out and say I think the shoe thing is bad?" no. Is every Marbury shoe gig post torn apart by a few people? yes.

As for this part of your post:

Bip, on some occassions you're my favorite poster on this board, but in the context of this conversation, who cares about your views? Our exchange ensued because you accused people of suggesting Marbury's shoe gig is "bad" even though you had to admit no one actually said anything along those lines.

Then you tell me, inside a thread devoted to bashing Isles for views he posted on another board, that threads run afoul when haters don't accept lovers' opinions. Oh the hypocrisy.

You want another example of you trying to play it both ways? How about when I first arrived here criticizing Marbury and you told me that while you couldn't disagree with my criticisms my vocal dissent against him was tantamount to booing Patrick and and Allan - IOW, it was all part of a continuum of fans who blame everything on the best player on the team. (Opposed to the others who blamed it all on Lenny and Shandon?) That's having it both ways in and of itself, but 6 months later when Marbury is dragging his feet against Brown I find you excoriating others for not protesting as a means to hold the players (not the least of which, Marbury) accountable. "Where are our standards?" you cried.

It's not that big a deal bip, it doesn't mean you're not a good poster, but you as much as anyone else need to be "kept honest". It wouldn't be a discussion board if we didn't discuss, and that includes Marbury's messianic quest.

Listen, the same silencing tactic has been in effect since Marbury arrived here.

"how can you criticize him, he's our best player!"

"you can't criticize his ball-hogging, he's the only one on the team who can score!"

"you can't criticize his TOs, he's too tired cuz he has to do everything himself!"

"don't criticize him for F'ing off Lenny, he's a senile old bastard. this is Steph's team, just set him free!"

"how dare you suggest Steph might be breaking down, he's one of the most durable players in the league!"

"if you don't know the significance of 20 and 8 you're an idiot"

"he's right, he IS the BEST point guard and I applaud him for saying it. This is just more baseless hate!"

"Kurt Thomas should get his old ass out of town. Isiah should cut him for yelling at Steph!"

"Steph might not be a leader but don't ever criticize his effort!"

"anyone who supports Larry Brown over Steph is not a knicks fan!"

"steph hasn't lost a step, this is just more hate, hate, hate!"

And on and on.

As for the Marbury thing you are twisting it again. The point was not that you can't criticize Marbury. I do it all the time. I agree with many of your posts and have often echoed your views on the topic a million times. My problem with what was happening a couple years ago is that half the board was blaming LB for everything, half the board was blaming STeph. The half blaming LB were wrong and the half blaming Steph were wrong. I had one half of the board calling me a Larry lover and one calling me a Marbs lover. Why because the board chose sides, the board chose favorites and the board scapegoated. Some in the middle just said they were both idiots and both dragged our team down. To you that is playing both sides of the fence. Our whole disagreement stemmed from one post in which it was suggested that we boo Steph and was 45 pages of BLAMING(Not criticicizing but blaming) STeph for our problems when I thought the problem was Steph, LB, Zeke etc. To me that's far different from criticizing a guys actions.

The season before that it was the "let's boo Steph" brigade. Although I think Marbs was hurting our team, so was everyone else on the squad. TT wasn't playing hard. Sweetney was fat. Jamal played no defense etc. etc. Why was it that fans felt to take their ire out on one player. That I dont' agree with. If you are going to take your ire out and boo someone you would be better served booing the damn GM that brought the unit together not searching for one player scapegoat.Using one single player as a scapegoat like we did with Allan Houston is ridiculous in my view. Once again, two years later I objected to the scapegoating, not any individual criticism of his strengths and weaknesses. But since you can't stand it when anyone defends the guy at all, you can't see a difference.

If you think I'm trying to silence you than get over yourself guy. You seem to have a similar victim complex to that of the guy you think I won't criticize. I pointed out that it's weird how the shoe topic always gets drawn down. You felt I was attacking you. Voice your opinion. Who cares. I just find it odd that some find the need to click onto every post about the shoe subject and tear it apart never once varying their rhetoric even the topic of the post may be vastly different than the one before. I would think you could take a break on one of them and then come back later. I just find it amazing that's all. But just like I don't come to get an opinion from MS on Jamal I wouldn't come to you for an opinion on Steph. Whether he shot one of his teammates to prevent them from going in for a game winning layup or saved an old lady from a burning fire, I already know you would come onto either post discussing his messianic complex and accusing those that criticize his shooting of his teammate and compliment his saving of the old lady of playing both sides of the fence. No, just being fair and honest with the topic that is being discussed at the time. Sorry if I defend the guy in one context and blast him in another. I know in your world that should not be allowed. Hate everything he does, or love everything. Never take the individual topic into account. It always must boil down to hater vs. lover.

Next time I argue with you about Steph but defend you on racial topics you can accuse me of playing both sides of the fence when it comes to you as well.

[Edited by - bippity10 on 18-07-2007 07:53 AM]

I have no idea what your last line means, and the rest is just defensive high drama.

I'm not going to debate who said what in the past until we have a search function, But largely what you've always tried to assert with me, as you do now, is that all I've ever blamed is Marbury, when anybody who's read me knows I'm extremely critical of Dolan and particularly Isiah's management style. Marbury isn't the only one of his kind here, but he has, because of his relationship with Isiah, carried a disproportionate amount of power and media attention, and that is why he draws more ire than others. He's been put into an advantaged role of leadership which he's not deserved, and which I believe has been a destructive influence on the team for the better part of his stay. I really don't think you can discuss the knicks in most facets without consideration of Marbury so long as he is as vocal and prevalent as he's been. Certainly not while he's in a leadership role, fighting with coaches and teammates, starting at PG, featured in legal suits against management, and going on world tour crusades.

He certainly doesn't deserve "all the blame," but nor does anyone assign that, so playing that card just another straw man used to deflect from the criticism that may indeed be warranted.

Now, I'm not accusing you of trying to shut down criticism of Marbury, but in this conversation I believe you pandered a bit to that group, probably to bolster your own esteem, and in the process you mischaracterized people's criticisms as turning his shoe gig into "something bad". All this drama is a result of you're unwillingness to get that. Repeatedly I asked you to evidence the criticism you object to and you couldn't produce, so the whole thing looks to my eyes as grandstanding.

To put it in Marbury's own words:

"My shoe?" Marbury replied. "It's not because of my shoe."

I look forward to your bitter retort.

Blueseats I don't know if you don't get it or just want to continue the roundabout for the entertainment value. When people start a post I comment on what they are discussing. I don't turn a post on who should start into an opportunity to talk about how bad Jamal is. If someone asks who is going to feed the post I don't use it as an opportunity to tell the world how selfish Steph is. I'm not saying you do, I'm saying it happens and I think it's ridiculous and have no problem commenting on it.

This goes on with STeph all the time. If we are talking about what he says or his lack of leadership I understand and appreciate your opinion and everyone that feels Steph is not a leader. If he says something stupid during his marketing campaign I'm on board with all the jokes everyone makes and find them quite funny. I also have no problem chiming in. But like happened the other day a few of us are discussing how cool it is to see an athlete actually putting their face on an inexpensive item. We joked about the shoes we wore as kids when we were poor and wished we had Starbury's. And like clockwork a group(not saying you) but a group comes in screaming about how Marbs is selfish, it's not a movement, why do you fall for this blah, blah, blah. In my head I'm just saying give it a rest. Okay, we get it, you don't like Marbs. I don't like the guy. I think his marketing campaign is as comical as you. I still like the shoes and could care less about how selfish he is. I like the concept. Not saying you don't like the concept. Just asking if we can discuss that without Marb's personality being thrown in all the time. I know you have a victim complex, so let me make it clear, I'm not saying that you can't make fun of Marbs if he does something stupid. I'm not saying you can't criticize the campaing.. My annoyance with this is not because of this thread or any particular thread, it's the topic as a whole. It simply cannot be discussed in a good light ever.

Marbs is self aggrandizing. Marbs is selfish. Marbs is not a leader. Marbs from what I know of him can be a jerk. Marbs has hurt the Knicks with his attitude. Marbs has killed 3 coaches. Marbs marketing campaign is comical at times. Marbs should close his mouth. I still have no problem giving him credit when it comes to the shoes.

As for the search feature. WE don't need the search feature. I'm right here in front of you. If you don't understand my opinion on a topic, just friggin ask it. If I'm not clear, challenge me. What's the fear?

Bip, all this is easily correctable. When someone says something you disagree with simply quote it and challenge it directly rather than addressing it with roundabout side conversations with others utilizing straw men and innuendo.

You keeping saying it's fine to criticize Marbury where due, but have yet to evidence where something less was done. You keep asking for the right to talk about his shoes without rancor, while your the the most bitter and defensive person in the thread.

If you've got a beef with what someone said just quote the damn thing and shoot it down.

Look at Isles having the first post on Marbury's new entry. Seriously, this kid needs to get a life. Find a girlfriend bro.

Posted by RemBee76:

Posted by BlueSeats:


In a nutshell I think the situation was that his deal expired with And1 and his image was shot, he was probably depressed over the matter that his marketability was nil, he had no better offers so he took this one.

I don't want to do point-counterpoint either, and I don't have any idea what Marbury's contract status was with And1, but this statement can be so thoroughly discredited I can't resist...

1. Do you know that And1 wasn't prepared to re-up his shoe contract? Remember, they re-upped Sprewell's when his image was "shot" with a whole lot more holes than Marbury's.

No, I don't know it to be true, it's my suspicion based upon clearly declining enthusiasm for Marbury even in his home market. Prior to the LB season Marbury was already being lampooned as a make-up wearing "Diva" on many message boards. I'm not sure exactly where in Sprewell's career they re-upped his contract but at no point had Spree's commitment on the court been questioned to the degree that Marbury's was.

2. Marbury's jersey continues to be one of the NBA's best sellers, so the idea that his marketability is "nil" is simply dead wrong.

Point taken, instead of nil I should have said something like "at grave risk" or the like.

The prime reason Marbury's Jersey sells is because he's been the face of the largest NBA market. Think his jersey would sell as much if he were on a team like Indiana? The point being that when a player's cachet is sinking even on his home team it's speculative that he'd drive sales nationally. But Kudos to those who did believed in him, they were more right than me, that's for sure.

3. The very idea of an NBA star promoting a low cost shoe is predicated on said NBA star's marketability. So if said NBA star's marketability is "nil" wouldn't his endorsing a low cost shoe (read low quality, as LeBron James read it) have done nothing to improve that image?

That's variable to many degrees. The largest factor was the genius price point and marketing campaign. Factors such as quality, styling, and the like also play a role. But setting the whole thing up as him "giving away NBA quality shoes" was great.

4. As I understand it, Marbury approached Steve&Barry's with the idea of a low-cost sneaker line, not the other way around.

Lets see what you've got. "Contacting them" might be no more than returning a phone call.

5. Taking a cut of the profits of a venture that could have failed (especially if his marketability was "nil" remember) instead of an endorsement contract was a risk and required Marbury to put in quite a bit of time and effort promoting the product. The notion that this was a venture entered into half-heartedly because it’s the best offer he got is also, clearly, a false one.

That wasn't what I was suggesting. I presume that once someone decides to go ahead with something they'd give it their all, I simply suspect that if Marbury could have signed a pimp contract with, say, Nike, along the lines of, say, Lebron's, he would have.

So this intuition of yours, blue, and the resulting opinions of Marbury's entering the shoe business, are clearly tainted by a powerful predisposition to criticize all things Marbury. So while you may pretend you are "breaking things down into components" like a tv dinner, seems to me you got the whole mess on your plate and are digging in.

Just proffering up my own point of view, assuming that's allowed.

Temper tantrum? Have you ever seen Bip get angry? All I did was ask the question why we can't talk about the shoe thing in a positive light. And then point out that regardless of the original post the same few people will come on and quote the same things. More of an observation than a temper tantrum.

The reality is, who cares. I'm just curious why it goes this way, the same way I wonder why we can't have a Jamal conversation either.

As for this:

Just proffering up my own point of view, assuming that's allowed.

Stop being a baby, noone told you to stop giving your point of view.

Posted by BlueSeats:
No, I don't know it to be true, it's my suspicion based upon clearly declining enthusiasm for Marbury even in his home market. Prior to the LB season Marbury was already being lampooned as a make-up wearing "Diva" on many message boards.

So you base this suspicion on a few Marbury haters on some chat boards who most probably hated Marbury before he wore a New York uniform. Got it.

The prime reason Marbury's Jersey sells is because he's been the face of the largest NBA market. Think his jersey would sell as much if he were on a team like Indiana? The point being that when a player's cachet is sinking even on his home team it's speculative that he'd drive sales nationally.

The speculation is that Marbury's marketing cache was sinking significantly. You have yet to prove that point.

That's variable to many degrees. The largest factor was the genius price point and marketing campaign.

This isn't as complicated as you would like it to be. Marbury's cache is selling a shoe that otherwise would have been considered inferior because of its price point (as has been pointed out, Payless sells shoes for even less) and the shoes are selling very well. So your claim that he has little to no cache holds no water.

I simply suspect that if Marbury could have signed a pimp contract with, say, Nike, along the lines of, say, Lebron's, he would have.

A suspicion based on nothing but a predisposition to assume that Marbury doesn't have a genuine inclination to do something positive or the business savvy to come up with this idea himself.

I read interviews where Marbury says he approached the company first about endorsing a low-cost clothing line, and agreed to promote this shoe. I can't find those now, although the Wikipedia entry on Starburys backs me up if that means anything.

Just proffering up my own point of view, assuming that's allowed.

Of course, just don't pretend that your point of view on this subject is untainted by an obvious dislike for the player, as you have. You can't bring yourself to admit that the man is doing something positive without assuming that its because he had no better offers.

Thanks for sharing that view, much appreciated.

Posted by Bippity10:

Temper tantrum? Have you ever seen Bip get angry? All I did was ask the question why we can't talk about the shoe thing in a positive light. And then point out that regardless of the original post the same few people will come on and quote the same things. More of an observation than a temper tantrum.

The reality is, who cares. I'm just curious why it goes this way, the same way I wonder why we can't have a Jamal conversation either.

As for this:

Just proffering up my own point of view, assuming that's allowed.

Stop being a baby, noone told you to stop giving your point of view.

Oh bip, you're still doing it. you're mixing True's "temper tantrum" with my "proffering an opinion" as if we are the same person.

Then, while saying you're not angry you go and call me a baby.

Listen dude, you're famous for running around here complaining that people don't speak to what you say but what they think you've said and that they should quote you. I've only asked the same from you but you're simply too defensive, pig-headed, self righteous and hypocritical to agree.

C'mon bip, raise your game.

Posted by Allanfan20:

I still don't get how this arguement originated.

What are we fighting about?

We all agree that:
-Marbury is doing this but making himself look kinda selfish.
-The shoes are a good idea, for business, AND for the people buying them.
-Marbury is an idiot.
-Marbury had a very solid year.
-Marbury is going wacko.
-Bip and Blueseats are even more wacko and might even be taking a combo of steroids, cocaine and heroin.
-Marbury needs to knock this shizat off and focus on the upcoming season.
-Bip = BoBo and BlueSeats = Seatsblue/Trueblue.

You guys are psycho.

Finally a voice of reason.

Of course how we feel about a player is going to color how we view their actions in a variety of contexts. Its just with Marbury, more often than not, this is extreme to the point of being absurd.

Marbury signs a contract with Steve and Barry's because they are the only people that would have him do to his lack of marketability (despite selling more jersey's than any other NBA player save 4) but Ben Wallace does the same (when surely he had other offers, right?)and we must conclude then that it was out of the goodness of his heart, or is his stock dropping too?

Posted by BlueSeats:
When I feel he makes statements that reveal character flaws that have impinged upon the Knicks, or anything along those lines, it's fair game whether he's a basketball player, a shoe salesman, or a retired florist in Poughkeepsie.
[Edited by - blueseats on 07-18-2007 5:20 PM]

Ah, now we get at the heart of the matter, forget all this other BS.

Perhaps this is why Bippity, myself, and others are disturbed by this conversation...please illuminate what statements Stephon Marbury has made while marketing his shoe that have revealed a character flaw that has impinged on the Knicks.

I suppose his identifying the shoes as part of a "movement" reveals a self-obsession that disqualifies him as a leader. Perhaps his talking about how he wants to give back to the community reveals a sense of entitlement that points to his needing to take more shots than anyone else on the team. I get it, the fact that he has only given away $4 million of his profits from the shoe reveals why he doesn't have more assists. Why, the very name of the shoe "Starbury" reeks of the self-aggrandizement at the heart of his unwillingness to guard the 3-pt line. Doesn't it all just make you want to puke?

Well, yes, it does. Again, he is marketing a bloody shoe, in a way that has never been done before, and doing that very well.

If you were privy to the act, the man wouldn't be able to go to the bathroom without your commenting on how the manner he is holding his dick "reveals character flaws that have impinged upon the Knicks".

Posted by Bippity10:

Tim Duncan is garbage

Posted by BoBo:

Tim Duncan is garbage

I rest my case.

Posted by Bippity10:

I know you are trying to get invited to the party so that I can kill you off, but you are still not invited.

Pffft... first off, the only death would be dying of laughter when I hire a clown named Bobo and bring him to the party.

Posted by BlueSeats:

To me his two day "I'm the best" tirade, that turned a +.500 record and a three game win-streak into the worst January in team history, calling basketball "just a hobby" while being paid $20M/yr and coming into camp out of shape and resistant to role, and declaring that a boy staying up until 2am to watch him is what "changing the world is all about" are all of the same self-aggrandizing chatter and entitlement mentality that I suspect has been at cause in alienating so many of his teammates and coaches over the years. Garnett, Aron Williams, K-Mart, Byron Scott, Lenny Wilkens, D'Antoni, Larry Brown, Amare, Kurt Thomas, Q-Rich, etc, to name a few. You may feel otherwise, in which case the onus would be on you to present your theory as to how he did it, because it was done.

No Blue, given that the discussion was about Marbury's Starburys, the onus was in you to present how anything he has said and done as part of that marketing campaign "reveals character flaws that have impinged upon the Knicks".

Judging from the above you could not, or at least you couldn't without looking foolish as anyone who takes marketing slogans seriously, as you know as you are a smart guy, are idiots.