Marbury Back But Passes On Playing

[duncan228]

Marbury back but passes on playing (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/basketball/nba/11/21/Marbury.returns.ap/index.html)

Why did Marbury refuse?


The only thing I'm at liberty to say is that I was told that they were moving forward, and I'm not the person who chooses who plays or doesn't.

[boutons_]

It's childish power game. He be gettin no respek from his coach, was dressed as $20M bench filler, so he's holding his breath, for the good of the team.

How many employees refuse to do their jobs and escape with a paycheck anyway?

$20M/82 = $243K/game.

Tatooed asshole ballas like SM do wonders for NBA's popularity.

[Indazone]

And the Drama Continues
A Defiant Act of Inaction

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/23/sports/basketball/23rhoden.html?ref=basketball (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/23/sports/basketball/23rhoden.html?ref=basketball)

By WILLIAM C. RHODEN (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/sports/columns/williamcrhoden/?inline=nyt-per)
They’re both getting what they deserve: Marbury a clear sense of direction, the Knicks chaos.

The Knicks and Marbury are moving in opposite directions, but on Friday night in Milwaukee they collided.
With the roster depleted by a flurry of trades and longstanding injuries, the Knicks finally needed Marbury.
According to Knicks Coach Mike D’Antoni (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/d/mike_dantoni/index.html?inline=nyt-per): “When the trades went down this afternoon, I said: ‘Look Steph, one of the principals are gone, Jamal Crawford. There’s 30-35 minutes out there, and they’re yours if you want them. Are you ready to go?’ ” D’Antoni said Marbury replied that he “wasn’t comfortable with the situation, and he did not want to play.”
“So at that point,” D’Antoni said, “I go, ‘O.K., that’s your decision, and that’s fine.’ That’s it.”
The Knicks have made it clear that Marbury is not part of their long-range plans. He wasn’t part of the short-term plans until Friday, when trades all but wiped out the backcourt when Crawford was sent to Golden State and Mardy Collins went to the Los Angeles Clippers (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/sports/probasketball/nationalbasketballassociation/losangelesclippers/index.html?inline=nyt-org), along with forward Zach Randolph.
With only two players on the bench, the Knicks needed another body by league rules. During his postgame news conference, D’Antoni seemed to imply that Marbury, though dressed, refused to play.
Marbury, who spent 10 consecutive games on the inactive list, has a different version of what happened.
Reached by phone on Saturday, Marbury said he never told D’Antoni he would not play.
“He said Stephon, ‘I got 20 to 25 minutes,’ ” Marbury said. “I never said, ‘No, I’m not going to play.’ That never came out my mouth. “I said, ‘You told me y’all were going in another direction, and you were moving forward.’ ”
Marbury said D’Antoni replied: “ ‘I understand where you’re coming from.’
“Why would I say I’m not going to play? That’s insubordination. Why would I say that?”
Later Friday afternoon, Marbury said he received a call in his hotel room from D’Antoni asking him to dress for that night’s game.
“He said, ‘Stephon, I’m going to need you to dress out because we’re going to need eight guys,’ ” Marbury said. “I said: ‘No problem, Coach. I’ll dress out.’ That was it.”
The organization has made it clear that it does not want Marbury, not even on the roster, by subjecting him to the ignominy of sitting on the bench in street clothes.
You can certainly make the case that Marbury is an employee and as such should perform on command. The Knicks are paying Marbury to be a yo-yo: sit, don’t sit; play, don’t play; dress, don’t dress.
On the other hand, what’s the point? He has not played in a game during the regular season. Why go from cold to hot, risk injury and look bad in the process. Whose case does that help?
D’Antoni called the Marbury fiasco a distraction, but the Knicks have chosen this course of inaction by refusing to play Marbury, making him inactive and telling all who will listen that he is out of the Knicks’ orbit, out of their plans.
All the organization has to do is agree to give Marbury the money he’s due and send him on his way.
The Knicks, after getting off to an encouraging start, are in a state of flux. The flurry of activity is taking place, we are told, because the Knicks are planning for 2010 when so much great talent — most notably LeBron James (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/j/lebron_james/index.html?inline=nyt-per) — can become available.
But in a culture that measures time in nanoseconds, two years are like a century. Who knows where James will be in 2010?
And if I’m James looking at the Knicks’ ongoing dysfunction from the relatively tranquil confines of Cleveland, I would ask, Is this where I want to be?
And even if James dislikes Marbury, and I’m not sure he does, he has to be wondering at some level, Wow, is this how I’ll be treated when I’m used up , or if I somehow fall out of favor with these guys?
On the other hand, James may not be able to see that far ahead because, in the here and now, he is King James. He is the Olympic hero who helped fetch the gold, who curried favor by deferring on Darfur and the China connection during the Summer Games in Beijing. But what happens if he stumbles in New York? Or, more likely, what happens when James discovers that the franchise really is cursed and cannot be rescued? Will they make him stand in a corner?
The Marbury-Knicks relationship continues to deteriorate. And with it the promise of peace and a drama-free season.

[1Parker1]

Its the Knicks fault. They came out with that statement a few weeks back saying they aren't going to trade him or waive him, but then put him on the inactive list. Basically as a Power Trip letting him and the rest of the team knows who's boss. Then now that they were short a few bodies, they make him active and want him to play....way to stand your ground! :lol

Knicks are the new Lakers, drama queens USA.

[I. Hustle]

I would have done the same. F that shit

[galvatron3000]

it's funny how people hate these guys for whatever reason (mostly media influence) yet you can't read an article about a guy refusing to play because his coach told him he has some minutes and refuses. that doesn't even make sense especially in regards to their situation. they didn't fine him for refusing to play? they didn't tell him he had to play or get fined when they need a reason to lower his salary, give me a break. D'Antoni's been lying from day 1 so has Walsh, they never had any intentions of playing Marbury the entire season.they've leaked so much information that they never had too I don't trust a word they say. Waiv the dude and be finished or pay him and shut the heck up.

[MrChug]

I gotta admit, the Knicks are fucking this up royally. Marbury's been a little immature, but if you're going to insult a man over and over, fuck them...really-fuck Isaiah.

[peskypesky]

I would have done the same. F that shit

+1

[Indazone]

Cassell: Knicks must resolve Marbury situation

BY ALAN HAHN | [email protected] ([email protected]&subject=Cassell:%20Knicks%20must%20resolve%20Marbu ry%20situation) November 20, 2008 http://www.newsday.com/media/photo/2008-11/43494339.jpg
Boston Celtics guard Sam Cassell says the Knicks' decision to keep Stephon Marbury inactive is "bad for the league." (Getty Images Photo)



As the Knicks (http://www.newsday.com/topic/sports/basketball/new-york-knicks-ORSPT000200.topic) try to distance themselves from their laughingstock days, one tragicomedy continues to engage the NBA (http://www.newsday.com/topic/sports/basketball/national-basketball-association-15008001.topic). The latest in the "Free Starbury" movement comes from the Celtics (http://www.newsday.com/topic/sports/boston-celtics-ORSPT000094.topic)' Sam Cassell (http://www.newsday.com/topic/sports/sam-cassell-PESPT001161.topic), who said the Knicks' decision to keep Stephon Marbury (http://www.newsday.com/topic/sports/stephon-marbury-PESPT004625.topic) inactive is "bad for the league."

"They really need to get that thing resolved," Cassell said Tuesday night before the Knicks' 110-101 loss to the Celtics in Boston. "It doesn't look good for both parties. Steph wants to play and he's better than the guys playing ahead of him. I don't understand it."

Cassell, however, does understand the buyout process. Last season he forfeited half of his salary ($850,000) to be set free by the Clippers so he would be allowed to sign with the Celtics. He went on to win his third NBA championship ring.

Marbury, who hasn't played this season, doesn't have that kind of situation available to him. Unlike Cassell, who had superagent David Falk, Marbury doesn't have an agent. The NBA players association is assisting him in buyout talks with Knicks president Donnie Walsh. Marbury and a union representative met with Walsh a week ago at the MSG Training Center to open discussions. But unlike Cassell, Marbury maintained his stance that he will not give up any of his $21.9-million salary.


The Knicks, said a person with knowledge of the situation, initially considered offering a $15-million settlement to set Marbury free. The sides have not met since. "They need to keep talking and get something done," Cassell said. (The Knicks are owned by Cablevision, Newsday's parent company).

Cassell left the Clippers knowing he was stepping into a special situation. But for Marbury, the opportunities might not be as bountiful or as plentiful. Mavericks owner Mark Cuban said he is a Marbury fan, but a person close to the situation said it would be surprising if Dallas added him to a roster that has Jason Kidd (http://www.newsday.com/topic/sports/jason-kidd-PESPT003950.topic).

Some NBA executives say the Heat, who are shallow at point guard, would seem to be a perfect destination for Marbury. But others wonder if the Heat - like any team - has concerns about adding Marbury to its locker room.

Who will blink first? Will Marbury forfeit some salary to get back on the court, or will the Knicks, if they fall under .500, turn to him for help?

An NBA coach told Newsday that after committing to moving on without Marbury, Mike D'Antoni (http://www.newsday.com/topic/sports/basketball/mike-dantoni-PESPT0000018596.topic) "can't turn back now."

Notes & quotes: The Mavericks' Jerry Stackhouse (http://www.newsday.com/topic/sports/jerry-stackhouse-PESPT006948.topic) took a swipe at a few Knicks when he reacted to Rick Carlisle's decision to sit him for matchup reasons Sunday in Dallas' overtime win at the Garden. Stackhouse told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram that Jamal Crawford (http://www.newsday.com/topic/sports/jamal-crawford-PESPT001537.topic), Quentin Richardson (http://www.newsday.com/topic/sports/quentin-richardson-PESPT006174.topic) and Wilson Chandler are "scared to guard me" in summer pickup games.

http://www.newsday.com/services/newspaper/printedition/sports/ny-spknix205934691nov20,0,1114201.story

Awesome..make this happen Mark Cuban. Implosion ready with J. Howard. Add Marbury and BOOM!

[duncan228]

Thanks for the updates Indazone. What a soap opera.

[Indazone]

Marbury's version of events

Marbury rebuttal (http://blogs.nypost.com/sports/knicks/archives/2008/11/marbury_rebutta.html)

By MARC BERMAN

I wrote in the Sunday Post about Stephon Marbury's version of events Friday. The one thing that struck me was D'Antoni, after the second trade reduced the roster to seven guys, did not ask Marbury again if he wanted to play. Not only should he have asked him again after the second trade, he should have ordered it. Both parties are wrong because their egos and stubbornness are legendary. (Yes, D'Antoni's too.)
Here's some snippets of the story.
Marbury said Friday morning's conversation with D'Antoni didn't last long enough for him to refuse to play.

According to Marbury, D'Antoni told him in the mid-afternoon he had 20-to-25 minutes for him in the wake of the Jamal Crawford (http://shots.snap.com/explore/83810/?key=06028f986cd52d8275d29a0001c8914b&svc=Snap_Shot_Custom%257CNew_York_Post%257CNYPost_ Sports_Players%257CWithAds&tag=Jamal%20Crawford&src=pub-1236470-www.nypost.com&cp=&asp=Jamal%20Crawford&dfs=10&tol=engage)Jamal Crawford http://i.ixnp.com/images/v3.57/t.gif trade. The conversation took place before the second trade that left the team with just seven able bodies.

"He said I have 20, 25 minutes for you if you want to play,'' Marbury said in an interview yesterday morning. "I said, you've told me you're going in another direction and I'm not in the plans. I never refused to play.''

At that point, D'Antoni didn't bother to press the issue, according to Marbury. "He had a smile on and just said, "I totally understand it, I get you,'' Marbury said.

Marbury said he didn't think D'Antoni was upset and was shocked to read D'Antoni's rough comments in the newspaper yesterday.

Later Friday, D'Antoni called Marbury in his hotel room in Milwaukee to tell him he had to dress by league rules because they were making another trade, sending Mardy Collins (http://shots.snap.com/explore/25450/?key=06028f986cd52d8275d29a0001c8914b&svc=Snap_Shot_Custom%257CNew_York_Post%257CNYPost_ Sports_Players%257CWithAds&tag=Mardy%20Collins&src=pub-1236470-www.nypost.com&cp=&asp=Mardy%20Collins&dfs=10&tol=engage)Mardy Collins http://i.ixnp.com/images/v3.57/t.gif and Zach Randolph (http://shots.snap.com/explore/5314/?key=06028f986cd52d8275d29a0001c8914b&svc=Snap_Shot_Custom%257CNew_York_Post%257CNYPost_ Sports_Players%257CWithAds&tag=Zach%20Randolph&src=pub-1236470-www.nypost.com&cp=&asp=Zach%20Randolph&dfs=10&tol=engage)Zach Randolph http://i.ixnp.com/images/v3.57/t.gif to the Clippers. That left the club with just seven players. According to Marbury, at no point did D'Antoni then ask him if he wanted him to play because of their manpower shortage.

"I just said, OK coach, I'll dress,'' Marbury said.

Marbury said he taped his ankles in anticipation of being called upon, especially if players were in foul trouble. "Refusing to play is when the coach tries to put you in the game and you say you're not going in,'' Marbury said. "If he asked me to go into the game, I was going into the game. That's why I taped my ankles.''
Marbury admitted he wasn't enthused about playing Friday night because he hadn't scrimmaged in two-and-half weeks before Thursday's scrimmage. Marbury thought a 25-minute stint might be too much too soon and felt he needed at least one practice.

--
Vecsey brought up a good point about the second trade involving Randolph, who is the guy they will miss most because there are so few inside scorers in this league. His point is he'd rather have gotten nothing back for Randolph than Thomas and Mobley. He'd rather see the Knicks (http://shots.snap.com/explore/3198/?key=06028f986cd52d8275d29a0001c8914b&svc=Snap_Shot_Custom%257CNew_York_Post%257CNYPost_ Sports_Teams%257CWithAds&tag=New%20York%20Knicks&src=pub-1236470-www.nypost.com&cp=&asp=Knicks&dfs=10&tol=engage)New York Knicks http://i.ixnp.com/images/v3.57/t.gif try to develop a Patrick Ewing Jr. or a couple of D-Leaguers.
Because you're not going to win now with them anyway. As such, Walsh should have peddled Randolph for a second-rounder to the Clippers last summer. Walsh obviously believes they will be competitive with the new-look roster. Has anyone seen Mobley and Thomas play the last couple years

[jack sommerset]

Marbury is paid by the Knicks. If they want him to sit he sits, if they want him to play he plays. Thats BULLSHIT. He needs to give them the money back.

[mystargtr34]

Dallas should sign him, they dont have an NBA level back up, Barea is a third stringer at best.

[Allanon]

I was all down on Marbury when I first heard it.

But if Marbury's side of the story is true, he tried, although saying "I thought you were going in a different direction" probably wasn't the best thing to say. If he just said "I'll take the minutes", that would have been end of story.

[Indazone]

I tend to believe Marbury's side of the story. Makes more sense anyway.