Reply With Quote
isnt antoni the one that traded marbs when he was in phoenix?
yeah I agree with that... but dont tell me the Knicks are the bad guys and marbury the victim, when its really the Knicks are the suckers and Marbury the hustler.
isnt antoni the one that traded marbs when he was in phoenix?
Look you can't on a guy all season and expect him to continue being a good soldier. Contract or not.
He said in the beginning he was looking forward to working with Mike D and was excited about the new direction. First thing Mike and upper management did was completely alienate the guy. They treated him like an outcast and sat him down on the sidelines during practice so everyone can see what a bad little boy he was.
Then they expect him to go out and help the very team that treated him like a 5 year old. that....and you simply can't take the fact that he's been a problem in the past because if it was that big of an issue then they should have handled him in the offseason.
The contract he signed shouldn't consist of abuse.
Making an example out of a player has to be the most unproductive thing you could do in professional sports.
Look the Knicks don't want him so all they have to do is release but the Knicks don't want to pay him either so they're trying to force his hand well Marbury isn't going to allow it and wants what he signed for, it's not his fault they don't want to play him. They said all summer how Marbury was being such a great guy, came to camp in shape, dropped weight and did everything they asked him now what else do you want. The answer is nothing they didn't think he was going to do it and he did so they are eating crow trying to get takers by saying he's been a great guy but all along they had no intentions of playing the guy or wanting to play him. So they chose another strategy and that is to sit him and make him accept a buyout but Marbury refused.
At this stage of his career I don't blame him because he'll never get a contract that big, it's his last big contract. Now they are saying he refused to play but when D'Antoni addressed the media he made it sound like he asked Marbury if he'd like to play and Marbury was like he wasn't comfortable. Well I wouldnt be either. Never did Mike say he told Marbury to play just suit up as per league rules. Marbury was telling the truth in that regards and Mike wasn't as he wasn't all summer.
I don't care what he did or didn't do in the past or to alienate his teammates nothing they're doing in Knicks land justifies this crap. Marbury will find another team if released or bought out, don't believe the hype he has suitors.
Now in regards to him not playing I think he should have played but if he was asked and not told then I can't blame him because it's obvious the Knicks have been lying to him all summer.
Again, I think the Knicks are made at what Marbury did during the trial and nothing else. He told on them and essentially lost the case for them and Thomas and they are harboring bad blood, well, release this guy. Looks like that's what they are going to do anyway. Marbury will win the suspension appeal too, I think.
"I don't want to get into that," D'Antoni said after practice, when asked if he'd ordered or asked Marbury to play Wednesday night in Detroit. "I think I already told you I asked him to play. We just asked. You know, you're a coach, and we needed him to play, so I don't really have a whole lot to say. ... I've already said the piece, and what I've said from my viewpoint is how it happened. We'll just leave it at that. Like I said, it'll work out through the weekend, but I'm done. Management's up, and they'll have to work it out." ...CBSSports.com
http://www.realgm.com/src_wiretap_ar...nicks_blew_it/
this from a guy who supposedly wanted Steph gone before being traded himself
Last edited by galvatron3000; 11-29-2008 at 11:34 AM.
where's Isiaih in all of these?
Stephon Marbury Refuses to Play Again, and the Knicks Have Finally Had Enough
Posted Nov 27th 2008 10:10AM by Tom Ziller (author feed)
Filed under: Knicks
The Great Knickerbocker Rebirth of 2008 didn't come without a whole new set of immediate issues for Mike D'Antoni. The trades announced last Friday sent away New York's best guard and a young combo off the bench. In return: two forwards and a two-guard with heart issues that have scared the Knicks into forcing more tests before allowing him to play. Nate Robinson injured his groin earlier this week, leaving New York with a severe guard deficit.
For the second time in a week, D'Antoni asked Stephon Marbury to play big minutes out of necessity. So desperate is D'Antoni, reports Marc Berman of the New York Post, that the coach offered Starbury his old starting job. !!!
...
Starbury declined.
So the Knicks went with two guards healthy -- Chris Duhon and Anthony Roberson. Quentin Richardson (a forward) started at the two, and Wilson Chandler received some time there as well. Adrian Wojnarowski of Yahoo! reports that D'Antoni is pushing for Marbury to be suspended and barred from being around the team. Woj also has a source who said this is the straw breaking the proverbial camel's back, and James Dolan may suck it up and waive Starbury without a discount.
That'd be the best solution for all involved. Of course, it was also the best solution back in October. Nothing good could come from letting the Starbury affair fester inside Madison Square Garden. It didn't take an oracle to figure that one out.
http://nba.fanhouse.com/2008/11/27/s...ks-have-final/
You are absolutely right. You're getting paid 20 million dollars so you are obligated to play when called upon. If you refuse the team should take some of their money back. No play no pay.
Locked in a Lose-Lose as Marbury Is Suspended
The team has suspended Marbury for one game and will withhold nearly $400,000 in salary as punishment for what it says is his refusal to play Wednesday night in Detroit. Marbury, in turn, is filing a grievance, setting up one more showdown with the franchise that once tied its fate to him.
Only one result seems certain: a divorce that allows Marbury to continue his career elsewhere and the Knicks to focus on their future. How they get there is not yet clear, but team officials hope to resolve the issue before Tuesday’s home game against Portland.
And even if it takes longer than that, the sense is that Marbury will not be seen with the Knicks again.
Marbury did not attend Friday’s practice and, at the team’s request, will not attend practices Sunday or Monday, either. He will serve his suspension Saturday, when the Knicks play host to Golden State. Marbury will lose $199,000 in pay for Saturday’s game and an additional $199,000 for not playing on Wednesday, pending a grievance hearing.
“It’s a regrettable situation for everybody,” D’Antoni said Friday. “Nobody wants to be in this spot, but we’ll play to the best of our ability, and I’m concentrating on the Knicks. We got a job to do Saturday. We need to get back winning; that’s what I want to talk about.”
Yet team officials have already spent an inordinate amount of time talking about Marbury, who, for all practical purposes, has been the Knicks’ 15th man since opening night.
D’Antoni never wanted Marbury in his rotation. He had the full support of his veterans, who informed D’Antoni last spring that Marbury was unwanted in the locker room. But removing Marbury from the roster has been more complicated.
His $21.9 million contract is virtually untradeable, and Donnie Walsh, the team president, has been unwilling to waive him outright. Buyout talks have gone nowhere. Marbury, who does not have an agent, is being advised by Hal Biagas, a lawyer for the players union.
So Marbury has continued to attend games and practices and, for the most part, suppress his frustration in public.
For a while, his exile even faded as an issue, because the Knicks won six of their first nine games without him.
Cir stances changed radically eight days ago, when the Knicks traded three players, including guards Jamal Crawford and Mardy Collins, in a payroll purge. D’Antoni, who had said he might play Marbury in an emergency, suddenly had one.
On the night of the trade, D’Antoni asked Marbury to play against Milwaukee. He asked him again Wednesday in Detroit. Both times, Marbury balked, according to D’Antoni.
“A player’s central obligation is to provide his professional services when called upon,” Walsh said Friday in a statement. “Because he refused the coach’s request to play in the team’s last game, we had no choice but to impose disciplinary action.”
D’Antoni declined Friday to recount the Wednesday incident. “I’m done,” he said. “And now management is up and they’ll have to work it out.”
Marbury has acknowledged his reluctance to play for D’Antoni, but he maintains that he never refused outright.
The grievance will be settled by an arbitrator. Alternatively, the parties could settle it as part of buyout negotiations.
“We hope soon to be able to get to an amicable resolution of this whole matter,” Biagas said.
Walsh was visiting with family in Indianapolis on Friday and was unavailable for comment. He is planning to meet with Biagas on Monday.
The Knicks at one point asked Marbury to take a pay cut of between $3 million and $5 million to gain his release. Marbury declined. Two weeks ago, Marbury offered to take a $1 million reduction. It is not clear in light of the suspension whether that offer is still on the table.
The standoff is costing the Knicks in the court of public opinion and on the basketball court. The decision to exile Marbury, a former All-Star, but not waive him has made team officials appear petty. Meanwhile, they are wasting a roster spot at a time when they are desperate for reinforcements.
The two trades left the Knicks with just three guards — Chris Duhon, Nate Robinson and Anthony Roberson. Guard Cuttino Mobley, who was acquired in one of the deals, has not been cleared to play because of a heart condition that may be career-ending. Robinson strained a groin muscle Tuesday and was forced to sit out Wednesday’s game.
According to a person in the N.B.A. who was briefed on the conversation between D’Antoni and Marbury on Wednesday night, D’Antoni offered Marbury a chance to start at shooting guard and told him that if it went well, he might play for the rest of the season. Marbury responded that he did not want to play. When D’Antoni suggested that he was making a bad decision, Marbury replied, “I’ll decide what’s best for me.”
At the moment, both sides are losing. The Knicks have lost five of their last six games and are 1-3 since making the trades. Marbury, who turns 32 in February, is losing the chance to prove to N.B.A. executives that he can still be productive and, more critically, not a distraction to his team.
It was, in part, Marbury’s history of conflict — including clashes with his last two coaches, Larry Brown and Isiah Thomas — that made D’Antoni decide not to trust him with a rotation spot. Not a single player objected.
So Marbury’s outcast status has been cemented and his separation from the team may soon become permanent. If D’Antoni hoped to avoid controversy by exiling Marbury, he clearly failed. He said he had no regrets.
“I thought we had a great team on the floor, a good team that played well and hard together,” D’Antoni said Friday, referring to the team that started 6-3 without Marbury. “I thought we were showing signs of being pretty good.”
The Knicks have one advantage now over prior flare-ups between Marbury and Brown or Marbury and Thomas. Having long ago pushed Marbury to the side, D’Antoni guaranteed that any Marbury-related conflict would have minimal impact on the Knicks’ locker room.
“I don’t think it was a big effect,” Quentin Richardson said Friday, when asked whether the standoff was distracting the players. “I don’t think it was pulling us down or pulling us up, one way or the other. Whatever has happened has run its course and it is what it is.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/29/sp...ref=basketball
Marbury responds, "I got shot in the head by my own guys in my foxhole".
By MARC BERMAN
NY POST
UGLY EXIT: Stephon Marbury, expected to get bought out by the Knicks today, ripped coach Mike D'Antoni as well as Quentin Richardson (far right), saying the latter hasn't been a loyal teammate.
Last updated: 6:34 am
December 1, 2008
Posted: 1:35 am
December 1, 2008
On the eve of today's Westchester buyout summit with team president Donnie Walsh that is expected to put an end to his turbulent five-year New York Knickscareer, suspended Stephon Marbury
MORE: Marbury Gives Duhon Kudos
MORE: Knicks Blog
Marbury's inability to get himself to trust coach Mike D'Antoni or his mates any longer has the Coney Islander eager to reach a financial settlement with the Knicks today so he can sign a contract elsewhere.
The depleted Knicks are just as desperate, so they can free up a roster spot to sign a shooting guard or Patrick Ewing Jr.
According to a source, Players Association attorney Hal Biagas has contacted teams to gauge interest, with Miami high on Marbury's list. Knicks brass may ask Marbury not to sign with Pat Riley as part of the settlement. Marbury said he's off to Los Angeles for a week of training, to get back into game shape, after the sides agree on a settlement.
Marbury also yesterday ripped D'Antoni for "disrespecting" him, and criticized Walsh for not hearing his side of the story before levying $400,000 worth of fines relating to Marbury's alleged refusal to play last Wednesday in Detroit.
In another exclusive interview with The Post, Marbury said, "I sat there for three weeks and didn't say one word. I didn't hear one of my teammates say, 'Why isn't Stephon Marbury playing? This is a good system for him, even to play with the second unit to bring more firepower.'
"When things got bad and then worse, guys like Quentin Richardson say, 'I don't consider him a teammate. He let his teammates out to dry.' He didn't care I was his teammate when I was banished. They left me out for dead. It's like we're in a foxhole and I'm facing the other way. If I got shot in the head, at least you want to get shot by the enemy. I got shot in the head by my own guys in my foxhole. And they didn't even give me an honorable death."
Marbury is anxious to move on, even if it draws the wrath of the majority of New York Knicks
Then on Friday, Walsh fined and suspended Marbury. On Thanksgiving, Walsh interviewed D'Antoni and spoke to NBA and Garden attorneys. He never spoke to Marbury.
"He suspended me without hearing both sides," Marbury said. "That wasn't fair. He took it upon himself to fine me without even speaking to me."
Walsh called Marbury on Friday morning with news of the suspension, Marbury said.
"He said he spoke to my coach and my coach has no reason to lie to me - he hasn't lied to me yet," Marbury said, quoting Walsh.
"I said, 'He's lied to you now.' "
Marbury furthered his dispute on the fine that's based on their Detroit conversation.
"Mike gave the option to play," Marbury said. "He couldn't come to me man to man and say you have to play. It was an option."
Marbury said he was skeptical of D'Antoni's offer - following the Knicks' recent trades - to be the starting shooting guard, and wondered if the offer was Walsh's doing. The Knicks still are awaiting word on Cuttino Mobley's status, with signs pointing to his heart condition being career-ending.
"Mike had no intentions of me playing basketball here," Marbury said. "He gave me straight disrespect. It was beyond disrespect. He put in (Danilo) Gallinari, whose back is messed up and [who] didn't participate at all in training camp ahead of me [in the opener]. . . . That's saying I'm letting you have it right now. He was sticking it to me."
D'Antoni said his decision to move on without Marbury was right at the time. Sources said Marbury's teammates wanted him off the team during the summer, and told D'Antoni such.
"I'm not foolproof in any decision you make," D'Antoni said Saturday. "I think I realized everything that could happen. Now, I probably didn't realize the perfect storm of everybody being hurt and making a trade and the guy not being here."
Marbury said he was ready to run through a wall for D'Antoni this season.
"He knew I was in my contract year and did everything they asked me to do," Marbury said. "He's not trying to help me. He was trying to hurt me."
I absolutely agree but you don't give a guy an option to play or not play then fine hime when he chooses the latter. If he was told to play and he refused then of course he should be fined, that's apart of your contract but that's not what they said happened nor Marbury so why fine him.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
