????? Danny Ainge requested special permission to do so...
Craig Sager just reported that fact during the Suns/Lakers game....
What happened to the integrity of the league??? I guess it's OK to break the rules if you are the Celtics or the Lakers... The league 'looks the other way' for them...
Much like the Pau Gasol collusion last year...
Meh, I imagine anyone could have gotten permission if they requested it. The Marbury situation was pretty unique as he was essentially no longer part of the Knicks. It was well established they did not want him around anymore, I don't see how it's tampering when it was already well known he was leaving one way or the other.
hmmm...
Who gives a , how about we just watch the Spurs kick their ass?????? Danny Ainge requested special permission to do so...
Craig Sager just reported that fact during the Suns/Lakers game....
What happened to the integrity of the league??? I guess it's OK to break the rules if you are the Celtics or the Lakers... The league 'looks the other way' for them...
Much like the Pau Gasol collusion last year...
Hopefully he tears that team apart...
They enforced the letter of the law against Phoenix when they suspended two players in the playoffs against the Spurs.
Now Marbury can be included in their playoff roster. Bending the rule may not have mattered in terms of him leaving. But it did impact where he went and more importantly WHEN he went.
I still can't get worked up about it. I'm pretty sure the tampering rules are there to protect the team and to help enforce the contract the team has with a player. It would be much easier for a player to demand a trade or more importantly attempt to force a buyout if he knew he was able to negotiate ahead of time and land on his feet with the franchise of his choice. If the Knicks intended to keep Marbury and wanted him to honor his contract to play basketball, then there would be a problem.
The Knicks made it painfully clear that they wanted no part of Marbury, and in fact the only reason he hadn't been released yet was because they were trying to negotiate a lower buy out figure. Under no cir stances were they keeping him or asking him to play ball again. In fact he was specifically asked to stay away from the team. I've no love for Marbury, but under those conditions I have no problem with him talking to other teams while still under "contract" with the Knicks.
my guess is because the knicks gave starbury permission to 'talk' to other teams.
Let the Celtics have him. It's moments like this when it is good to have the Spurs FO slow and steady approach and not react like fools.
I think the Knicks gave Marbury permission to talk with other teams...so it wasn't anything shady I don't think.
The rant was more or less triggered by memories of last year's collusion between Memphis/Jerry West and Los Angeles in the Pau Gasol deal.
It's not a level playing field when your team gets handed an all-star player for nothing but scrubs... and the league pretends that nothing was out of the ordinary. No one but the Lakers were made aware that Gasol was even available - they could have received better offers from other teams had such offer been extended.
As much as I hate the current version of the Celtics, I'm glad Phil's team was humiliated in the Finals. Furthermore, the league was finally able to see that today's NBA Finals ratings are not a function of the Spurs' presence... but moreso a product of today's DirecTV/Dish Network society (there are 100 times more viewing options today than there were 10 years ago - so each channel gets less of the shares).
But Memphis was shedding salary!!! Lakerfan says. Right! Like I'm supposed to buy into the fact that Memphis' management was smart enough to foresee our current economic depression... when they're not even smart enough to stay afloat as a productive product/franchise.
By not investigating the collusion, the league basically handed LA a finals appearance.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
