Marbury wants to play now

[Luv those Knicks]

As a fan, seeing this depleated team on the floor and Q Rich as our starting SG - I want Marbury to play, and I think a lot of people feel that way.

But as a realist, I respect Dantoni's decision, and I recognize that there's enough of a conflict underway that it may not be possible.

if Marbs won't take a buyout then Walsh may as well hold onto him at least till the trade deadline. It's not like anybody we sign from the D league would get major minutes.

[KnickRider]

what you are saying is pure bullshyt. why may you ask. because both roberson and broke back gallinari got PT over steph. then there is the fact that steph was CLEARLY the best guard on the team. even mardy got PT over steph
the fact of the matter is that they shatted on steph and now its coming back to bite them in the ass. had they offered a buy out in the summer or as SOON as they took charge of the team he very well may have taken it.
the fact of the matter is they are factually obligated to pay this dude 21+ mil this year. while we all say thats a lot of money and whats a little less. if your paycheck was for 2k and your boss said ill give you 1800 you would burn the building to the ground. then you add in the fact that he has been trying to play you and diss you to everybody you know in the process. after you burn the building down you might slap his moms in the face
then there is the other fact. if you are going to send him home for the season WITH pay. HOW THE **** IS THAT ANY DIFFERENT FROM WAIVING HIM.

everything you said is bullshyt and you know it. end of story

A few things:

Steph is the most talented guard on the roster. That doesn't make him the best player. The Knicks didn't and don't need him.

The difference between Marbury and guys like Gallo, Mardy, Q, and Roberson is that all of those players were willing to accept whatever role was given to them, listen to the coach, and do it without being a disruption. Steph came out and said that he wouldn't come off the bench, and even took it further with comments about being willing to backup someone like Rondo in Boston.

What D'Antoni said a couple weeks ago about things having to be all or nothing with Steph is absolutely true. You either start him or you don't play him at all. After evaluating him in the pre-season and deciding to go with a traditional PG as his starter instead, D'Antoni essentially had no role for Steph.

now your going in completely different directions, but its still irrelivent to the situation though. you knew from day 1 when you joined the organization that steph was not gonna play. how did you know that. when you signed duhon and let the world know he was gonna be the starter.
so with all that said you still should have settled this situation 6mo ago. steph should have never started this season in a knick uniform. donnie and company dropped the ball there. now steph has the entire organization at gun point and rightfully so.
they owe him money and they need to pay that money. there is no reason on his part he should accept a buy out. and if NOBODY wants him around and you are willing to banish him from the team for the entire season then there is no reason you should not just waive him either. the only reason you would banish him with pay instead of waiving him is out of spite and hate

[Deeeez Knicks]

If management handled this the appropriate way and waived him before the season or played him instead of embarrassing him to see where his loyalties lie like a f*cking lab rat experiment, then Marbury would have NO supporters in this situation and we could begin the "Q-Rich gets himself ejected because he's not a team player" era.

But..... Walsh says he doesn't buy out players, tells Steph to come to camp in great shape (which he does) and says everyone gets a clean slate and doesn't consult with D'Antoni who....made his mind up not to play Steph form jumpstreet based on his previous experience with him, let's the world know that Marbury is not part of the team despite what Walsh said, pats himself on the back during the wins but EXPECTS loyalty in dire times as....Q-Rich get's to call out his nemesis for not being there for his teammates when Q-Rich has NEVER spoken up for Marbury (probably never viewed him as a teammate ) even though Q-Rich has been charmed with undeserved playtime and done nothing to effectively call himself a leader except get himself ejected when he realizes he's getting spanked

Yeah, I can see where Marbury is coming from.

It works both ways. Marbury said this before the season started:

"I'm not coming off the bench here in New York," Marbury said.

"Why is (a buyout) even an issue," Marbury said. "It's my contract. I earned it. I wouldn't take a penny less."

"It shouldn't matter if I go to a team in the same conference or a rival team," Marbury said.

Your pretending like Marbury is innocent. He should have kept his mouth shut. Instead he made a list of demands. His clean slate went out the door. How is a new coach who had issues with Marbury before supposed to react to that?

Now he's making more demands. A display of selfishness.

Knicks arent innocent either and havent handled the situation well, but Marbury brought much of this upon himself.

Also, Knicks started off playing well. You cant argue with results. Duhon, Crawford and Nate were willing to accept there roles, buy into D'Antoni's system, and the Knicks were WINNING. Nobody knew if Marbury could do those things especially considering he didnt buy into D'Antoni's system the 1st time around, and he didnt buy into what LB, Lenny and Isiah were doing and had issues with them. Marbury is too self centered and egotistical to care that the team was doing well. He only cared about himself and his minutes. When he got his chance to finally prove that he cared about the team and franchise more then himself, his ego and his beef with D'Antoni he blew it. And he was actually lucky to get ANY chance this year with the Knicks.

Marbury also followed that up by saying"

I will come off the bench. I will play behind Duhon if that's what coach wants.

And D'Antoni chuckled and brushed that to the side jokingly. Why? Whether Marbury's initial quote was stupid or not, his impact is far better than Q-Rich, Collin, Roberson, James, Curry, etc., etc. and the gesture, those words coming from Marbury's mouth NO MATTER how late, are at least a sign that he will play for the better of the team and words he had NEVER said previously. You take signs of progress regarless how small they are. If Jamal saw no problems with Marbury, I don't get what the big deal is. It seems D'Antoni's feelings fall in line with guys like Q-Rich and Malik which are silly when you consider what their actual contributions have been during their Knick career. NOTHING.

Of course D'Antoni chuckled at that. Nobody can defend those initial comments. And every other day Marbury says something different. How can you take him serious or count on him? Marbury is just crazy. Considering his shaky past his best move would have been to STFU and not make demands through Berman BEFORE THE SEASON EVEN STARTED. Yet he is still making demands to this day through Berman and flip flopping back and forth.

Bottom line, if he doesnt like how he's being treated then accept the buyout. It was more then fair compared to the numerous other buyouts that occur around the league.

[mjhp911]

He's trying to force Walsh's hand, obviously. We should just release him already. Just have him sign something saying he won't sign with an Eastern team. We get the roster spot, save about 2.5MM, and rid ourselves of the headache. While it would be nice to just tell him to stay home, it's obvious he's going to contest that, through the Player's Association. Some want to fight that, and maybe we have a good case. But why prolong that drama further? It's just going to extend the circus further. We really don't want a battle waged in the press, and/or the courts. Just release him already. Save ourselves the agony. It's time to cut the chord... yesterday.

[JohnStarksTheDunk]

what you are saying is pure bullshyt. why may you ask. because both roberson and broke back gallinari got PT over steph. then there is the fact that steph was CLEARLY the best guard on the team. even mardy got PT over steph
the fact of the matter is that they shatted on steph and now its coming back to bite them in the ass. had they offered a buy out in the summer or as SOON as they took charge of the team he very well may have taken it.
the fact of the matter is they are factually obligated to pay this dude 21+ mil this year. while we all say thats a lot of money and whats a little less. if your paycheck was for 2k and your boss said ill give you 1800 you would burn the building to the ground. then you add in the fact that he has been trying to play you and diss you to everybody you know in the process. after you burn the building down you might slap his moms in the face
then there is the other fact. if you are going to send him home for the season WITH pay. HOW THE **** IS THAT ANY DIFFERENT FROM WAIVING HIM.

everything you said is bullshyt and you know it. end of story

A few things:

Steph is the most talented guard on the roster. That doesn't make him the best player. The Knicks didn't and don't need him.

The difference between Marbury and guys like Gallo, Mardy, Q, and Roberson is that all of those players were willing to accept whatever role was given to them, listen to the coach, and do it without being a disruption. Steph came out and said that he wouldn't come off the bench, and even took it further with comments about being willing to backup someone like Rondo in Boston.

What D'Antoni said a couple weeks ago about things having to be all or nothing with Steph is absolutely true. You either start him or you don't play him at all. After evaluating him in the pre-season and deciding to go with a traditional PG as his starter instead, D'Antoni essentially had no role for Steph.

now your going in completely different directions, but its still irrelivent to the situation though. you knew from day 1 when you joined the organization that steph was not gonna play. how did you know that. when you signed duhon and let the world know he was gonna be the starter.
so with all that said you still should have settled this situation 6mo ago. steph should have never started this season in a knick uniform. donnie and company dropped the ball there. now steph has the entire organization at gun point and rightfully so.
they owe him money and they need to pay that money. there is no reason on his part he should accept a buy out. and if NOBODY wants him around and you are willing to banish him from the team for the entire season then there is no reason you should not just waive him either. the only reason you would banish him with pay instead of waiving him is out of spite and hate

Duhon was brought in to be the starter, because we didn't have a true starting PG. Before he was brought in, however, we didn't know that Steph was going to publicly refuse to accept a bench role -- he didn't make those comments until after Duhon was signed.

Steph started this season in a Knick uniform because they made it clear (and still have) that they weren't going to flat out waive him, and because they weren't able to trade him before the season started. They weren't at the point where they were ready to buy him out, so perhaps that was their biggest mistake going into the season, but we have no idea if Steph would have accept a buyout then anyway.

No one is being held at gun point. Marbs still has no leverage to be able to say "waive me or play me". The Knicks don't have to do either of those.

[mjhp911]

Marbs still has no leverage to be able to say "waive me or play me".

But he can try and work his way back onto the bench, even in street clothes. Right now he's at home. But if he has the Player's Association contest Walsh's edict that he stay home, things can get ugly again. Yeah, we probably have a good case. But why chance it? Just cut our losses already. We shouldn't get dragged into this further, IMHO.

[JohnStarksTheDunk]

Marbs still has no leverage to be able to say "waive me or play me".

But he can try and work his way back onto the bench, even in street clothes. Right now he's at home. But if he has the Player's Association contest Walsh's edict that he stay home, things can get ugly again. Yeah, we probably have a good case. But why chance it? Just cut our losses already. We shouldn't get dragged into this further, IMHO.

Yeah, I understand what you're saying, but really, how much uglier can this get? When he was on the bench earlier in the season, isn't that the time that Jamal Crawford has said wasn't a distraction?

The primary reason to not just waive him now is not really one of spite, but rather, one of principle: do not reward a player who is trying to force management's hand. Donnie Walsh is in charge; not Stephon Marbury. As others have said, Steph wants to have it both ways -- to get his entire paycheck AND have the freedom to play elsewhere. If he's going to continue to be a thorn in their side and make things uglier, then he should not be rewarded for it.

We do probably have a good case, but if it turns out we don't, then waiving him is a more feasible option. Why not wait and see?

[mjhp911]

Yeah, I understand what you're saying, but really, how much uglier can this get? When he was on the bench earlier in the season, isn't that the time that Jamal Crawford has said wasn't a distraction?

The primary reason to not just waive him now is not really one of spite, but rather, one of principle: do not reward a player who is trying to force management's hand. Donnie Walsh is in charge; not Stephon Marbury. As others have said, Steph wants to have it both ways -- to get his entire paycheck AND have the freedom to play elsewhere. If he's going to continue to be a thorn in their side and make things uglier, then he should not be rewarded for it.

We do probably have a good case, but if it turns out we don't, then waiving him is a more feasible option. Why not wait and see?

Because in a vacuum, all of what you're saying makes sense... but we're not in a vacuum. As a franchise, we're trying to move away from the circus-like atmosphere that has inundated our franchise for several years now. Management thought they had a good case against Anucha too. And maybe we do in this case. But why chance it? Just pay him to go away already. We should have taken care of this over the summer. The longer we prolong it, the uglier it can get, and the worse we can look. It's not worth the agony, IMHO.

[Jmonty580]

Yeah, I understand what you're saying, but really, how much uglier can this get? When he was on the bench earlier in the season, isn't that the time that Jamal Crawford has said wasn't a distraction?

The primary reason to not just waive him now is not really one of spite, but rather, one of principle: do not reward a player who is trying to force management's hand. Donnie Walsh is in charge; not Stephon Marbury. As others have said, Steph wants to have it both ways -- to get his entire paycheck AND have the freedom to play elsewhere. If he's going to continue to be a thorn in their side and make things uglier, then he should not be rewarded for it.

We do probably have a good case, but if it turns out we don't, then waiving him is a more feasible option. Why not wait and see?

Because in a vacuum, all of what you're saying makes sense... but we're not in a vacuum. As a franchise, we're trying to move away from the circus-like atmosphere that has inundated our franchise for several years now. Management thought they had a good case against Anucha too. And maybe we do in this case. But why chance it? Just pay him to go away already. We should have taken care of this over the summer. The longer we prolong it, the uglier it can get, and the worse we can look. It's not worth the agony, IMHO.

PERFECTLY SAID. I agree with that 100%. Lets move on, why keep this up when the Knicks can give him his little money and move on? Lets move on to a different era, right now we are stuck in limbo.

[BBALLER4FR]

Yeah, I understand what you're saying, but really, how much uglier can this get? When he was on the bench earlier in the season, isn't that the time that Jamal Crawford has said wasn't a distraction?

The primary reason to not just waive him now is not really one of spite, but rather, one of principle: do not reward a player who is trying to force management's hand. Donnie Walsh is in charge; not Stephon Marbury. As others have said, Steph wants to have it both ways -- to get his entire paycheck AND have the freedom to play elsewhere. If he's going to continue to be a thorn in their side and make things uglier, then he should not be rewarded for it.

We do probably have a good case, but if it turns out we don't, then waiving him is a more feasible option. Why not wait and see?

Because in a vacuum, all of what you're saying makes sense... but we're not in a vacuum. As a franchise, we're trying to move away from the circus-like atmosphere that has inundated our franchise for several years now. Management thought they had a good case against Anucha too. And maybe we do in this case. But why chance it? Just pay him to go away already. We should have taken care of this over the summer. The longer we prolong it, the uglier it can get, and the worse we can look. It's not worth the agony, IMHO.

Whatever you are selling, I'd like to subscribe to good sir.

[JohnStarksTheDunk]

Because in a vacuum, all of what you're saying makes sense... but we're not in a vacuum. As a franchise, we're trying to move away from the circus-like atmosphere that has inundated our franchise for several years now. Management thought they had a good case against Anucha too. And maybe we do in this case. But why chance it? Just pay him to go away already. We should have taken care of this over the summer. The longer we prolong it, the uglier it can get, and the worse we can look. It's not worth the agony, IMHO.

Yeah, good point. However, if he's sent home, and the league allows it, then he's away from the team and things can die down.

If they don't allow it, then yeah, it's probably best to waive him -- but with the stipulation that he cannot sign with another EC team.

[StutterStep]

If the Knicks want to play a game, then they also have that right, but to me your talking about the most valuable franchise in the NBA (from a worth standpoint) in the most attention payed market anywhere, and your nickle and diming our petty crap. The Knicks are not going to be in a finanical nightmare if they pay Marbury every penny of his contract just to get lost. You think saving 1 or 3 million dollars for the rest of the seaon really means anything to the Knicks? I must laugh at that. This is all a personal matter, not a business matter. The Knicks want marbury gone, but they want to stick the knife in his back and wiggle it around for a while before they finish him off. Marbury is insulted and he wants to get a few good punches in if he is going down. Thats all this whole thing is. Marbury is a disgruntled employee. The Knicks caused him to be be disgruntled with his reduced role, and D'Antoni ackowledges and apologizes for that and the situation. D'Antoni says that Marbury is put into a situation that isnt fair to HIM. Mike is admitting that marbury is the victim in all of this, they just want to stick it to marbury and Marbury wants to bite back.

I just think its bad management to let personal matters dictate business moves. Its in everyones best interested for Marbury to go away at any cost right now (being that he is in the last year of his contract and since we wont be trading him, nothing really matters). Keeping Marbury here with pay is as simple as embarassing him and punishing him because you dont like him, the problem is it comes at the expense of the team, and of the Knicks as an organizations imagine. there is no benefit to keeping marbury here, non what so ever, there is nothing including money from the Knicks standpoint that should keep im in NY. Pay him 21.9 million and tell him to hit the road. Put the team ahead of personal petty mattters.

+10000000000000000000

The thing is that it was not a well-thought out decision from the get-go! MikeD saw that we were blowing out the HEAT in game ONE of the season, and he started smelling himself. He figured, "I don't need Steph". But when the fans started chanting for Steph, he wanted to take on the fans, so he put everyone BUT Steph in the game.

Afterward, he tried to tell the media that there was no story. It wasn't until the NEXT DAY after he met with Steph that he came out trotting that story about "going in another direction." WHO? WHAT? WHEN? WHERE? WHY? did Donnie Walsh agree to this? For a player making 21million dollars?

Donnie NEVER AGREED TO THIS! and showed as much when asked about it! So, when we were winning the story read nicely and ALL OF THE PLAYERS were with it!

Then BOOM the trade happens, we're short-handed! Instead of telling Steph that he's back for the year, MikeD tells him that he needs him for the night! He approached Steph like dude was some cheap 2dollar ho! And, that's the problem with the scenario!

Forget the "quotes" being fed to the media! LOOK AT THE SITUATION FOR WHAT IT IS!

[richardhutnik]

Marbury has been doing a really good job this year of NOT making it all about him. The New York Media is making it all about Marbury, not Marbury. Your getting it all twistsed. Marbury has done nothing to distract this team and draw attention to himself. If you want to blame anyone, blame Walsh for not handling this whole thing before the season started. Perhaps he underestimated the Ny media, or he was just plain stuborn. Either way, Walsh created this problem in conjuction with D'Antoni (cant really say what role Mike had in this as I dont know how well Mike and Walsh commincate), Marbury really is an innocent victum who showed up to play and was placed on the bench. Put your feelings of the guy aside and look at what happened. How can you blame Marbury?

Can you tell me ONE time in the history of Marbury in the NBA you could blame him for anything. Do you know ANY time? Name it.

In regards to Marbury, he named two options:
1. Play him
2. Release him

Oh there are others:
3. Put him on the inactive list until the end of the year.
4. Trade him at the trading deadline for a contract that expires next season, that would help the Knicks.

There is also retirement and other things.

- Rich

[JohnStarksTheDunk]

+10000000000000000000

The thing is that it was not a well-thought out decision from the get-go! MikeD saw that we were blowing out the HEAT in game ONE of the season, and he started smelling himself. He figured, "I don't need Steph". But when the fans started chanting for Steph, he wanted to take on the fans, so he put everyone BUT Steph in the game.

Afterward, he tried to tell the media that there was no story. It wasn't until the NEXT DAY after he met with Steph that he came out trotting that story about "going in another direction." WHO? WHAT? WHEN? WHERE? WHY? did Donnie Walsh agree to this? For a player making 21million dollars?

Donnie NEVER AGREED TO THIS! and showed as much when asked about it! So, when we were winning the story read nicely and ALL OF THE PLAYERS were with it!

Then BOOM the trade happens, we're short-handed! Instead of telling Steph that he's back for the year, MikeD tells him that he needs him for the night! He approached Steph like dude was some cheap 2dollar ho! And, that's the problem with the scenario!

Forget the "quotes" being fed to the media! LOOK AT THE SITUATION FOR WHAT IT IS!

Didn't D'Antoni already say that he would ONLY play Steph if we were short-handed? Why would he tell him he was back for the season, when he had already made clear that he wasn't going to bring Marbs back for the season, and would only call on him in a special circumstance? Nate was injured, we had traded Crawford and Mardy, and Mobley hadn't passed a physical yet. That was a special circumstance, where he wanted Steph for the night.

He had already said he was going to treat him like a 22 million dollar ho, and would only call upon him when absolutely necessary.

[TKF]

PERFECTLY SAID. I agree with that 100%. Lets move on, why keep this up when the Knicks can give him his little money and move on? Lets move on to a different era, right now we are stuck in limbo.

actually not. this is not the anucha brown case, where sexual harrasment cases always ends up ugly. this is completely different. The knicks not taking care of that, especially with everything that went on behind the scenes was foolish... And they would have probably won the case had dolan not fired her right away..

this case is about setting precedents. We won't be bullied into buyouts of this nature. It is not good business. You want to leave, you have to sacrafice some of that money. It is smart business. In the end, the knicks will still be the most valuable franchise, FA's will always come here to take our money, and steph will be a memory. This hurts steph now and in the long run. The knicks have their future pretty much set, and they are ahead of last years 23 wins by a good margin, at this rate they are on target to win 37 games, that is if they don't improve from their .450 winning%. things are looking up..

Marbury is only a problem to guys on this forum,Q and the media. The guys are still playing hard and they seem to not be bothered. D'antoni is still coaching and marbury should be the furthest thing from our minds. Let walsh deal with this, it is only as big as you guys make it.... right now he was told to stay home.. Great, now lets concentrate on these next two games...

[richardhutnik]

Marbs still has no leverage to be able to say "waive me or play me".

But he can try and work his way back onto the bench, even in street clothes. Right now he's at home. But if he has the Player's Association contest Walsh's edict that he stay home, things can get ugly again. Yeah, we probably have a good case. But why chance it? Just cut our losses already. We shouldn't get dragged into this further, IMHO.

The only "loss" the Knicks have by not buying out Marbury for every penny he is owned, is the lack of a roster spot. That is it. They still take a cap hit, etc... Oh, argue that the Knicks are suffering bad public image? Well, it has been bad, and only winning will impact this. What do they lose by mothballing Marbury? Almost nothing. By cutting him, they lose a GIANT expiring contract. This is one reason why Walsh says he trades away his problems, he doesn't buy them out. Marbury, the beginning of November, said he didn't need an agent, because he wasn't going anywhere.

This problem is far worse because Marbury doesn't have an agent who could work behind the scenes to have things happen for his benefit.

- Rich

[RutgersBJJ]

i hate this piece of trash. He has quit on this team multiple times. BUT, if he apologizes to his teammates and admits not playing when they were short-handed was a gutter trash move. I would be for him starting at SG for the remainder of the season.

Though I bet he refuses to apologize and sees nothing wrong with what he has done. I doubt he has apologized to his teammates for the bull from last year. And I would also ask him to grow his hair out so i don't have to see that (Please Use More Appropriate Word) tattoo.


If Mobley really isn't going to play for us, not onlydoes that change my opinion on whether Marbury should be a part of this team, but it also completely changes my opinion on that trade. That was a terrible **** trade. The only reason I liked it was because we were getting a versatile player in Thomas, and a great shooter who was also a good defender in mobley.

Let this idiot play this season. If he plays well, offer him a 1 year extension for max dollars for 2009, then let him walk in 2010.

[KnickRider]

Marbs still has no leverage to be able to say "waive me or play me".

But he can try and work his way back onto the bench, even in street clothes. Right now he's at home. But if he has the Player's Association contest Walsh's edict that he stay home, things can get ugly again. Yeah, we probably have a good case. But why chance it? Just cut our losses already. We shouldn't get dragged into this further, IMHO.

Yeah, I understand what you're saying, but really, how much uglier can this get? When he was on the bench earlier in the season, isn't that the time that Jamal Crawford has said wasn't a distraction?

The primary reason to not just waive him now is not really one of spite, but rather, one of principle: do not reward a player who is trying to force management's hand. Donnie Walsh is in charge; not Stephon Marbury. As others have said, Steph wants to have it both ways -- to get his entire paycheck AND have the freedom to play elsewhere. If he's going to continue to be a thorn in their side and make things uglier, then he should not be rewarded for it.

We do probably have a good case, but if it turns out we don't, then waiving him is a more feasible option. Why not wait and see?

dude the knicks dont have any case what so ever. they can only do 1 of 3 things. pay him, play him or sit him on the bench
1 way or another he is getting 21.3mil that he is contractually obligated, unless he decides to take a buy out. contrary to what you would like to believe donnie is not in charge here. he is playing the 1 little card he has to play but its not gonna last him too much longer

[Brownsville's Finest]

On friday he said "the marriage is over, I can't play for a coach I can't trust, I wouldn't trust him to walk my dog", he ripped his coach and his teammates and now he wants the team to play him ? LOL

WOW !!!! Unbelievable ! This dude needs medical help ASAP !

I could do that to:

The first dozen games he said "We are moving on. It's a tough situation for everybody", he plays Roberson ahead of him, doesn't let Marbury play a single minute and then he wanted Marbury to play for him? LOL

WOW !!!! Unbelievable ! This dude needs medical help ASAP !

Just sayin' it can go both ways kos and you know it.

exactly lol

[JohnStarksTheDunk]

dude the knicks dont have any case what so ever. they can only do 1 of 3 things. pay him, play him or sit him on the bench
1 way or another he is getting 21.3mil that he is contractually obligated, unless he decides to take a buy out. contrary to what you would like to believe donnie is not in charge here. he is playing the 1 little card he has to play but its not gonna last him too much longer

LOL. Yeah, Steph is in charge here. He says he wants to either play or get waived. The Knicks don't have to do either of those.

What card does Marbury have? Accept a buyout or rot on the bench/at home.