RealGM

MEETING ARRANGED TO HANDLE MARBURY, KNICKS DISPUTE

....Marbury has offered to drop his appeal of the $400,000 fine if the Knicks accept his $1 million giveback. But Knicks president Donnie Walsh has not budged, perhaps wary of him joining the Celtics or Heat. Marbury has told The Post he has a verbal commitment from the Celtics.......


The Post has learned a hearing has been arranged in New York on Feb. 24 that may require Mike D'Antoni to miss a Knicks practice to testify against Marbury, who was banned from the team after being docked $400,000 in pay.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/02132009/sp ... 154928.htm

The Knicks are in the drivers seat with this one and are changing the way the team operates. Under IsahThomas the team was a mess and Walsh is going to change their image.

bceltic55 wrote:The Knicks are in the drivers seat with this one and are changing the way the team operates. Under IsahThomas the team was a mess and Walsh is going to change their image.

Yeah...that's why the Pacers got rid of Walsh in favor of Bird and the Pacers have lost 200 million with Walsh running the show there....don't believe the hype.....

ps...http://www.realgm.com/src_wiretap_archi ... ost_$200m/

Honestly, why does Walsh care if Marbury goes to Boston or NJ? It's not like the Knicks are contending for a title this year? It seems way more as a PR move and to save face so he wouldn't have to, say, see Marbury win a title with Boston and rub NY's nose in it. Time for Walsh to grow the **** up and just end this ****...not that I even care if Marbury comes to the C's or not, but just end it...

He's just waiting out the deadline imo. Why not if there's a chance he gets a decent salary dump.

It's not really so much that the Knicks don't want Marbury to win the title. It's more along the lines of not wanting to see Marbury come off the bench and play against the Knicks in the 1st round of the playoffs. If he plays well, the NY media will have a field day writing about how the Knicks should have played him during the regular season to increase his trade value, rather than letting him go to Beantown and destroy Chris Duhon.

I'm of the view that Walsh is going to play hardball with Marbs until the deadline in case his contract can be used in a trade, and then they'll save whatever money they can in a buy out. As for being stubborn, I don't blame the Knicks one bit, they don't owe Marbury anything (other than his grossly inflated and largely unearned salary), I wouldn't blame them if they wait it out and make sure he can't play on a play-off roster as a little f-u to Marbs. (I'm hoping Marbs doesn't come here, my girlfriend can't stand him so bad that she said she might not be able to root for the C's if he signs... which means I'd have to go through the trouble of finding a new girlfriend )

Lets all get real there is no reason for the Knicks to do Steph any favors. I don't think this is just Walsh this is Dolan, as well and they may both have two separate agendas, and D'Antoni makes it 3.

The fact that Marbs got a hearing that soon is good for him because he is going to win and then he has a case that the Knicks are doing him and his career harm even to the extent they are hurting their own team and he will have grounds, even if he doesn't have a winner, to sue. They suspended him without cause, and while they don't even want him around the team, they will not negotiate a buyout of his contract that will save them money and free up a roster spot to help. This isn't likely a winner but at least it will be another circus of testimony and nonsense that the Knicks don't really need and it will likely cost them even more money, but that they have.

I would like to have a Boston/New York first round series, if Boston can clinch the top seed and New York can even make it. The perception is that Milwaukee will eventually fade from that last seed. Besides, I enjoy Pierce and company proving Quentin Richardson wrong. He talks while Boston wins. Marbury would just add to the conversation for the media but I don't think he'll be a distraction for Boston. Because he knows he can't go Starbury with the Celtics and would be content with irking New York simply by being on the winning side.

sully00 wrote:Lets all get real there is no reason for the Knicks to do Steph any favors. I don't think this is just Walsh this is Dolan, as well and they may both have two separate agendas, and D'Antoni makes it 3.

I agree here, Marbury's being paid handsomely to watch basketball, I do that for free. Sure I'd like to get out there and have a chance at a ring but if you're going to pay me 20M just to sit there and look stupid with a big tattoo on my head I'm all for it and would consider that a favor in itself.

CeltsfanSinceBirth wrote:It's not really so much that the Knicks don't want Marbury to win the title. It's more along the lines of not wanting to see Marbury come off the bench and play against the Knicks in the 1st round of the playoffs. If he plays well, the NY media will have a field day writing about how the Knicks should have played him during the regular season to increase his trade value, rather than letting him go to Beantown and destroy Chris Duhon.

Knicks are not going to make the play-offs this year. I really doubt that the Knicks release him. I mean what is another couple of million dollars to the knicks already inflated payroll? It has turned into a pissing match and right now the knicks appear to be holding all the cards.

I can't and do not want to make any kind of defense of Marbs but I do think the idea of teams banishing players indefinitely is crap. If it is a mutual thing fine and if a guy is being a total clown in the aftermath of a trade demand then suspend him. But this practice of banishing guys from the facilities indefinetly and in a sense suspending their careers is wrong. Yeah they are still getting paid but just because your boss pays you doesn't mean he can make you wear a saddle and ball gag in his office all day. The players have other financial interests that are impacted. The Bulls have made a habit of this with players in recent years Tim Thomas and this year Larry Hughes, as has Donny Walsh and Larry Bird in IND.

Obviously the NBA trade rules make trades complicated, so something like baseball's designated for assignment practice would be difficult. But in the least it should be made a fact if you banish someone like this you have until the trade deadline to move them and if you can't then they have to be released minus only the earnings they replace in salary during the time period of the contract. If a guy is so valuable as a trade asset then treat him as such.

Marbury is not going to wear a Celtics uniform so stop worrying about it. It ain't going to happen.

sully00 wrote:I can't and do not want to make any kind of defense of Marbs but I do think the idea of teams banishing players indefinitely is crap. If it is a mutual thing fine and if a guy is being a total clown in the aftermath of a trade demand then suspend him. But this practice of banishing guys from the facilities indefinetly and in a sense suspending their careers is wrong. Yeah they are still getting paid but just because your boss pays you doesn't mean he can make you wear a saddle and ball gag in his office all day. The players have other financial interests that are impacted. The Bulls have made a habit of this with players in recent years Tim Thomas and this year Larry Hughes, as has Donny Walsh and Larry Bird in IND.

Obviously the NBA trade rules make trades complicated, so something like baseball's designated for assignment practice would be difficult. But in the least it should be made a fact if you banish someone like this you have until the trade deadline to move them and if you can't then they have to be released minus only the earnings they replace in salary during the time period of the contract. If a guy is so valuable as a trade asset then treat him as such.

Good points Sully, hadn't thought about it in that light. Really, the only case I've thought about is Marbs who is such a (head)case that I've got little to no sympathy for him, but overall your post makes a lot of sense. Shame on you for making sense around here!

It was before 10 am and I hadn't started drinking yet...my bad

(crap it was 10:30 late start.

I have 3 rules regarding drinking days Sully
1: The day MUST end in Y.
2: Wait till after noon.
3: It's always noon somewhere.

Strict guidelines to adhere to, but I must maintain my monastic lifestyle.

Good points by Sully. I can't imagine the Player's Union being cool with a team banning someone for a year. Of course, Fisher's the president, so doubtful he wants to see Marbury in Boston. NYK has a legit reason to keep Marbury's expiring deal until the trade deadline. However, they lose lots of legitmacy afterwards.. I see Marbury being set free by the end of Feb. NYK will save a couple million in the process.

CeltsfanSinceBirth wrote:It's not really so much that the Knicks don't want Marbury to win the title. It's more along the lines of not wanting to see Marbury come off the bench and play against the Knicks in the 1st round of the playoffs. If he plays well, the NY media will have a field day writing about how the Knicks should have played him during the regular season to increase his trade value, rather than letting him go to Beantown and destroy Chris Duhon.

Agreed, but it's not like NY has ANY chance of winning the title anyway...so Steph helps beat the Knicks in 4 games instead of 5...was it worth it, Donnie Walsh?

Indiana lost 200 millions? I don't think Lebron is coming to NY with Walsh around.

Walsh is doing fine with the Knicks rebuilding program that is only just starting.

As for Marbury the real issue is probably more Dolan than anything. Since from Walsh's perspective cap space is completely unaffected whether he gets a buyout or just stays at home the entire year. It would be nice to get rid of a distraction though a minor one in that Marbury is functionally no longer a member of the team anyway.

But at least in terms of the Knicks it's a non-issue since it really makes no difference to them whether Marbury gets bought out. You could argue tha his treatment might hurt the Knicks "reputation" but I don't it. Marbury is in a bizarre web of his own creation and while most players may sympathize with Marbry I don't see them failing to see Marbury's situation as anythng besides unique.