Because they completely disrespected him as a man and told him to **** off afterwards.................. Anyway, Does this make Marbury a decent speculative fantasy pick up?
Is there any way he could screw up their whole thing about freeing up cap space for Lebron? Because if he could, and did, that would be great!
yeah, because being a professional athlete is a regular job. especailly the not on equal footing part. yeah, they sure aren't, marbury's the highest paid person in that organization.
We are not even talking about regular Joe's job. If a CEO of a big corporation refused to do his job, he would be fired. If the president of the US refused to do his job, he would be impeached. And in case you want to invoke the supply and demand principle, there are fewer people who can do those jobs than those who can play in the NBA. A guy who is the second highest paid in his profession did a pissed poor job when he was used, and refused to do his job when he had not been used deserved to be kicked out without compensation. Yet, he is paid 21 million dollars to stay home. I absolutely have no sympathy for him being "insulted" by the company that hired him.
Couldn't agree any more w/ this statement. Marbury is at fault here. He gets paid to do his job & he's not doing it. It's as simple at that.
Look at the end of the day, both sides have carried on like complete idiots. They should just part ways and get on with life.
I disagree that the Knicks come off looking bad from this. What Marbury was demanding (a full $22 million buyout as the league's second-highest player) was unreasonable. With D'Antoni's psychological warfare, the Knicks may have saved themselves quite a bit of money, if not the headache of Marbury.
CEO's screw up their companies and get 100 million dollar pay outs. The President can do a crappy job and will get millions for book endorsements etc. It is a guaranteed contract marbury can tell the knicks to f off and he has every right to do so.
And again, it goes both ways. Some players get paid and dog it. Some franchises never try to win. Look at the Grizzlies. Look at the Clippers. Hell, look at the Knicks...who have all but told everyone we aren't going to try to win for the next two seasons. Again, it goes both ways. I don't feel sorry for them at all. My point is there are positives and negatives on both sides. There are risks on both sides. The team takes on the risk of a player getting hurt or dogging it. The player takes on the risk of the team not trying to win, or just shipping him off whenever they feel like it. It sounds like you are all about protecting management's risk, even though there are plenty of examples of management screwing their fans and putting a crappy product on the floor...which seems to be your real concern (bad basketball). No, trades aren't always made to help the team. Quite often, they are made so an owner can help himself and not pay as much in salary (see the Pau Gasol trade). Sometimes they are made because a new coach can't get along with players, or because a new coach wants his type of players (see teams George Karl or Larry Brown have taken over). The risk goes both ways.
No, they aren't paying him his salary no questions asked. They are paying him his salary because they don't have a choice. Actually what they have been doing is trying to bully him into take less than he is owed...and the penalty is if you don't agree then you just sit here and shut up. They have never made him a part of that team and that was clear from day 1. He is well within his right to tell them to go to hell for the few games that they need him, take his suspension and revoke his paycheck for those games, then go back to how things were before when they get their full roster back.
Then treat him like you are paying him $21 mill. I'm no Marbury fan, but the Knicks acted in bad faith and bungled this badly.
How was that unreasonable? That is the amount that both parties agreed to (the Knicks agreed to pay that amount when they acquired him). Was it unreasonable when the Bulls had Pippen paying for pennies in the dollar during their dynasty because he was a dummy and signed a long-term contract for little $$? No, everyone said you are dumb...you signed the contract now play for that amount. That's what we usually tell athletes when they sign below market value and want a raise. Additionally, I don't ever recall saying he didn't want to be in NY. He came in ready to play and contribute. the Knicks have been trying to bully him into taking less...not the other way around (i.e. he was demanding a full buyout). Marbury would be a fool to walk away from that much money. I doubt a team would have given him a full MLE, and that was before all of this happened.
After all he put that franchise through (esp. last season when he quit on the team), even though it was not he, but Isiah, who saddled the Knicks with his contract....well, I can't really feel bad. Marbury deserves D'Antoni's dickishness, even though--from a formalistic standpoint--he "deserves" $22 million. That said, I see where you're coming from. Still, many players who could contribute much more than Marbury ride the pine and take it in stride without trying to bring down their team. With an attitude adjustment, Marbury would be playing right now, irrespective of the first couple of DNP-CDs. I hope he doesn't wind up on my favorite teams (Boston, Houston, Denver). Even in his prime he brought down his teams. He took everyone else around him out of their rhythm on offense. He made great passes, but was such a ball-hog that nobody was prepared to catch them and make a play! For years, nobody noticed what a stiff he was....
Because he is better than any PG we have, and would fall in line or you can cut him loose. Basically...no risk. DD
I see your point, but I don't think it applies in this case. First off, in most of those scenarios (i.e. take Joey Dorsey or any player that is occupying our 13th and 14th roster spots), those players are told we either are too deep for you now so sit and learn, or you will be called upon if someone gets hurt or if you get a chance to play, or they are just scrubs who are happy to have made the team. None of that applies with Marbury. He was told from day 1 you aren't a part of this team and we don't need you. If you don't like it then you can take less $$ and leave. If you won't take less $$ then sit there and shut up. He was never a part of the team and the Knicks and the coach haven't hidden that fact. Before the trades I recall an interview with the coach where he basically said they had no plans to use Steph. The Knicks communicated from day 1 that he isn't a part of the team. They just don't want to pay him his money. Even worse, they are doing this (not allowing him to play) in a contract year I believe. That's messed up...but with that being said they are paying him to do nothing. But I'm not mad at him for telling the team to go to hell when they have been trying to bully him into taking less $$ all season long. I really don't care what his "teammates" have to say about him either. I don't recall Q-Rich or anyone coming to his aid when the team sat a completely healthy player on the pine all season simply because they didn't want to bite the bullet (sunk cost) and send him on his way.
I agree here that Marbury's case--viz., the team's relationship with him--is pretty unique. But he more than anyone else in the NBA has been pushing the buttons of his team's brass, and everyone in New York has had enough (fourteen-year-old internet fans aside, and even most of them know he's a stiff). He could have used the opportunity the trade (and injuries) afforded him to make peace with D'Antoni and contribute for the remainder of his contract, but expecting Stephon to do something intelligent is expecting too much. Instead, he puts a hobbling Duhon and Harrington at enormous physical risk by forcing them to play the entire duration of games. That's just sick. Vin Baker, IIRC, was "robbed" by the Celtics in his buyout negotiations and the NBAPA was unsuccessful in defending him. So, I think there is precedent: when you're making mucho $$$ and binge-drinking night after night (Vin-and-Tonic) or mutinying (Fraudbury), the logic of guaranteed contracts diminishes.
