Probably, but it's to the point that turning the page is more important than fighting over game checks. This distraction is a complete disgrace to the franchise. They should have cut him before the season started and this problem wouldn't exist. D'Antoni was right to want Starbury gone and either Dolan or Donnie Walsh blew it by hanging on to him. Even with Zeke gone and Walsh in his place, the Knicks still come off looking like buffoons.
I remember D'Antoni saying, shortly after he joined the team, that he liked Marbury and felt he could fit in well with what he's trying to do. I guess that was just him being politically correct. I didn't realize he disliked Marbury so much.
This time its on Marbury and he deserves whatever negativity coming at him. And now he's making it more difficult on himself to be picked up by another team.
IMO,the Knicks should send him home and make him sit out for the rest of the season without delay. Getting a 21.9 M expiring contract will help them.
the team that needs marbury the most is the hornets... god i hope he doesnt go there. They would be stacked with a good backup PG.
As far as the Knicks' are concerned, what is the difference between just telling him to sit at home and buying out the rest of his contract?
This whole Marbury fiasco epitomizes everything that is wrong with the NBA salary structure. Not only that but Marbury is a disgrace to the sport. Stern should make an example out of him and ban him. Something tells me the NBA would survive....just a hunch.
Guaranteed contracts are a noose around the neck of the NBA. It isn't the only problem but it's a big one.
The NBA Players Association will never agree to unguaranteed contracts ala NFL. And since its more star driven then the other 2 major sports, the owners and Stern will crater as long as the NBPA has big stars like the Lebrons and Kobes siding with them.
I realize they are here to stay, but it still doesn't change the negative effect guaranteed contracts have on the NBA. I also totally agree the NBA is star-driven much more than baseball or football.
How about the negative effects non-guaranteed contracts have on the NFL? There are pluses and minuses to both. This is one of the few times I can think of where a dude refused to play...and again, I can understand why he won't. But there are tons of examples each year of teams dumping players when they feel they don't need them any longer.
For the NBA, the minuses outnumber the pluses. There are tons of examples of players acting like a fool or slacking off their dedication to basketball after getting guaranteed money because they know the dollars are coming no matter what they do. Obviously Starbury is an extreme example and players actually refusing to suit up and play really has nothing to do with why guaranteed contracts are a problem. We all know why NFL contracts are different and it's a totally different world. The amount of guaranteed money is a lot less and it comes in the form of signing bonuses as opposed to the entire value of the contract.
Yes, the minuses outweighh the pluses in basketball. I can't say the same when I compare it to football...i.e. what it would be like if teams could dump a player whenever like they do in football. Non guarenteed money is much worse IMO. Actually, I can't even say the minuses outweigh the pluses in basketball, for the simple reason that once a player signs the team can ship him off if they choose. There are tons of examples of dudes getting traded to places they had no intention of going to when they signed on the dotted line, or of teams tanking when a player thought they would try to be competitive, etc. Do you feel sorry for those players? Did you feel sorry for Stromile or Mike James, etc? Or for Franchise when we shipped him off after his extension, for our selfish reasons? It goes both ways......
Agreed on all accounts. I realize guaranteed contracts are here to stay as well. I just really wish there was a way to punish these players that just get paid and stop caring. During a time where NBA players are becoming tempted to play overseas and Stern knowing he must protect the NBA's reputation, taking away one of the league's biggest perks wouldn't be a good idea from a business standpoint. I realize this, plus as v3.0 pointed out: the NBA is too star driven to make the stars seemingly dispensable. And as unlikely as it may be, I would still like to see a rule implemented that can allow individual teams to force players into a consolidated buyout if they choose to part ways. The buyout can be based upon a percentage of what the player is still owed. Team agrees to pay that percentage, player becomes a FA and free to sign with another team. Not an unfair proposal. Anything is better than a player just KNOWING those paychecks are still coming and he can get away with whatever. At least this way the player risks losing something. For Marbury's case: prorate whatever he is still owed then base your percentage off of that. Instead of getting the $15M or whatever he's still owed this season, force him into the buyout where he's cut and then paid maybe 50% of that, for example. Does anybody else think something like this is feasible, beneficial or even practical? Mind you, i'm no NBA Capologist so please be gentle when critiquing this idea.
I don't feel sorry for people who know EXACTLY what they are getting into and who are more than compensated for these inconveniences. I had zero sympathy for SF when he was traded because he was guaranteed $85 million dollars no matter what. He wasn't sent to a Siberian labor camp; he was sent to play basketball in another city in the United States of America. A 90 minute plane ride away. I couldn't care less about this for an NBA player who made more in ONE SEASON than 15 people will make in A LIFETIME. They are well taken care of and can choose another profession if they don't like it. My concern is the product on the floor, which has been degraded by players dogging it out or acting insanely stupid after the ink is dry. Icehouse, everyone is entitled to their opinion. But if you actually felt sorry for Flake-man Mike James and Dodo Stromile Swift because the Rockets traded them, then we just disagree strongly. Your comment about shipping SF off "for our selfish reasons" makes no sense to me. Why are trades made in the first place? Any other reason than to help the team? Do you disagree with teams being able to make trades? What exactly "goes both ways"?
there are tons of examples in the nfl with players with off the field or attitude problems who stay on teams' payrolls. chad johnson anyone? marbury's situation is unique, marbury isn't a knucklehead off the court, he has some attitude issues but I really don't think you can fully argue that he deserves to have his salary revoked. he's just a ballhog in essence, you can't get rid of him for that. this has nothing to do with guaranteed salaries, remember when john gruden asked keyshawn to stop showing up. Keyshawn still was paid. this is the exact same situation.
Marbury is just doing what is right for himself, the organization told him to piss off, nothing wrong with him returning the favor. DD
Yeah except that organization is paying him 21 million dollars this season. You act like the Knicks and Marbury are on equal footing or are associates; "You piss me off, I'll piss you off!" He's a paid employee of the Knicks organization, and he should do his job (i.e. playing basketball) whenever the Knicks want him without any complaints about playing time or whatever. The Knicks are paying him his salary no questions asked (it's guaranteed after all), why shouldn't he do his job like that as well?
