ESPN: Marbury, Celtics interested in deal

[EJPLAYA]

 I think the appropriate conclusion to this is that the Knicks need to allow him to negotiate a contract with a new team, and whatever he gets on the new one for the remainder of the year gets subtracted from what the Knicks owe him. That is fair.

[moiso]

this guy is beyond selfish and cocky and whatever else people are writing.  This guy is absolutely certifieably crazy.  He's nuts.  I am a psych nurse and he is very much like one of my patients.  He is not mentally fit to play a role on a team, regardless of his physical skill set.  This guy seems a better fit for a prison team than playing a role on the defending champion Celtics.

[winsomme]

I think the appropriate conclusion to this is that the Knicks need to allow him to negotiate a contract with a new team, and whatever he gets on the new one for the remainder of the year gets subtracted from what the Knicks owe him. That is fair.

i don't agree. i think they should be separate negotiations.

like i said in the other post, if Mar wants to play this season, then he needs to concede salary. what that figure is simply needs to be negotiated.

and whichever side is more interested in the move happening will most likely conceed the most.

that's what seems fair to me.

if your scenario was what happened, what incentive does Mar have to get the biggest salary from the prospective team...if he is going to get the same amount either way?

he could just take a minimum salary so to make the Knicks pay the most money.

[guava_wrench]

I think the appropriate conclusion to this is that the Knicks need to allow him to negotiate a contract with a new team, and whatever he gets on the new one for the remainder of the year gets subtracted from what the Knicks owe him. That is fair.

The Knicks already gave Marbury permission to talk to teams. Beyond that, your suggestion is a bad one. In your scenario, the new team will obviously only offer a minimum contract so that the Knicks get stuck with the rest (while the league pays part of the minimum contract).

[cordobes]

Buy-outs are generally used when it's the player that asks to leave. Marbury was ready to play, did what he was told and he was basically fooled by D'Antoni. Anyway, it's the Knicks that want him gone. In this kind of situation, teams generally waive players, paying them the entire contract.

D'Antoni just wanted to go another direction. maybe things were said. maybe D'Antoni just wasn't a fan of how Mar plays, played, will play...what have you...D'Antoni is under no obligation to play Mar or even have him on the active roster.

what's wrong with D'Antoni not wanting Mar to be his PG?

both parties would like to part ways. so both parties should be conceeding.

Mar expecting to get paid in full AND be released is why some people feel he is being greedy/selfish.

one or the other. if he wants ALL his money, then suck it up and sit out the season. but if he wants to play this season, then come to the bargaining table with something to offer.

D'Antoni is obviously under no obligation of playing Marbury. Although the right thing to do would be to tell that to Marbury right away before the season and not play that pantomime.

Anyway, if they don't want to play Marbury, they should just waive him. Or just suck it up and pay him. Or make him a sensible buy-out offer. Marbury indeed offered money to be bought-out, he retired the offer after Walsh asked for almost 20% of his contract. That's very unusual, especially because it's the franchise it's not interested in the player. Again, Marbury was ready to play for them.

I strongly dislike defending Marbury but the Knicks FO has been behaving unethically in this situation.

[nickagneta]

Apparently, soap, all the articles I provided by respectable news outlets isn't enough and are just all lies and untruths.

Whatever, you believe what you want, D'Antoni is a liar, James Dolan is a liar, Mike Berman is a liar, Frank Isola is a liar and the New York Post, the Daily News and NBC are all in the Knicks pockets spreading falsehoods about the model citizen that is Stephon Marbury.

I brought actual news articles to the table to back my arguments but they are all lies and falsehoods. Please explain exactly where your proof is that backs up what you have to say because it seems I'm not the only person interpretting the news coming out of the Knicks over the last couple of years as making Starbury look exactly as I said.

He refused to play. Spin it anyway you want he wouldn't play. And not once. More than one time. The man threatened to make public [dang]ing evidence aboutIsiah Thomas and the Knicks. He blackmailed his boss.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3719230

"When the trades went down this afternoon, I said, 'Look Steph, one of the principals are gone, Jamal Crawford. There's 30 to 35 minutes out there, and they're yours if you want them. Are you ready to go?' " D'Antoni said.

According to D'Antoni, Marbury replied that he "wasn't comfortable with the situation, and he did not want to play. So at that point, I go, 'O.K., that's your decision, and that's fine.' That's it."

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3730245

The New York Knicks were down to seven players again Wednesday night, and Stephon Marbury again refused to play.

The difference in this 110-96 loss to the Pistons?

Knicks forward Quentin Richardson made it clear afterward he's had enough of Marbury.

"He hasn't played with us all year," Richardson said. "Regardless of what you have going on with the organization or what you have going on with your coach or whatever -- you're not going to allow your teammates to be left out there the way we were basically being left out there."

Is ESPN lying too???

http://blogs.nypost.com/sports/knicks/archives/2008/11/marbury_turns_d.html

AUBURN HILLS - Stephon MarburyStephon Marbury  is entitled to feel the way he feels, that there is no turning back after being treated like a leper by Mike D'Antoni for the season's three weeks. But that does not mean turning down an offer Wednesday afternoon to become the starting shooting guard for the KnicksNew York Knicks  for the rest of the season is a decision that merits sympathy.

That is what our sources told us Wednesday in Detroit. D'Antoni was not asking Marbury to step in for a one-night stand like in Milwaukee. Whether it was desperation or not with their depleted state, D'Antoni was willing to swallow his pride and give Marbury his starting job back. If it's true, that's how decimated the Knicks had become.

He told D'Antoni his heart and mind wasn't into it after being told for weeks he wasn't in the plans, that buyout talks had already begun and he was mentally in a different place. Fine. But the Coney Islander, with a chance to resume his career as a Knickerbocker, chose not to.

Another Berman lie???

http://www.prosportsdaily.com/comments/steph-again-turns-down-offer-to-play-176723.html

"On Thanksgiving Eve, Stephon Marbury said no thanks.

Marbury last night turned down an offer to be installed as the Knicks' starting shooting guard for the rest of the season, according to two team sources.

http://nba.fanhouse.com/2008/11/01/stephon-marbury-asks-to-be-placed-on-the-inactive-list-his-coac/

Donnie Walsh was hoping that at a minimum, Marbury wouldn't cause any trouble, and would look good while contributing in a limited role, thus allowing him to get something in return for him on the open market.

Donnie Walsh pictured him in contributing in a limited role. Soounds like the bench to me but apparently contributing in a limited role means not using him at all to some.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/16/sports/basketball/16knicks.html?n=Top/News/Sports/Pro%20Basketball/National%20Basketball%20Association/Los%20Angeles%20Clippers

Marbury declined to address the circumstances of his departure. He also did not acknowledge apologizing to teammates, but he apparently did so. He issued a blanket denial of every allegation that surfaced this week — including reports that he threatened Thomas with blackmail on the team plane.

“I feel good, I’m cool, I can walk with my head up,” Marbury said. “I know there was speculations, things that I said, which I know, that’s not even my character, but going forward, I’m fine.”

Regarding the nearly $195,000 that he will reportedly forfeit (one game’s salary, plus a fine), Marbury said, “We’ll see” — an indication that he plans to file a grievance.

Marbury has other battles to fight. His teammates were clearly disturbed by the week’s events, although in keeping with team policy, they have refrained from airing their discontent publicly. Yahoo.com reported Thursday that Marbury’s teammates were unanimously opposed to him playing against the Clippers

Must I continue?? The amount of reports that make this guy look like a complete idiot is overwhelming and I'm only quoting the very reliable sources.

[winsomme]

Buy-outs are generally used when it's the player that asks to leave. Marbury was ready to play, did what he was told and he was basically fooled by D'Antoni. Anyway, it's the Knicks that want him gone. In this kind of situation, teams generally waive players, paying them the entire contract.

D'Antoni just wanted to go another direction. maybe things were said. maybe D'Antoni just wasn't a fan of how Mar plays, played, will play...what have you...D'Antoni is under no obligation to play Mar or even have him on the active roster.

what's wrong with D'Antoni not wanting Mar to be his PG?

both parties would like to part ways. so both parties should be conceeding.

Mar expecting to get paid in full AND be released is why some people feel he is being greedy/selfish.

one or the other. if he wants ALL his money, then suck it up and sit out the season. but if he wants to play this season, then come to the bargaining table with something to offer.

D'Antoni is obviously under no obligation of playing Marbury. Although the right thing to do would be to tell that to Marbury right away before the season and not play that pantomime.

Anyway, if they don't want to play Marbury, they should just waive him. Or just suck it up and pay him. Or make him a sensible buy-out offer. Marbury indeed offered money to be bought-out, he retired the offer after Walsh asked for almost 20% of his contract. That's very unusual, especially because it's the franchise it's not interested in the player. Again, Marbury was ready to play for them.

I strongly dislike defending Marbury but the Knicks FO has been behaving unethically in this situation.

well, i'm not sure any of us know what exactly went down with Mar and D'Antoni, but even if he promised him the job or a chance at the job or didn't tell him that he had changed his mind...etc..regardless...if they are paying him his money, then they are living up to their end of the bargain...

and if they feel that he is becoming a distraction to the team, i see no problem with them not wanting him around the team...

as for sucking it up and paying, that is exactly what the Knicks are doing.....they are paying him.

now, both sides want to part ways clearly....but what is unreasonable or what is fair needs to be negotiated...

if Mar feels that their offer is not reasonable and the Knicks aren't willing to budge, then take the full money and stay on the Knicks payroll...

if the Knicks think that Mars offer is unreasonable and Mar is unwilling to budge, then pay Mar the full money and not play him...

if both side are willing to budge and continue to want to part ways, then negotiate with the side that blinks first conceding the most...

i don't see any reason for either side to do anything other than that.

unless one side is desperate to get out, i don't see any obligation of the Knicks to pay Mar all his money AND release him and i don't see any obligation of Mar to concede some huge portion of his salary just to be cut loose...

it's all about who wants what more. This seems very straight forward to me with both sides doing the best to get what they want...

and just to be clear my problem with Mar isn't wanting to be paid AND released. that certainly is the hard negotiating stance that he should be taking....my problem is the idea that the Knicks SHOULD do that (pay him and release him)...and that by not doing that, they are somehow not being fair or negotiating in good faith.

The guy is getting paid a ton of money to do absolutely nothing....I don't see how the Knicks aren't being fair.

[housecall]

I saw back around page 4 of the thread this was going to turn into a Tony Allen- like thread,no matter what evidence you brought to the table its never going to change some people's minds or should i say accept facts.Facts are facts  no matter what you convince yourself to believe.

[cordobes]

winsomme,

All we need to know was what Walsh and D'Antoni publicly said: first, that everybody would have a chance to play; a few days later, that playing Marbury was always out of question.

Players have to play to earn future contracts. When teams don't want a player in their roster, they generally release him or negotiate a buyout very favorable to the player. If they're not willing to waive him, it's reasonable to expect they offer him the chance to play. I believe that the Knicks aren't doing anything legally challenged (although I'm fairly certain that in Europe  - or if they were a soccer club, subjected to the FIFA regulations - it'd be illegal), but, from my perspective, it's far from being ethically correct. If I were a NBA player, I'd be very wary of signing a contract with them.

[nickagneta]

winsomme,

All we need to know was what Walsh and D'Antoni publicly said: first, that everybody would have a chance to play; a few days later, that playing Marbury was always out of question.

Players have to play to earn future contracts. When teams don't want a player in their roster, they generally release him or negotiate a buyout very favorable to the player. If they're not willing to waive him, it's reasonable to expect they offer him the chance to play. I believe that the Knicks aren't doing anything legally challenged (although I'm fairly certain that in Europe  - or if they were a soccer club, subjected to the FIFA regulations - it'd be illegal), but, from my perspective, it's far from being ethically correct. If I were a NBA player, I'd be very wary of signing a contract with them.

And if I were any corporate conglomerate that owned a professional sports team anywhere in the world, I'd be wary of signing Stephon Marbury.

This is just my opinion but my guess here is that a lot more conglomerates see things the way I do than professional basketball players see things the way you do.

And I say that with all due respect, cordobes. Maybe its just the cultural difference here or the fact that I see it from a management point of view but I completely don't see it from the side that the Knicks are in the wrong here. Perhaps the European sports world is different from that in the States but what the Knicks have done and said and considering the background of that franchise, corporation and the people themselves(D'Antoni, Dolan, Walsh), I'll believe them every time over Marbury considering his background.

[cordobes]

winsomme,

All we need to know was what Walsh and D'Antoni publicly said: first, that everybody would have a chance to play; a few days later, that playing Marbury was always out of question.

Players have to play to earn future contracts. When teams don't want a player in their roster, they generally release him or negotiate a buyout very favorable to the player. If they're not willing to waive him, it's reasonable to expect they offer him the chance to play. I believe that the Knicks aren't doing anything legally challenged (although I'm fairly certain that in Europe  - or if they were a soccer club, subjected to the FIFA regulations - it'd be illegal), but, from my perspective, it's far from being ethically correct. If I were a NBA player, I'd be very wary of signing a contract with them.

And if I were any corporate conglomerate that owned a professional sports team anywhere in the world, I'd be wary of signing Stephon Marbury.

This is just my opinion but my guess here is that a lot more conglomerates see things the way I do than professional basketball players see things the way you do.

And I say that with all due respect, cordobes. Maybe its just the cultural difference here or the fact that I see it from a management point of view but I completely don't see it from the side that the Knicks are in the wrong here. Perhaps the European sports world is different from that in the States but what the Knicks have done and said and considering the background of that franchise, corporation and the people themselves(D'Antoni, Dolan, Walsh), I'll believe them every time over Marbury considering his background.

I don't understand what you're saying. When did I say I don't believe in Walsh or D'Antoni? I do believe them, I'm judging them by their own words.

If I were a NBA franchise, I'd be very wary of signing Marbury as well. But I don't like to see these things emotionally: the fact that Marbury has been a disgraceful employee and teammate doesn't make the behavior of the Knicks more acceptable.

The Pacers handled the Tinsley situation like a gentleman would do. The Knicks handled the Marbury situation like crooks. 

[nickagneta]

winsomme,

All we need to know was what Walsh and D'Antoni publicly said: first, that everybody would have a chance to play; a few days later, that playing Marbury was always out of question.

Players have to play to earn future contracts. When teams don't want a player in their roster, they generally release him or negotiate a buyout very favorable to the player. If they're not willing to waive him, it's reasonable to expect they offer him the chance to play. I believe that the Knicks aren't doing anything legally challenged (although I'm fairly certain that in Europe  - or if they were a soccer club, subjected to the FIFA regulations - it'd be illegal), but, from my perspective, it's far from being ethically correct. If I were a NBA player, I'd be very wary of signing a contract with them.

And if I were any corporate conglomerate that owned a professional sports team anywhere in the world, I'd be wary of signing Stephon Marbury.

This is just my opinion but my guess here is that a lot more conglomerates see things the way I do than professional basketball players see things the way you do.

And I say that with all due respect, cordobes. Maybe its just the cultural difference here or the fact that I see it from a management point of view but I completely don't see it from the side that the Knicks are in the wrong here. Perhaps the European sports world is different from that in the States but what the Knicks have done and said and considering the background of that franchise, corporation and the people themselves(D'Antoni, Dolan, Walsh), I'll believe them every time over Marbury considering his background.

I don't understand what you're saying. When did I say I don't believe in Walsh or D'Antoni? I do believe them, I'm judging them by their own words.

If I were a NBA franchise, I'd be very wary of signing Marbury as well. But I don't like to see these things emotionally: the fact that Marbury has been a disgraceful employee and teammate doesn't make the behavior of the Knicks more acceptable.

The Pacers handled the Tinsley situation like a gentleman would do. The Knicks handled the Marbury situation like crooks. 

How so?

The man is getting what the contract said he would get, his emptinine million dollars a year. No where in that contract was it guaranteed that he would play basketball, the same way it was not guaranteed that no matter his physical condition that he would be forced to play basketball. The Knicks pay him so that when they call upon him when he is physically able to play, to play.

It's no different than the Celtics signing Tony Allen. It is their decision whether to play him or not regardless of whether he is better than the people playing in front of him or whether he is healthy. As long as he is physically able to play the game, then it is their right to use his services or not. They pay him for his availability when able to play not guaranteeing that he will play. His situation is no different than any substitute bench player that plays in this league.

Are the Celtics being ungentlemanly to Patrick O'Bryant. They pay him a salary and he doesn't start or even get to play every day. His obligation is to be available if he is physically able to be called upon.

In Marbury's case he is physically able to be called upon. The Knicks are exercising their right not to do so after he refused to do so when they did call upon him to fulfill his contractual obligations. How is that ungentlemanly? And if you come up with an argument that it is ungentlemanly then is every player that doesn't start treated in an ungentlemanly fashion? Because I hate to break this to you but not one player in the NBA has it built into their contracts that they have to start or even play any games in their contractor order for them to fulfill the obligations of that contract. They only need to make themselves available to play if they are healthy enough to do so and then played if called upon.

Maybe FIFA rules and contracts are different. Maybe European basketball is different. But there is not one professional contract in the USA that stipulates that the player signing the contract has to play no matter what. The decision as to who plays and who does not rests squarely in the hands of the team and not the player.

[guava_wrench]

While I can't stand Marbury, I don't see how the Knicks were able to fine him when they asked him if he wanted the available minutes. If he is under contract, you should tell him he will be playing. If you give him a choice, then you have to accept his choice.

Considering the Knicks asked him to get in shape for uptempo game and he did what they asked and then wasn't used, I don't blame him for answering as he did to D'Antoni.

[guava_wrench]

In Marbury's case he is physically able to be called upon. The Knicks are exercising their right not to do so after he refused to do so when they did call upon him to fulfill his contractual obligations. How is that ungentlemanly? And if you come up with an argument that it is ungentlemanly then is every player that doesn't start treated in an ungentlemanly fashion? Because I hate to break this to you but not one player in the NBA has it built into their contracts that they have to start or even play any games in their contractor order for them to fulfill the obligations of that contract. They only need to make themselves available to play if they are healthy enough to do so and then played if called upon.

If the Knicks wanted him to suit up, they should have told him to suit up. Asking Marbury if he wants the available minutes allows him to answer the question.

I have yet to see a description of the interaction between Marbury and D'Antoni where it sounds like he is being told to play. They can't beat around the bush and then expect the player to interpret the question as a command.

[cordobes]

That's a legalistic approach and I've already said that the Knicks weren't doing anything wrong from that perspective, so you're basically arguing with yourself.

However, there's another dimension: players are not guaranteed playing time, but it's reasonably expected that they are offered the chance of competing for playing time. For example, imagine an absurd and extreme scenario where the NYK sign LeBron in 2010 and then, for some reason, proceed to put him in a Marbury situation for the next 6 years.

But if you're taking the legalistic approach, I really don't see what's your problem with what Marbury did. He was asked if he wanted to play, he answered he'd rather not (and offered some sensible motives, IMO). What's exactly your problem, then?