ESPN: Marbury, Celtics interested in deal

[nickagneta]

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.

Did the fine get overturned?

Did the NBAPA get Marbury his cash back from the fine?

No! Now why is that?

Because the very strict verbiage that you are equating as reality happening is not how the situations interpreted. The knicks told him he needed to make himself available to play and that he would have 30-35 minutes that he would need to play.


Just because they said:

"Do want to play these minutes?" and then he answered "NO" so they suspended him,

and not:

"We have 30 -35 minutes that need to be played tonight, are you making yourself available to play in them to fulfill your contractual obligations?" is a legal moot point and is not interpreted any different in court or in the eyes of the NBA or the NBAPA and hence, Marbury isn't getting any of that money back.

He said he wouldn't play. Spin it any way you want but that is the way it is interpreted by the governing bodies and that is really all that matters.

[nickagneta]

I mean come on guys. If your bosses ask you to do something do you interpret it as a question or as a command?

Cordobes, do want to come in and open the business for me Saturday, no one else is available?

Yeah, sorry boss, I'm able to do it and really have nothing else to do even though you primarily hired me to open the business for you on any day you want me to but no thanks, since you asked instead of telling me to do it I'm going to say, no.

Maybe in Portugal or Spain that flies but here in the States, yeah, that answer is going to get you fired.

[cordobes]

I mean come on guys. If your bosses ask you to do something do you interpret it as a question or as a command?

Cordobes, do want to come in and open the business for me Saturday, no one else is available?

Yeah, sorry boss, I'm able to do it and really have nothing else to do even though you primarily hired me to open the business for you on any day you want me to but no thanks, since you asked instead of telling me to do it I'm going to say, no.

Maybe in Portugal or Spain that flies but here in the States, yeah, that answer is going to get you fired.

Why don't they fire him then?

D'Antoni expressly said that it was Marbury's decision and that he'd be fine with whatever he decided to do.

And again, you're seeing this exclusively from a legalistic approach. What if I was going to get married on that Saturday and you knew that for a long time, previously guaranteed me I didn't need to worry about opening the business that day and then, for some arbitrary reason, decided to call me Friday night asking me to open it? Maybe in the States that flies, but in Portugal you'd be considered a SOB.

Anyway, I think this is just an issue of people having different ethical standards.

From my perspective, both the Knicks and Marbury share blame.

Did the fine get overturned?

Did the NBAPA get Marbury his cash back from the fine?

No! Now why is that?

Because it wasn't decided yet?

Spin it any way you want but that is the way it is interpreted by the governing bodies and that is really all that matters.

How do you know?

[guava_wrench]

I mean come on guys. If your bosses ask you to do something do you interpret it as a question or as a command?

Cordobes, do want to come in and open the business for me Saturday, no one else is available?

Yeah, sorry boss, I'm able to do it and really have nothing else to do even though you primarily hired me to open the business for you on any day you want me to but no thanks, since you asked instead of telling me to do it I'm going to say, no.

Maybe in Portugal or Spain that flies but here in the States, yeah, that answer is going to get you fired.

No. There was no request. D'Antoni asked him if he wanted the minutes. That is not a request. A request does not start 'do you want'.

We might interpret that as a request because we want to be on our bosses' good side. Marbury is at the point where there is no point in trying to get on his bosses good side. Why should he volunteer?

This analogy fails.

[nickagneta]

I mean come on guys. If your bosses ask you to do something do you interpret it as a question or as a command?

Cordobes, do want to come in and open the business for me Saturday, no one else is available?

Yeah, sorry boss, I'm able to do it and really have nothing else to do even though you primarily hired me to open the business for you on any day you want me to but no thanks, since you asked instead of telling me to do it I'm going to say, no.

Maybe in Portugal or Spain that flies but here in the States, yeah, that answer is going to get you fired.

Why don't they fire him then?

D'Antoni expressly said that it was Marbury's decision and that he'd be fine with whatever he decided to do.

And again, you're seeing this exclusively from a legalistic approach. What if I was going to get married on that Saturday and you knew that for a long time, previously guaranteed me I didn't need to worry about opening the business that day and then, for some arbitrary reason, decided to call me Friday night asking me to open it? Maybe in the States that flies, but in Portugal you'd be considered a SOB.

Anyway, I think this is just an issue of people having different ethical standards.

From my perspective, both the Knicks and Marbury share blame.

He didn't get fired because he has a contract. Yes all this is legaleese. I agree but in a case of a contentious employee and a corporation trying to maximize the production out of said contract and player, it is all legal and only business ethics come into it. And, I hate to say it but ethics go only so far as to what is legal and what is not.

Marbury had an obligation legally to fulfill his contract. He has to make himself available and in the best shape possible to produce.

I don't see where this is such a hard point to understand. If LeBron signs a contract with the Knicks his expectations are that he will be playing everyday and starting. But if LeBron goes OJ Simpson on someone and then gets away with it in a court of law, he's done nothing violating that contract. So his expectation might still be to be starting. But the Knicks could turn around and decide that although he got away with murder it is not in the best interest of the Knicks to play LeBron and it also isn't in their best interest to pay him and fire him so that some unscrupulous team who could care less that they have a murderer representing them could sign him and then use his services to beat them while they try to win games.

So their best scenario might be to suspend him with pay for the length of the contract. Is that unethical? Is it unethical for a player to sign a contract and then eat his way out of shape and never perform to the level that he is being paid for. If a team pays a player like Rashard Lewis like a franchise player but he never performs to that level they don't get money back.

Why is it when a team makes a decision that benefits them it is unethical but if a player doesn't deliver on what they are being paid to deliver that the team gambled and it's too bad they made a bad decision?

When does the corporation or the team get perceived as being tough but ethical?

[nickagneta]

BTW, TP4U cordobes, guava and EJ. I understand where you are coming from and having worked for a large conglomerate that once screwed me, I understand where you come from and how Marbury's side can be perceived. You all make good arguments.

But I now own my own business and see things from that point now and given all that has been said about the topic and judging what I know about Walsh, D'Antoni and Dolan and Marbury, I find Marbury's view of things that have been written to be less believable and the Knicks view to be more sympathetic. I feel just because they are the big company playing the hard line for best overall interest both on the court and in the board room, they are being painted in an unflattering light.

It's late, I'm tired and Marbury is not a likable guy so good night and TP's to all. Good convo!!!

[winsomme]

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.

the difference is that BOTH sides want out of this situation. So now it is a matter of who wants out more.

plus, we don't really know what went down between Mar and the Knicks that resulted in this situation.

all we know is that both sides want out....so, as long as the Knicks are paying Mar his prodigious salary, they are honoring their end of the deal.

i see no reason that the Knicks are obliged to give Mar a buy-out that is favorable to him when they BOTH  want out of the situation.

you're right that the Knicks are potentially going to hurt their chances to sign future FAs, but that is a risk that THEY are taking....and that is part of the leverage the Mar has on his side in this negotiation...

but i still don't see how they are "obliged" to give him a buy-out that his favorable to him...

this idea that every team that has a player on salary that isn't really in their plans (or may have been stirring up trouble) is "obliged" to not only release that player but give him a buy-out favorable to him doesn't make sense to me.

like you said, they may want to do it in order to preserve their rep with other players, but that is a choice that they have to make. it has nothing to do with an "obligation"...

i also want to reiterate that i don't have a problem with Mar taking a hard-line negotiating stance to get ALL his money and get a release. That is exactly what he should be doing in order to get the best deal possible for himself....I just don't see the obligation part...

If a teams doesn't want a player and a player wants to be released to go play with another team, then they both should come to the bargaining table and what happens from there is based who wants a resolution more.

there are caveats here. one is that there should be some oversight board that makes sure the negotiation is upfront and i believe that is happening. i believe the Players Assoc is involved on Mar's side and that most definitely should be the case and if there is anything nefarious going on, the Knicks should be called out on it.

but other than that, the risk that Knicks are taking is with other players and that is a risk that they only need to be accountable to themselves for...if it hurts them down the road, then they have themselves to blame for not conceeding more sooner..

[winsomme]

a couple more things here:

i have to admit that i do have a bias against Mar...how he has handled himself throughout his career totally rubs me the wrong way. i just see him as this incredibly talented player that never really seemed too concerned about what he needed to do to make his team better. So, my sense is that he was doing something here again that was not pro-team

i am completely willing to admit that i may be overreaching in saying that and could be completely wrong.

but i also want to highlight that i don't have a problem with public pressure forcing a powerful entity to do the right thing (like you are saying would be done in Portugal). I just don't think that this particular situation fits that. Mar is in a pretty powerful position himself here...certainly one that has little risks for him when he is getting almost 21 million dollars to not play basketball....i think that is an extenuating factor that also needs to be integrated...