Here's my point so that ABCD can shut up. The Knicks winning % with Marbury is .402. Great. Do you think that acceptable, I'd hate to see your report card. The personal attacks, their simply weak son. Do you believe Marbury is the greatest Knick ever? Cause peep this. Patrick Ewing, Walt Frazier, Mark Jackson, Charles Oakley all better Knick players have been traded. So **** Marbury! He shouldn't even be mentioned with those class of winners. If those guys aren't untouchable, why is Marbury? I'd love tosee this answer......
PS- Patrick Ewing was untouchable, at the time he was playing basketball. Scott Layden just made a stupid trade.
All ABCD pointed out was that Knicks are far worse without Marbury and he had the stats to back it up.
Its a PROVEN fact, so why not be a man and accept it and continue debating?
The problem with some people here is that they don't know when to accept when they're wrong or not, despite how much information is against them.
ABCD does his research for a reason.
Now you got him in a diss argument because you guys fail to understand simple facts.
Since Metro and ABCD can't read I'll help y'all. THE KNICKS HAVE NEVER WON WITH MARBURY. Is that the truth or a lie? Have we hung a banner in the Marbury era? No. Will we? No. To point out a 40% win rate to support he's a winner is flat out stupid. Would you two dummies want the Knicks to keep rockin a hot .402 win rate? Marbury doesn't play D, doesn't distribute the ball to teammates where they can be effective (Kurt Thomas, Tim Thomas and KVH all complained of this). Plus he quit on the team last year and lied that he was told to go home! What is he, a 5 year old? If Isiah had said to stand in the corner, would he have done that too? Marbury is a career loser, and nobody can dispute that. The numbers ABCD supplied on reiterated what I've always said since day 1.
Knicks went 23-18 with Marbury after the trade.
So they won 23 times.
Basketball is a team sport, and over the last 5 years Marbury has had the whackest teammates you could find in the NBA.
Not even the top 10 players in the NBA could make the Knicks a .500 team, so whats the point of all this bitching?
Marbury isn't responsible for all the losing, I'm hoping your not as retarded as ugly and fat you are. So this shouldn't be one of your crazy ass beliefs no one would co-sign with.
False. Subtract Marbury and add one of the top 10 players in the league and the Knicks would have been a 500 team no doubt about. Heres a few players that would have made the Knicks a .500 if it wasn't for Marbury.
Shaq a few years back
Theres more but we'll leave it at that. Stop living for the one 3 month period Marbury had success here.
Did I say anybody said it? No.
If anybody believes than yes. I was responding in general. So YOU must have an emotional attachment to Steph. I seen you post before an you are very knowledgeable. But to react to my post in attacking and personal matter matter proves you are an emotional dude.
So telling me to "Get Out" is a John Amaechi move. You have no ground for you words. You have just exposed yourself as an emotional one.
And if ANYONE HERE believes Steph will save this franchise or important to the Knicks on a basketball level is sadly mistaken. His still being a Knick is a financial strategy move.
The 3 month period showed what Marbury is capable of. Why deny that fact?
Are you serious?
All of those rosters wouldn't get passed the Eastern Conference Champions NJ Nets.
The Knicks got WORSE as the seasons went by.
Marbury never had a real supporting cast to begin with, blaming him for the losing is straight up ignorant.
23-18? And that's... hmm.. oh a total of 41 games! HALF A SEASON. And don't forget the playoff sweep where during that lone game we could have won, Marbs kept chucking up threes with us hanging on to a measly lead. And after that season?? Nothing.
We have to understand here that all that excitement from the 2nd half of that season was all spur of the moment. After what seemed like an enternity of having Eisley as the Knicks starting PG, we finally had a supposed star and leader, and that time we just weren't used yet to missing the playoffs. Right now there's practically no point hanging on to that 23-18 record and consider it one of the "good times" or evidence of Marbury's greatness. It's freakin' 2008 already! We've learned enough of him.
You said that no superstar could have made this team .500 over the last 5 seasons Metro. You never said that no superstar would have helped us beat the Nets in one season.
Your telling me if we did an even up trade last season Lebron for Marbruy or Duncan for Marbury we wouldn't have been in .500 last season? Your nuts.
Superstars are supposed to make players better. And Marbury has never done that. The end
You also fail to mention during the 3 month period that Keith Van Horn probably was playing the best basketball of his career before being traded (forced out by Marbury) and Micheal Doleac and Kurt Thomas were in the mist of there best seasons.
Also what has he done since that 3 month period. The Knicks record with Marbury not counting that half a season is 90-150 thats 60 games under .500. Marbury has never even made an all-star team as a member of the Knicks. That means he's never been one of the 12 best players in the Eastern Conference.
Face the facts the "best player"/face of the franchise is blamed when the team does bad. If an NFL team is struggling the QB is blamed. If the Yankees struggle A-Rod gets the blame. When the Knicks are awful the highest paid, face of the franchise, "best player" gets blamed.
Last edited by GetRealistic; Jul 09, 2008 at 13:00.