I want to start by saying I'm no Marbury fan. I think that in this situation though, Marbury is getting a raw deal. The Knicks are hedging their bets. They don't want tohim to go to the Heat (He rumored to be heading there) or to the Celts for a reunion with Garnett. If the Knicks want to treat Marbury like he has no value, do the honorable thing an give him his unconditional release. It's ridiculously unfair. D'Antoni had a PG in Phoenix in Nash that hasn't strung together 15 good defensive minutes in his NBA career. Now these things matter to D'Antoni? He asked this team to pick Gallinari at 6, with a more NBA ready Wilson Chandler on the roster. D'Antoni is a hypocrite. He wants to waste a season in Marbury's career, just so he doesn't take the heat of not utilizing the best roster he can. Grow up Mr.D'Antoni! If Marbury can be effective somewhere, have the decency to allow him to do so. Walsh and D'Anfoni shoud be ashamed. For two guys that don't want anything to do with Marbury, I don't see why they don't pull the plug. Oh wait! I know, someone (D'Anfoni & Walsh) know they're wrong. They just want Marbury to go somewhere and prove such.
Patrick Ewing Jr., at the Garden last night to watch the Knicks, admitted he was monitoring the Marbury situation. If the Knicks waive Marbury, they likely would re-sign Ewing Jr., the team's final cut. Ewing still is mulling his European opportunities and Developmental League options. "If something happens and they want me back, yeah, but I'm not banking on it," Ewing said. Ewing said he has had no contact from Walsh, however.
what do u all think about that in the ny post
Smh @ haterburys continuing to make stuff up about marbury. Getreal got caught the other day.
Why even disagree with me? I realize my superior posts frustrate you and bother your emotions. Next time save me and you time.
My original statement "marbury almost made curry an all star in 2006-07" is on point and like a pass from starbury. Curry almost made the all star team, gettin beat out by dwight howard. Dont ever question my credentials again. Its your credentials that should be questioned.
I dont give marbury any more credit then he deserves. For the most part his behavior has improved since 2006 after larry brown left. Haterburys continue to bring up how he "left the team" even after i proved thats not a fact. Theres many different ways that situation has been told and theres not enough facts to state anything with certainty. Gotta give him a pass there...
Its not worth it to continue this. Dont bother replying to me, your only wasting your time. Accept your loss and move on. Tomorrows a new day.
Clyde called it the Chicago connection of some ****...
If you play him...we do much better, possibly make the playoffs, def. not winning a championship. At best we're somewhat successful the fans love him and his demand to return goes higher.If you sit him you probably will get a lottery pick, gain some experience for younger talent and rid the fan base of his image further emphasis on moving forward. D'Antoni and everyone else knows he's much better than Duhon but he would rather get a higher draft pick than attempt making the playoffs with someone he plans to not sign for the future. SMH...?????!!!
What I do give Mebury credit for that year, was he seemed to understand the PG's role better. He learned to let other people score and then take over when there was a scoring drought. That's a crucial part of the PG position. To be able to recognize ebbs and flows of the game. To know when to let other people score and when to take over and score yourself. That was his greatest accomplishment that year.
While i give you some credit for giving credit to marbury, doesnt your 2nd paragraph contridict the 2nd thing i bolded in your 1st paragraph? Basically, your 2nd paragraph is giving marbury credit for being more passive when necessary, being more of a point guard. The 2nd statement that i bolded in your 1st paragraph states that Marbury had nothin to do with Curry almost making the all star team.
It was marburys outside shooting that freed up the inside for curry. Im not trying to say marbury was a great 3 point shooter...but he proved that if leave him open he can hit them. He hit 1.7 3 pointers per game that year, shooting 35.7% and again thats his 3pt%, not his field goal percentage. He was the best 3 point shooter on our team.
You and your butt buddy tuner addict claim that it was crawford who made the nice passes to curry. This reminds me of idiot fans who claim crawford is clutch because hes hit some game winner. What about all the shots that hes missed, all the games hes lost for us? Hes contributed to us losing far more then hes contributed to our winning. You see where im going with this? Just because he made some nice passes to curry, some highlight passes...that dont mean you can forget about all the bad passes he made that year and every year of his career. He averaged 2.75 turnovers per game that year, in 37.3mpg while Marbury averaged 2.42 turnovers per game in in 37.1 mpg.
So they played almost an identical number of minutes. Marbury, being a point guard, had the ball in his hands more then crawford did. Many of crawfords turnovers came from palming violations...he also made alotta bad passes, including bad passes to curry. I already admitted that marbury also made some bad passes, but what point guard doesnt? Marbury had more assists to curry then crawford did. Crawford just had more highlight passes to curry.
Its like comparing Paul pierce to vince carter (ok, not really). Vince Carter has way better highlights then pierce...but pierce gets the job done better. Over the past 3 or 4 years, amare stoudamire has had better highlights then tim duncan, but the spurs have beaten the suns everytime.
Crawfords had some nice alley oop passes to curry. Marbury doesnt throw many alley oop passes but he did a lot more then i expect of him that year and if your not willing to give marbury any credit for curry almost being an all star then i cant respect your posts. Hate blinds people from the truth. Hopefully this video can cure your sickness of haterism
This post is directed not just to LJ4ptplay, but Tunermaggot and any other maggots who agree with these maggots. I dont care which one of you responds to me...both of you can. I really dont give a ****...im on another level. Before responding, i suggest you sleep on this for a couple days. The only responses i wanna see are "msg...you were right. You are an elite poster and from now on I agree with everything you say. You and metro are the the best, i wish i could be as cool as you guys."
If you maggots comeback with some bullsh!t, i wont give you any attention. I know haterburys have tendencies of making shock comments just to get some attention.
do you really think they're better with him on the bench....is duhon even close to the player marbury is...i don't think so
One thing I think the Marbury fans haven't answered though, and it's always been my opinion, is that maybe Marbury starting ISN'T the best thing for the Knicks and here's why.
I've said it over and over the Knicks are NOT a championship team with Marbury, even Marbury lovers have to admit this team is a barely in playoffs/barely out of playoffs team this year with Marbury at the point. Marbury also will not be on this team next year whether he plays or doesn't play, I think everyone can also agree on that.
The improvement Marbury gives you actually hurts in the end. The Knicks owe either their 2009 or 2010 Draft Pick to Utah via the Stephon Marbury trade (PHX traded to Utah). The 2009 Pick is top 22 protected, meaning if the Knicks finish with draft picks 1-22, they do NOT have to give up their pick in 2009 BUT if that were to happen they would owe their 2010 Draft Pick either way.
So let's assume the Marbury fans were right, he should play, he made us a better team but not enough to be pick 23 or above. That means we get that pick in 2009. It would probably be around 11-15ish? Then, when Marbury leaves, and the team is worse off (as Marbury lovers state, this team is worse without Marbury) and finish out of the playoffs again but likely with a top 10 draft pick. That top 10 pick goes to Utah, and our hands are tied.
What does this mean for the 2009 Draft in terms of rebuilding (with or without Marbury that's what's happening)? It has to count. It. Has. To. Count. That means this team needs a solid pick this year whether they use it as a trade chip or they can actually get a difference maker in the draft. The Marbury trade is costing a lot of draft picks, let's at least try and be smart about it when we can.
In addition, Marbury is not in this team's future. We've seen Nate Rob flourish off the bench this year (I personally think he should be the starter), we've seen Chandler flourish (see my opinion on Nate Rob) and I think the important thing this year is to get these guys who are going to be around next year used to playing together. If Duhon is going to be the point guard of this team as Mike D'Antoni's chosen one, then he needs minutes.
Does Marbury make the team better this year, in 2008-09? Definitely, I buy that 100%. I think the team right now would be be better off with Steph this year. I'm just not sure his playing time and what's fair to Marbury is what's best for the team. Is he talented? He sure is. He's also untradeable, no amount of playing time is going to make anybody on earth want to trade for this guy, it's a fact. GMs want no part of him, they see him as a problem child who couldn't get along with his coaches (first Larry Brown, who he now says he misses, and the Isiah Thomas, who was at one point his best friend). And this season Marbury has done what has been asked of him, I respect that a ton, especially with how he might have acted and responded a year or two ago. So yes, Marbury has responded well but in terms of behavior probably does deserve some playing time. But just because someone deserves something doesn't make it the best course of action in the end.
Our best player Marbury isnt the best thing for the knicks but Duhorn is?
I have said before on here that the only reason why it makes sense not to play marbury is because we'll lose more games and get a better lottery pick.
The problem is that Donnie walsh said that every player on this team has a clean slate. He told Marbury to get into great shape over the summer. Marbury did that, hes shown that hes older and more mature now. Through all of this he has yet to speak out against mike d'antoni, even though i wouldnt mind if he did. At the same time i give him credit for doing the right thing, and thats not speakin about the situation.
I understand your argument about the lottery pick that we owe to utah, and that is a reason i havent seen haterburys use yet (im not calling you a haterbury, im referring to other posters on this site). But to me it shouldnt even be an option. Marbury should be playing. You dont bench the best player on the team, or at least one of the best players. Hes getting paid 22 million to do nothin. That makes no sense to me, they should at least get him on the court and playing. This team could get a little more used to winning with him and get rid of that losing mentality.
What kind of a difference would marbury make? I predict we will win 23 to 29 games without him, 33 to 38 games with him. But as knicks fans we have been embarrassed by our team over the last 4 years. We deserve some entertainment...and i think the knicks would be a lot more entertaining with marbury, chandler, nate robinson, and lee all runnin the fast break.
Nate Robinson can look very good one night and then the next night he struggles with his shot, turns the ball over, and doesnt play any defense. The energy is always there but he does struggle sometimes. Duhon does a good job of not turning the ball over but that about it. Hes not much of a scorer, his passing and defense are overrated.
To conclude things, I agree that long term playin marbury aint the best thing for this franchise, but its the right thing to do. The rest of the team needs to experience what its like to be competitive and win more games. D'antoni likes to have small rotations but i think he needs to change that just this year. Nate robinson deserves some minutes...i dont see any problem with playing crawford and duhon 25 minutes each but thats not the way D'antoni does things. He sees crawford as a player who should score between 20 and 24 points. I see him as a 7th man off the bench...Hes not even shooting 40% from the field and his defense is non-existent.