D'antoni says Steph refused to play

donchris said:

I actually read through all of those posts. You guys are nuts. This shit never changes. In the eyes of Marbury supporters the man can do no wrong. Those that think Marbury is a cancer see this move a reinforcement of that opinion. Regardless of how you feel about Marbury, his failure to make the righteous decision and play proves he's done with the Knicks, maybe even in the league. No one wants a player like that. You guys can keep arguing, bitching and moaning, but the fact is regardless of why the coach decided not to play you favorite player, it's the coaches decision on who will and will not play, and that's the bottom line. Doesn't bother me that Steph didn't play because I want to see him gone and this only ensures that he's out. What the hell is everyone still talking about?

Click to expand...

Well then I don't think you're reading and comprehension skills are up, because not everyone who likes or supports, or wants Marbury to play, thinks that he can't do wrong. In fact, I have seen many posters who like him, as I, Myself do, say that at times, he has been a problem, all by his lonesome.

However, what I don't agree with, is that it's always on him. That is nonsense. D'amphony is simply trying to play the victim here and absolve himself from any blame. Any objective observer should see this. They basically tell him before the season opener he is not in the plans and don't plan to play him just here or there minutes, and prepare him for a trade, waiver, or riding the bench all year to prove this. Then when they are short players, ask him to suit up? As far as the Knicks goes, Steph is a formality. He is there, but he's not. They should not have even asked him to play. This is a ploy to once again, put him under the bus. Plain and simple.

good on Steph, why would u go out there and play for someone that doesnt want u around? I have no issue with this at all. Management did the wrong thing to him making him believe he was part of the squad right up to the 1st game of the season.
Buy him out and let him play somewhere else.

My pops said he heard on the radio that D'Antoni doesn't like Steph because he felt at some point in Phoenix Steph quit on him. He's been mad ever since. If this is true I wouldn't really blame D'Antoni for sitting him. It just seems to me that D'Antoni is the next one in a long line of coaches Steph just doesn't seem to get along with. Whether it's a product of Marbury or whether Marbury is a victim of circumstance is to be debated...but IF D'Antoni feels Marbury quit on him once, what's to stop Marbury, in D'Antoni's mind, from quitting again. Should he just start Marbury or play Marbury when in the back of his mind he thinks "This guy is going to just quit on me the second anything goes wrong...". If that's the case, it's probably better that Marbury rides the pine.

oh so i see we got a couple of miss cleo's on here who are predictin the future. Its not a good look when your predictin a player will clash with future coaches. Marbury had no problem with lenny wilkens when he was here. Larry brown said that hes got nothing against starbury. And i believe that just last night D'antoni said he likes marbury. If you hold the clashing between marbury and isiah against marbury, you probably have some sort of bias against marbury. I have pointed out several times that theres at least 4 different contradicting stories as to what happened on the plane to phoenix. Because the evidence is not solid, no conclusions can be drawn.

Marbury did everything he was suppose to and hes acted professional through all of this. I do think that he should have played last night. However, i do not blame him at all for not playing, after d'antoni treated him like hes a piece of doo-doo. I guess i was stupid to not think that haterburys would hold this against him....to me it just seems like dudes are waitin to hate on him on this site. Everyone acts like their tired of him being brought up, but everyones so quick to drop at least a paragraph on him. Theres more talk about marbury then the trades we just made.

And then we got this don chris creating all these aliases on here. He says sumthin stupid like "In the eyes of Marbury supporters the man can do no wrong." Great job of replyin to that knicks4lyfe. I know several members including myself have been very clear as to what marburys weaknesses are. But its the haterburys that add sumthin extra to his weaknesses, to make him look worse then he is.

Donchris and any other haterbury who doesnt read my posts and assumes things...just put me on ignore. And that goes for other members of team starbury. The purpose of team starbury is to defend marbury from unfair hatred that he recieves. Im not tryin to give him more credit then he deserves and i dont think anyone else is.

I hate Stephony, but, I would have done precisely the same thing. Mike D needed that win. After trading his big number players a win was crucial. We were all pissed about that loss to the Bucks.

Stephony got his by saying no and 9/10 people would do the same.

bigpat33 said:

I hate Stephony, but, I would have done precisely the same thing. Mike D needed that win. After trading his big number players a win was crucial. We were all pissed about that loss to the Bucks.

Stephony got his by saying no and 9/10 people would do the same.

Click to expand...

I'm from Brooklyn, and the ole school yard saying goes "you Played me once good on you, but when you Played me twice bad on me".
With the knew regime decision-making who would be cosidered the SUCKER when Mobley is activated and Marbury is put back on the inactive list?

Dantoni said everyone was given a clean slate at the start of training camp....
at the start of the season he publically humiliated Marbury wid a DNP and placed him on the inactive list.....after a 6-5 start wid Crawful & Zach being the number 1 and 2 scorers on the team he shipped both of them to the West Coast.
:barf:
The Knick organization have no grounds to involve David Stern b/c both Dantoni and Walsh made to many public statements to the media claiming Marbury was not in the Knicks plans.
:boohoo:
For those members which believe Marbury actions were Insubordination....for those that believe that.... are PURE Suckers.... I can bet my last Dollar that even David Stern gave Marbury his PROPS for refusing to play for a controversal organization which publically humiliated him and has yet to have a meeting about the situation with his agent....which is Marbury...<!-- google_ad_section_end -->

KBlack25 said:

My pops said he heard on the radio that D'Antoni doesn't like Steph because he felt at some point in Phoenix Steph quit on him. He's been mad ever since. If this is true I wouldn't really blame D'Antoni for sitting him. It just seems to me that D'Antoni is the next one in a long line of coaches Steph just doesn't seem to get along with. Whether it's a product of Marbury or whether Marbury is a victim of circumstance is to be debated...but IF D'Antoni feels Marbury quit on him once, what's to stop Marbury, in D'Antoni's mind, from quitting again. Should he just start Marbury or play Marbury when in the back of his mind he thinks "This guy is going to just quit on me the second anything goes wrong...". If that's the case, it's probably better that Marbury rides the pine.

Click to expand...

Marbury never quit on any coach in H.S., College, or NBA.
Marbury style of play has always been a Halfcourt-Offense.
Which needs a dominating bigman scorer & rebounder.
Marbury should've stayed with KG on the Wolves.
Coach Byron Scott is an uptempo coach which learned from Magic Johnson and coach Pat Riley. Marbury did not have the uptempo style of play in his 3rd season in the league that coach Byron Scott was looking for.
Marbury being traded to Phoenix where Chambers & Matrix were used to the uptempo style of play from Jason Kidd did not help Marbury....especially with each season draft pick Joe Johnson, Barbosa, and Amare being uptempo players.
Everyone who watch Marbury play B-Ball in Ruckers Park with his brothers knew Marbury was not a run n gun player to play on an uptempo team.
I never wanted Marbury on the Knicks b/c he was always poor on DEFENSE...

this is a business. knicks dont' have time to give a flying F what marbury wants to do, where the team said there going or what. they tell him he has time to play, he should play. plain and simple. none of this whining bs, yea the teams going in a diff. direction and doesn't want him, but he was basically asked to play and he said no. that's not what he's paid to do. he should have manned up and played no matter where they going w/out him or what because the team needed him. but he bitched out

Fuk anyone who doesn't want to play for us! Steph or any motherfukin anyone else. THEIR NOT GREATER THAN THE TEAM. I'm a knicks fan not a fan of a player. If you don't want to play we don't want you.
All you others who are fans of certain players above the team a.k.a NUT HUGGERS...Fuk you too! Go follow your player, start a fanclub, go stalk them do something you pathetic loser.
:barf: on those who put themselves above the TEAM!

Kiyaman said:

Marbury never quit on any coach in H.S., College, or NBA.

Click to expand...

What do you call refusing to play? And wasn't there a point last season when he left the team during a road trip?

grimjay said:

If Coach D ask for normal game, then I have to agree to bash Marb. But play susbstitue player while shortage of trading moments? Hell NO!!!

Click to expand...

what about the 21.9m they are paying him....

Knicks4lyfe said:

Well then I don't think you're reading and comprehension skills are up, because not everyone who likes or supports, or wants Marbury to play, thinks that he can't do wrong. In fact, I have seen many posters who like him, as I, Myself do, say that at times, he has been a problem, all by his lonesome.

However, what I don't agree with, is that it's always on him. That is nonsense. D'amphony is simply trying to play the victim here and absolve himself from any blame. Any objective observer should see this. They basically tell him before the season opener he is not in the plans and don't plan to play him just here or there minutes, and prepare him for a trade, waiver, or riding the bench all year to prove this. Then when they are short players, ask him to suit up? As far as the Knicks goes, Steph is a formality. He is there, but he's not. They should not have even asked him to play. This is a ploy to once again, put him under the bus. Plain and simple.

Click to expand...

This may be a stretch for some of you but lets use some very basic common sense here for just a moment. There are well over 400 players in the NBA, many of which see very little playing time if any at all. When a situation presents it's self, some of these players that get next to no playing time will have an opportunity to play, and guess what, most of them will jump on it.

The difference is you would call these guys no name players. They don't have 20+ million dollar contracts. They actually want to play and all of them at least had skill enough to be brought on to the NBA level and receive contracts, but they may not be in the coach's plans. Still, when asked, these hungry players play ball. I've never heard Malik Rose say **** you coach, I'm not in your future plans so I'm not going to play or JJ Redick say he isn't getting enough playing time so he's not going to play. As I said, there are well over 400 players in the NBA so you can find countless examples of guys that don't get playing time or are forced to play in a style that is not of their own, but you don't hear of these guys refusing to play because things aren't the way they want them to be.

My point is the coaches reasons for benching a player are irrelevant. As a soldier you can't refuse to go on a tour of duty because you don't like the president. You've enlisted, time to serve. As long as Marbury is apart of this team, or any other player apart of any other NBA team for that matter, is called to play and they are physically capable of playing, they should play. **** all of the hard feelings or what happened yesterday.

Kiyaman said:

I'm from Brooklyn, and the ole school yard saying goes "you Played me once good on you, but when you Played me twice bad on me".
With the knew regime decision-making who would be cosidered the SUCKER when Mobley is activated and Marbury is put back on the inactive list?

Dantoni said everyone was given a clean slate at the start of training camp....
at the start of the season he publically humiliated Marbury wid a DNP and placed him on the inactive list.....after a 6-5 start wid Crawful & Zach being the number 1 and 2 scorers on the team he shipped both of them to the West Coast.
:barf:
The Knick organization have no grounds to involve David Stern b/c both Dantoni and Walsh made to many public statements to the media claiming Marbury was not in the Knicks plans.
:boohoo:
For those members which believe Marbury actions were Insubordination....for those that believe that.... are PURE Suckers.... I can bet my last Dollar that even David Stern gave Marbury his PROPS for refusing to play for a controversal organization which publically humiliated him and has yet to have a meeting about the situation with his agent....which is Marbury...<!-- google_ad_section_end -->

Click to expand...

You use to be a solid poster and almost an asset to the threads. What happened? You've become a parody of your former self. Where to begin, your post is full of inaccuracies. First think D'Antoni's exact words were he wanted to see what the young players can do and he's got to think about the future. His concern was that Marbury would have a problem backing up Duhon. This was based on prior conversations with Marbury in which Steph indicated his displeasure coming off of the bench. That's factual, look it up. Second, maybe I'm being picky and your imagination is running away with you, but I highly doubt that Stern pals around with Marbury on any level. I'm sure Stern has advised Dollan to hire Walsh, and if anything I believe Stern would advise both Marbury and the Knicks to come to a buyout settlement to finally end this thing. Doesn't that make more since then Stern hi-five'n Steph for refusing to play a game in his league?

paris401 said:

what about the 21.9m they are paying him....

Click to expand...

Exactly. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE SECOND HIGHEST PAID PLAYER IN THE LEAGUE, PEOPLE. Don't tell me the money doesn't make a difference and principles and all that crap. Steph has no principles unless it serves his own purposes. I think "Team Starbury" members must all live in there mama's basement. Anybody that understands the value of a dollar and how hard it is to get one let alone 22 million a year know that when your boss tells you to do something you do it. THIS IS STILL A JOB PEOPLE!!! How many go to work everyday and have to eat crow and do stuff you don't want to do for people you don't want to do it for???? That is all day everyday. But Steph thinks he is above all this and can do whatever he wants, when he wants. Two year olds think that way. Steph has never grown up.

donchris said:

This may be a stretch for some of you but lets use some very basic common sense here for just a moment. There are well over 400 players in the NBA, many of which see very little playing time if any at all. When a situation presents it's self, some of these players that get next to no playing time will have an opportunity to play, and guess what, most of them will jump on it.

The difference is you would call these guys no name players. They don't have 20+ million dollar contracts. They actually want to play and all of them at least had skill enough to be brought on to the NBA level and receive contracts, but they may not be in the coach's plans. Still, when asked, these hungry players play ball. I've never heard Malik Rose say **** you coach, I'm not in your future plans so I'm not going to play or JJ Redick say he isn't getting enough playing time so he's not going to play. As I said, there are well over 400 players in the NBA so you can find countless examples of guys that don't get playing time or are forced to play in a style that is not of their own, but you don't hear of these guys refusing to play because things aren't the way they want them to be.

My point is the coaches reasons for benching a player are irrelevant. As a soldier you can't refuse to go on a tour of duty because you don't like the president. You've enlisted, time to serve. As long as Marbury is apart of this team, or any other player apart of any other NBA team for that matter, is called to play and they are physically capable of playing, they should play. **** all of the hard feelings or what happened yesterday.

Click to expand...

Finally a voice of reason...

donchris said:

This may be a stretch for some of you but lets use some very basic common sense here for just a moment. There are well over 400 players in the NBA, many of which see very little playing time if any at all. When a situation presents it's self, some of these players that get next to no playing time will have an opportunity to play, and guess what, most of them will jump on it.

The difference is you would call these guys no name players. They don't have 20+ million dollar contracts. They actually want to play and all of them at least had skill enough to be brought on to the NBA level and receive contracts, but they may not be in the coach's plans. Still, when asked, these hungry players play ball. I've never heard Malik Rose say **** you coach, I'm not in your future plans so I'm not going to play or JJ Redick say he isn't getting enough playing time so he's not going to play. As I said, there are well over 400 players in the NBA so you can find countless examples of guys that don't get playing time or are forced to play in a style that is not of their own, but you don't hear of these guys refusing to play because things aren't the way they want them to be.

My point is the coaches reasons for benching a player are irrelevant. As a soldier you can't refuse to go on a tour of duty because you don't like the president. You've enlisted, time to serve. As long as Marbury is apart of this team, or any other player apart of any other NBA team for that matter, is called to play and they are physically capable of playing, they should play. **** all of the hard feelings or what happened yesterday.

Click to expand...

Excellent points donchris. You forgot Jerome James, he's in the same position as Marbury, untradeable, not in the Knicks future plans and nailed to the bench as long as D'antoni is in charge. But I bet D'ants tells him Jerome go in for Harrington, he goes in, you know why because if he doesn't its insubordination and he gets fined or suspended. Only Mebury's fanclub could rewrite the definition of insubordination to make it some kind of constitutional right for Marbury.

The bottom line is that Steph again proved conclusively and without question that he's still the same self centered basketball player that has made him unpopular with fans and teamates for his entire career.

A professional would have put ego, negotiations, personalities etc.. on the side and played 5 minutes if that's what the coach and team needed. That's what being part of a TEAM MEANS. You set aside self interest and do what's best for the group even if it's NOT IN YOUR OWN BEST INTERESTS.

Marbury doesn't get it and neither do his fans and that's why both find him being run out of town (AGAIN) by an organization that actually understands winning instead of being life long LOSERS!.

knicklover said:

The bottom line is that Steph again proved conclusively and without question that he's still the same self centered basketball player that has made him unpopular with fans and teamates for his entire career.

A professional would have put ego, negotiations, personalities etc.. on the side and played 5 minutes if that's what the coach and team needed. That's what being part of a TEAM MEANS. You set aside self interest and do what's best for the group even if it's NOT IN YOUR OWN BEST INTERESTS.

Marbury doesn't get it and neither do his fans and that's why both find him being run out of town (AGAIN) by an organization that actually understands winning and instead of being life long LOSERS!.

Click to expand...

1. Mike D'Antoni said that Marbury was going to get a clean slate.
2. Mike D'Antoni lied to Marbury and all of the fans.
3. Mike D'Antoni acted as if Marbury was going to get playing time.
4. Mike D'Antoni gave Marbury playing time, in the preseason.
5. Mike D'Antoni decided to all of a sudden put Marbury on the inactive list.
6. Mike D'Antoni has no intentions of using Marbury, and his only goal was to have someone to play, while Cuttino Mobley and Tim Thomas take their physicals.

It's funny how people attack Marbury, but have nothing to say about Mike D'Antoni's manipulating and deceiving ways.

F*(k Mike D'Antoni. He and Donnie Walsh are destroying this team. You can say whatever you want, but the Knicks aren't going anywhere with Al Harrington as the star player on our team.

donchris said:

This may be a stretch for some of you but lets use some very basic common sense here for just a moment. There are well over 400 players in the NBA, many of which see very little playing time if any at all. When a situation presents it's self, some of these players that get next to no playing time will have an opportunity to play, and guess what, most of them will jump on it.

The difference is you would call these guys no name players. They don't have 20+ million dollar contracts. They actually want to play and all of them at least had skill enough to be brought on to the NBA level and receive contracts, but they may not be in the coach's plans. Still, when asked, these hungry players play ball. I've never heard Malik Rose say **** you coach, I'm not in your future plans so I'm not going to play or JJ Redick say he isn't getting enough playing time so he's not going to play. As I said, there are well over 400 players in the NBA so you can find countless examples of guys that don't get playing time or are forced to play in a style that is not of their own, but you don't hear of these guys refusing to play because things aren't the way they want them to be.

My point is the coaches reasons for benching a player are irrelevant. As a soldier you can't refuse to go on a tour of duty because you don't like the president. You've enlisted, time to serve. As long as Marbury is apart of this team, or any other player apart of any other NBA team for that matter, is called to play and they are physically capable of playing, they should play. **** all of the hard feelings or what happened yesterday.

Click to expand...

I see alot of members are backing you on this.....however this is not a Job or a death sentence (Army, Navy, Etc.), this is a CAREER.....a very huge difference.... it come with guaranteed contracts and no-trading.... something the NFL refuse to do.

Dont get it mixed up or confuse with any other sport or job.... the NBA is the best and safest Career that any Sports player or "CAREER-Person" could have in the USA.
Players fire more Coaches and Managers in the NBA than any other sport so lets get this right.

abcd said:

F*(k Mike D'Antoni. He and Donnie Walsh are destroying this team. You can say whatever you want, but the Knicks aren't going anywhere with Al Harrington as the star player on our team.

Click to expand...

:barf::barf::barf:


This is the the most idiotic post I have read in a while. You have been part of team dumb ass way to long, you call Donnie Walsh fixing our decade long financial problems in 1 day and Coach D'Antonie winning with basicly the same roster as last year destroyer's of this team? Foolish just plain foolish.