They rather should have kept E.T. for one more year...
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]Bill Russell believes Stephon Marbury can continue to help the Celtics in the playoffs - if he's able to get over what the Knicks did to him.
"If it's up to the team, he'll have a positive effect," the 75- year-old NBA legend told The Post yesterday at the NBA Store in midtown.
"But you don't know how much he's been damaged psychologically playing here."
"Here" of course, is with the Knicks, where his rocky tenure came to a disastrous end when it became clear that coach Mike D'Antoni had no intention of playing him and team president Donnie Walsh long refused to buy him out of his $21 million contract.
When asked if he thought the point guard indeed had been "damaged psychologically" by the Knicks, Russell said: "He may have been. No matter how strong you are, that kind of stuff that went on this season was so ridiculous."
After suiting up in the preseason, Marbury was banished to the bench and later told to stay away from the team before finally being bought out and signing with the Celtics on Feb. 27.
"I think what the Knicks did to him, having the whole thing play out in the papers [was wrong]," said Russell, who signed copies of his book about Red Auerbach, Me and Red: My Coach, My Lifelong Friend.
"I think he and the coach had had a relationship in Phoenix and the coach said, 'I don't want you here.' That's the impression I got. The fact that he knew he wasn't wanted, it doesn't matter who started it."
And Russell isn't surprised Marbury has blended in well with his new team. He credited Boston coach Doc Rivers with easing the transition.
"I think Doc did a good job not putting undue pressure on him to go out and be an all-star," Russell said. "I would not put pressure on him to save the ship."
Marbury largely has served as a backup to Rajon Rondo, who helped Boston to the NBA crown last year. While the Celtics are trying to repeat, Russell led them to eight straight titles from 1959-66.
"For us it was routine," said Russell, who won 11 championships in Boston.
Russell realizes it will be a tougher task without Kevin Garnett, out since late in the regular season with a knee injury.
"It's a different team without him," Russell said.
It's different with Marbury, too.
I've read that Bill Russell article a few days ago. Unless Russell was misquoted he should be drug tested after that comment. The man is losing it. Lots of seniors have memory issues. He should get checked out.
There's no doubt that D'Antoni and Walsh could have handled the Marbury situation better then they did, but Russell or the writer made it sound as if the Knicks refusal to [Start] Marbury was the cause of his mental meltdown. Enough of the excuses. Now its being said that Marbury isn't playing well because he's playing with scrubs. Really? Didn't this team win a championship last season? That's like saying if you get demoted on your job that you wont be able to function, even if the pay is the same. It's time to kill all dick ridery. Put it to bed.
First, they say that he's a part of the team, that they have confidence in him. Even though they have no intention of playing him.
Then, they bench him for Chris Duhon in preseason (which Marbury accepted). Even though Marbury started his entire career, and is obviously the superior talent.
1st game of the regular season, D'antoni decides not to play him at all, without letting Starbury know. He had to sit there like a fool, waiting for D'antoni to put him the game.
D'antoni says he's not part of the future, which is a bull**** excuse, because most of the team isn't part of our future. They wouldn't buy him out, and they wouldn't play him. So he's stuck not playing basketball for half a year because of Walsh's/D'antoni's stubborness.
D'antoni obviously didn't plan on playing Starbury since he got here, seemingly just because he simply doesn't like him. Instead of being upfront from day 1, he strings Starbury along until the first day of the regular season. It was a sneaky move, and it probably did affect Marbury mentally. I think a hall of famer and 11 time champion knows enough about the NBA to be able see this.
Complain all you want about how it's unfair to Marbury, the way I see it, it's unfair to everyone else to have a guy be automatically the starter or automatically getting minutes because of his name. The Coach picked the depth chart, erase the name Marbury from your minds and look at it even-handedly. If Stephon Marbury was named John Doe, and he was slated to be the 12th man, nobody would have a problem, because that's the coach's job, to decide who the 12th man is. But, because it's Marbury, everyone takes issue.
Fact is, reasonable minds CAN differ on the issue, this argument has been posited before, it's gone nowhere. You won't convince me that they were unfair to Marbury just like I won't convince you that they were fair, we're too locked in our own dogma to see it. This is just going to turn into yet another flame war.
Seriously, start reading people's posts and stop manipulating and twisting them.
The people who support Marbury are not saying that he should have started, even though he is clearly better than Duhon.
What we are saying is that the management lied to him, when they said they were intending on giving him playing time, which he never got.
So, you said you wanted him to just get time. That's exactly what I said.
Where exactly did management say they were giving him playing time? Give me one article where it says that? All I've seen is Donnie Walsh (who, by the way, is not the coach), saying everyone was on a clean slate. Mike D'Antoni NEVER said that, despite public opinion on this board to the contrary. Show me where they lied to Marbury.
Once again, you manipulate.
"Complain all you want about how it's unfair to Marbury, the way I see it, it's unfair to everyone else to have a guy be automatically the starter or automatically getting minutes because of his name."
These are your words. You were trying to say that Marbury did not deserve to start, just because of his name.
Mike D'Antoni clearly pretended as if he was going to use Marbury.
It is the job of the coach to tell each player what their role is going to be on the team. If D'Antoni did not want to use Marbury, he should have told him. He obviously did not tell him, because Marbury worked hard to get in shape and he was even quoted saying that he was preparing for MIKE D'ANTONI'S SYSTEM. Here's the link:
Marbury played in EVERY preseason game, and he even STARTED on one of the games.
How many NBA players do you know that play in EVERY preaseason game and start ONE game and get placed on the inactive list?
All we know is what we read and what I read was that D'Antoni didn't have any minutes for Marbury. He even said it wouldn't be fair to him to have him come off of the bench. What should have been done at this point was an immediate buyout or trade. But where Marbury was wrong was when he refused to play because he didn't like the circumstances. I don't really see how you can make a logical argument to counter this point. The 'It Aint Fair' argument is weak.
2) A lot of players play in every preseason game and even start games and don't even make the teams, the whole point of the preseason is to see what you have.
3) No, you manipulate my words again. What I said was that it's unfair to everyone else to start a guy or give him minutes just because of his name. I didn't say he didn't deserve to start, just because of his name. I said his name shouldn't automatically make him a starter or give him minutes. Keep crying about how I manipulate posts, but it's clear that I haven't been.
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
Mike D'Antoni commented on the Marbury situation in LATE NOVEMBER.
He did not comment on the situation in the preseason, or even the start of the season.
During the home opener, everyone expected Marbury to play. That's why they were chanting, "We want steph."
Most people were surprised to not see him play. Even Donnie Walsh was surprised.
If D'Antoni was truly honest, nobody would have been surprised, because he would have told the media his intentions of not using Marbury, way before the start of the season, so that Walsh could have negotiated a buyout agreement last summer, instead of this spring.