Stephon Marbury is happy to look ahead to a Mike D'Antoni future, not an Isiah Thomas past. Marbury said he feels he has a new lease on his Knicks career, even if president Donnie Walsh and coach D'Antoni may look for a point-guard-of-the-future during Thursday night's draft.
With one year left on his pact, Marbury is trying to rejuvenate his ankle and image this offseason. Marbury will practice with the Knicks' summer league team in Las Vegas next month. He jogged the Hollywood Hills for a full month following Walsh's order to get in the best shape of his career.
Marbury is working out at the Knicks Westchester facility with an old Phoenix friend, former Suns assistant Phil Weber, now on D'Antoni's Knicks staff.
Get More at Berman's Knicks Blog
"I'm full throttle," Marbury said.
Had Thomas stayed in power, Marbury said he knows his contract would have been bought out after the season. In an interview with The Post yesterday, Marbury said his contract was nearly bought out in November amidst the Nov. 13 Phoenix fiasco, when Marbury left the Knicks reportedly because he wasn't going to start anymore.
According to Marbury, Thomas did not just want him out of the starting lineup for Mardy CollinsMardy Collins in November, Thomas wanted him out of the organization and sent him home to have his contract bought out. Marbury said he still doesn't know how things changed the next day, when summoned back to Phoenix, the talk of a buyout history.
"Going AWOL is something I never would do," Marbury told The Post. "I would never just get up and walk out on the team and say, 'I don't want to play because I'm not going to start.'
"Why would I want to lose $250,000?" Marbury said. "The fans thought I just left the Knicks because Mardy was going to start over me. I was sent home for other reasons, not because I wasn't going to start. He wanted to go in a different direction. (Thomas) felt I wasn't going to get the job done."
Thomas fined Marbury but never commented on why Marbury left Phoenix, even after Marbury appealed the fine and said to The Post he was told to leave.
It's over now, and though Marbury still can't explain the sudden rift with Thomas, he's hoping a new regime will give him a chance to reverse last season's tragedy.
Three loved ones passed away - his aunt, Helen, his AAU coaching mentor, Lou "Mr. Lou" Williams, and his father, Don. "I had to mourn in public," Marbury said.
Marbury played just 24 games last season. His season was over in January after left ankle surgery. The 23-59 Knicks were not better without Marbury, but he still became the poster boy for that record.
"People say I'm sulking on the bench because I have towel on my head," Marbury said. "I'm keeping my head warm. I've done it since college. When we're losing, yes, I look mad. I am mad. I hate losing. You want me to be jumping up and down happy when we're losing?"
Marbury discounts claims he's not right for D'Antoni's system because he's 31 and Phoenix already traded him in January 2004.
"Mike didn't trade me," Marbury said. "He didn't have that power then. It's the way I play - up and down. Seven seconds or less. How can I not fit into that? You can push the ball. He's a guard's coach. I still have four, five years at a high level. I'm only 31, not 41."
> Had Thomas stayed in power, Marbury said he knows his contract would > have been bought out after the season. In an interview with The Post > yesterday, Marbury said his contract was nearly bought out in November > amidst the Nov. 13 Phoenix fiasco, when Marbury left the Knicks > reportedly because he wasn't going to start anymore.
> According to Marbury, Thomas did not just want him out of the starting > lineup for Mardy CollinsMardy Collins in November, Thomas wanted him > out of the organization and sent him home to have his contract bought > out. Marbury said he still doesn't know how things changed the next > day, when summoned back to Phoenix, the talk of a buyout history.
Not to defend Marbury's actions, but this is actually a plausible explaination for Marbury's disappearance, and his subsequent re-insertion into the lineup. If Thomas says to Marbs, "you're fired, go home," it seems like a reasonable thing to comply. If subsequently it turns out that Isiah didn't in fact have the power to buy Marbury out, since as we speculated, he appeared to be handcuffed last season, it makes sense that Marbury be allowed to rejoin the team.
Marbury's clearly a nutcase and a loser, but I don't find it difficult to believe that the November fiasco was entirely due to the incompetance and mismanagement of Isiah Thomas.
>> Had Thomas stayed in power, Marbury said he knows his contract would >> have been bought out after the season. In an interview with The Post >> yesterday, Marbury said his contract was nearly bought out in November >> amidst the Nov. 13 Phoenix fiasco, when Marbury left the Knicks >> reportedly because he wasn't going to start anymore.
>> According to Marbury, Thomas did not just want him out of the starting >> lineup for Mardy CollinsMardy Collins in November, Thomas wanted him >> out of the organization and sent him home to have his contract bought >> out. Marbury said he still doesn't know how things changed the next >> day, when summoned back to Phoenix, the talk of a buyout history.
> Not to defend Marbury's actions, but this is actually a plausible > explaination for Marbury's disappearance, and his subsequent re-insertion > into the lineup. If Thomas says to Marbs, "you're fired, go home," it > seems like a reasonable thing to comply. If subsequently it turns out > that Isiah didn't in fact have the power to buy Marbury out, since as we > speculated, he appeared to be handcuffed last season, it makes sense that > Marbury be allowed to rejoin the team.
> Marbury's clearly a nutcase and a loser, but I don't find it difficult to > believe that the November fiasco was entirely due to the incompetance and > mismanagement of Isiah Thomas.
> =p=
That's pretty much what I thought after the team voted to keep him on the bench and Thomas played him in spite of that. It looked to me as if Thomas owed Steph something.
> >> Had Thomas stayed in power, Marbury said he knows his contract would > >> have been bought out after the season. In an interview with The Post > >> yesterday, Marbury said his contract was nearly bought out in November > >> amidst the Nov. 13 Phoenix fiasco, when Marbury left the Knicks > >> reportedly because he wasn't going to start anymore.
> >> According to Marbury, Thomas did not just want him out of the starting > >> lineup for Mardy CollinsMardy Collins in November, Thomas wanted him > >> out of the organization and sent him home to have his contract bought > >> out. Marbury said he still doesn't know how things changed the next > >> day, when summoned back to Phoenix, the talk of a buyout history.
> > Not to defend Marbury's actions, but this is actually a plausible > > explaination for Marbury's disappearance, and his subsequent re-insertion > > into the lineup. If Thomas says to Marbs, "you're fired, go home," it > > seems like a reasonable thing to comply. If subsequently it turns out > > that Isiah didn't in fact have the power to buy Marbury out, since as we > > speculated, he appeared to be handcuffed last season, it makes sense that > > Marbury be allowed to rejoin the team.
> > Marbury's clearly a nutcase and a loser, but I don't find it difficult to > > believe that the November fiasco was entirely due to the incompetance and > > mismanagement of Isiah Thomas.
> > =p=
> That's pretty much what I thought after the team voted to keep him on the > bench and Thomas played him in spite of that. It looked to me as if Thomas > owed Steph something.
Totally. What was amazing to me about that whole incident is that for three years prior Isiah traded players and fired coaches left and right because of their inability to deal with this guy. Then all of a sudden he's the coach and tries to play tough guy? Then the team vote bit?
Unbelievable.
Same bit with Larry Brown. Isiah just acted so shocked that the guy would try and stab him in the back. Well duh.
We'll see how Walsh handles him. So far he's put the onus on Steph to show up and earn his keep next season with all his talk of us needing a point guard. This is fine: new regime, clean slate but give him nothing. I can appreciate that. But he needs to have a quick trigger if Steph starts acting up and suspend/get him out of here. No more funny stuff!
On Jun 23, 6:35 pm, Dan Gaters <dan.gat...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Capn'O:
> > new regime, clean slate
> Old Starbury.
Word. Starbury in a new regime/new team/with new teammates/with new coach/in new city...blah blah blah. Been there, seen that many times over now. Always the same result. That doubt has no more benefits to give.
On Jun 23, 7:00 pm, Noah <dontsendmeyers...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Word. Starbury in a new regime/new team/with new teammates/with new > coach/in new city...blah blah blah. Been there, seen that many times > over now. Always the same result. That doubt has no more benefits to > give.
Marbury is not getting the benefit of the doubt. He is getting a chance to prove his worth to the team just like every other player here. Walsh has specifically said that if there are problems between him and D' then D' gets the benefit of the doubt.
In all likelyhood Marbury still won't fit in this new system. Hopefully, when that happens Walsh does the right thing. But I have no problem with him giving Marbury a shot. He's here. He's being paid a lot of money to be here. And that has nothing to do with anything Walsh did. So, see if he can use him and if not - buh bye.
On Jun 23, 8:21 pm, "Capn'O" <dan.zin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Marbury is not getting the benefit of the doubt. He is getting a > chance to prove his worth to the team just like every other player > here.
How many more chances does he deserve? How many more times do you need to see what he does with those chances? How much more time do you want to waste belaboring the obvious?
He's been a sparkling model of consistency in his behavior for years now -- with many different coaches, teams, and rosters. I see zero reason to believe that having yet another coach and GM will matter in the slightest to encourage him to change.
. If he was smart, as a businessman, he'd behave himself this year to try and get another contract -- but he hasn't shown the slightest sign of being smart, either.
Word. Starbury in a new regime/new team/with new teammates/with new coach/in new city...blah blah blah. Been there, seen that many times over now. Always the same result. That doubt has no more benefits to give.
Add in the fact that he never was a team guy before this. Now all of a sudden at age 31, he is going to turn his entire career around?
> On Jun 23, 7:00 pm, Noah <dontsendmeyers...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Word. Starbury in a new regime/new team/with new teammates/with new >> coach/in new city...blah blah blah. Been there, seen that many times >> over now. Always the same result. That doubt has no more benefits to >> give.
> Marbury is not getting the benefit of the doubt. He is getting a > chance to prove his worth to the team just like every other player > here. Walsh has specifically said that if there are problems between > him and D' then D' gets the benefit of the doubt.
> In all likelyhood Marbury still won't fit in this new system. > Hopefully, when that happens Walsh does the right thing. But I have no > problem with him giving Marbury a shot. He's here. He's being paid a > lot of money to be here. And that has nothing to do with anything > Walsh did. So, see if he can use him and if not - buh bye.
That actually makes sense, but this is Steph's last year and knowing this team is going no place for a while, I think D' may choose to start grooming who ever they draft in the first round.
> Marbury is not getting the benefit of the doubt. He is getting a > chance to prove his worth to the team just like every other player > here.
How many more chances does he deserve? How many more times do you need to see what he does with those chances? How much more time do you want to waste belaboring the obvious?
He's been a sparkling model of consistency in his behavior for years now -- with many different coaches, teams, and rosters. I see zero reason to believe that having yet another coach and GM will matter in the slightest to encourage him to change.
. If he was smart, as a businessman, he'd behave himself this year to try and get another contract -- but he hasn't shown the slightest sign of being smart, either.
Actually, I do think Steph is going to be a model citizen this coming season for exactly that reason. He can still play for another few years. He isn't going to become a better PG, but he will at least not be a disruption.
On Jun 24, 1:30 am, Noah <dontsendmeyers...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 23, 8:21 pm, "Capn'O" <dan.zin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Marbury is not getting the benefit of the doubt. He is getting a > > chance to prove his worth to the team just like every other player > > here.
> How many more chances does he deserve?
It's not a matter of deserve. Do you think he _deserves_ getting 21 million dollars to not play basketball this season? Or would you like to trade him for another lottery pick :-D
I'm assuming you'd want a buyout. I see some advantages of that move but also would like to see the pattern of giving free rides come to a close. Penny, Taylor, Rose, Francis, Marbury (last season). I think setting a precedent of buying out disagreeable players is a dangerous one to set if building a winning culture...Keeping Marbury around is playing with fire too but he has an expiration date whereas setting the wrong tone does not.
> On Jun 24, 1:30 am, Noah <dontsendmeyers...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> On Jun 23, 8:21 pm, "Capn'O" <dan.zin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Marbury is not getting the benefit of the doubt. He is getting a >> > chance to prove his worth to the team just like every other player >> > here.
>> How many more chances does he deserve?
> It's not a matter of deserve. Do you think he _deserves_ getting 21 > million dollars to not play basketball this season? Or would you like > to trade him for another lottery pick :-D
> I'm assuming you'd want a buyout. I see some advantages of that move > but also would like to see the pattern of giving free rides come to a > close. Penny, Taylor, Rose, Francis, Marbury (last season). I think > setting a precedent of buying out disagreeable players is a dangerous > one to set if building a winning culture...Keeping Marbury around is > playing with fire too but he has an expiration date whereas setting > the wrong tone does not.
Buying out a contract is only bad if your teams remains bad. Players who want out may become cancers in order to facilitate that if the team has a history of buying out such problem players. The thing is, out of all the players you mentioned, only Marbury was a cancer, the rest were just old save Taylor who was just not a fit.
|
