Tue Dec 02, 2008 2:20 pm EST
Leave it to the Knicks to turn Stephon Marbury into a
sympathetic figure.
OK, maybe not "sympathetic" or "understandable" or even "worth our time," but how the Knicks managed to botch the simplest of solutions to a rather nasty (if not somewhat common, to the NBA) problem is beyond me.
Why didn't they just tell Stephon Marbury to go home last October? Or even last September? Or last week? Why didn't they do it, and tell us that it was for good this time, this morning?
Think about it. As of October 29th, Marbury was still in uniform on the Knicks bench, with the expectation to play. That's just over a month ago. How nutty does that sound now?
Well, it should have sounded nutty back then. And it was pretty darned nutty just bringing Marbury to training camp to begin with, much less playing him in seven preseason games. It was ridiculous just to bring him into media day, where this happened.
We know why the Knicks want Marbury around. It isn't to
play, that ship has flown, it's to at least warm themselves to the idea of
getting something out of a player who they're paying nearly $21 million to this
season. And that would be admirable had the Knicks not had almost five years to
prepare for this reality. Name any coach, any context, any style of play, and any
win/loss percentage, and you knew Steph was going to end up like this, in this
exact season.
Because it's his last season with a big contract. His last year with any juice,
even if he's barely played for two years. You knew it was going to happen.
Steph was going to run out of excuses after a while. Minnesota's too cold. I'm not the star. I'm
not paid as much as the star. I'm all alone in New Jersey. It's not New York. The coach doesn't understand me in
Phoenix. My
teammates aren't good enough in New
York. My coach hates me, no matter what I do. I'm not
healthy. I just found Jesus, give me a second. I'm good with the Jesus stuff,
and that's factorial, but Isiah hates me. Coach D'Antoni hates me. It's not my
fault.
You knew it was going to come to a head, this year. Any NBA observer with half a brain would.
And the Knicks have had all this time to do something about it. Could have tried to trade his expiring deal for a few contracts that could keep them competitive and expire in 2010. Could have bought him out for the exact amount of his deal and watched Steph ruined the Heat or ruined the Suns and moped his way out of the rotation in another city. Because you know, in spite of the two good weeks that would precede it, that's what was going to happen.
But the Knicks are different and better and smarter than you. And they're not the Pacers, who told Ron Artest and Jamaal Tinsley to go away under Donnie Walsh, because they know better than you, and they know better than the Pacers. They didn't know enough not to hire Isiah Thomas, who the Pacers fired, but that's in the past. We're moving on. It's a new era.
Except they're not moving on. They're making good moves and hiring the right people, but they still want to work under their own set of rules. And that means keeping Stephon around, working under a coach that loathes him, and acting haughty and taken aback when he refuses to go on the court against the Bucks.
Steph should have gone on the court. When you're making nearly $21 million a year, you go on the court, you play your ass off, you earn your money, and you utilize your constitutional right to bitch and moan to the assembled media after the game. And that would have increased his martyrdom, his stature, and given him more than a passing scintilla of respect from us.
But that plan doesn't make sense to Steph, because he plays by his own rules. Or thinks that he should, even when he's not allowed to. He was born to be a Knick.
One of the blues songs I'm sure James Dolan and his Tube Screamer have mangled at some point is B.B. King's "Paying the Cost To Be the Boss," and I'm sure he thinks he's doing a fine job at it. Both in nailing that solo, and paying the cost to be the boss. Problem is, I don't think he understands what costs what, and what being a leader actually means. In fact, I'm sure of it.
Being a leader, a boss, means communicating with your entire organization, from top to bottom. And if you haven't the time to drop a line, then your actions speak for themselves. And being a boss means making a series of decisions that, while they may seem abhorrent and revolting to your very core, are the best for the organization that you are in charge of.
And does anyone think that this pathetic battle between the organization and their spoiled brat of a 31-year old point guard is the best for the Knicks? Even if this team is biding its time until 2010? Even if nobody will remember this in a year's time?
Hells no. Not only is Stephon's very presence an unwelcome throwback to the most disastrous executive reign in post-ABA pro basketball history (if not for all time, given the stakes), but his treatment is more proof that the head still stinks in New York, and that it is business as usual with the Knicks.
No amount of cap space can shake that stigma.
Ball Don't Lie is an NBA blog edited by J.E. Skeets. Email him, and follow him on Twitter.

Posted Nov 20 2009
Posted Nov 20 2009
Posted Nov 20 2009
Edited by MJD
Edited by 'Duk
Edited by J.E. Skeets
Edited by Greg Wyshynski
Edited by Matt Hinton
Edited by E. Brennan
Edited by Jay Busbee
Edited by Jay Busbee
Edited by Steve Cofield
Edited by Chris Chase
Edited by Chris Chase
Edited by Andy Behrens
84 Comments
1 - 25 of 84
Report Abuse
Keeps them in the press, I guess...
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
in my opinion... i would just find a reason to suspend him for the rest of the season... try to fine him as much as i can... soo he would get pissed off and ask for the buyout... and if he filled grievance... he would lose due to his on and off court record...
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
Larry Bird.
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
Knicks management says Starbury is not part of the team. The coach says he's not part of his plans. The organization continues to pay him $21 Million dollars.... Then they ask him to play and he says no.. Why is this his fault? They obviously don't want him, why should he go out of his way to do anything to "earn" the money they are going to pay him anyways.
Don't get me wrong, I am not condoning Starbury's past behavior or even questioning that his antics are ridiculous, I just think that in this situation, if the Coach says "Steph you are playing tonite" and Steph says no, thats wrong, but if the coach says "I'm giving you the option to play" and Steph says "I'm not playing, you obviously don't have me in your plans and you went to the media and said so" then it is the Coach and the Organizations fault for letting it get this far....
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
if they didnt wanna buy him out, the knicks shouldve admitted to themselves and everyone else that they did not want to play him and done what they did yesterday two months ago: gotten him away from the team.
long term it's no big deal. short term it's fun for us nba fans. but knicks management handled it incorrectly from their perspective. and the only reason it couldve gone down like this is dishonesty emanating from d'antoni to both marbury and walsh.
it's not a big deal, and it's fun for stephon to have his name in the papers when he's not even great at basketball anymore. and it lets us fans know that our couch has no integrity as a human being.
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
Doesn't anyone proof read your articles. I expect poor grammar from the people that comment on Yahoo, but not from the people that call themselves writers.
"He was a born to be a Knick."
"Could have bought him out for the exact amount of his deal and watched Steph ruined the Heat or ruined the Suns..."
"And does anyone thing that this pathetic battle between the organization and their spoiled brat..."
Come on KD, you are better than that.
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
Steph should have played each time he was 'asked' ... whatever that 'really means.
In the end, the Knicks created this. May be if the Knicks played Steph (as he did in pre-season), their record could be better than it is now. If Steph plays, other teams would see his skills and may be then more teams would be able to take such a salary hit by trading for Steph, thus the Knicks would be rid of Steph. Why would a team trade for or acquire someone they have not even seen play recently? At least by playing him, paying that $21m does not seem so bad, as the Knicks would be getting something in return.
1 - 25 of 84