FanHouse Debate: Have the Knicks Handled the Stephon Marbury Situation Properly?

From time to time, our NBA FanHouse email threads turn into fascinating debates. With news of negotiations between the New York Knicks and Stephon Marbury hitting the wire, FanHouse's Matt Moore and Nate Jones pondered whether the Knicks have handled the situation properly. Here are their thoughts:

Nate Jones: So supposedly Donnie Walsh didn't know that Mike D'Antoni was going to sit Stephon Marbury on opening night.

Matt Moore: I don't know how much I believe that. I mean, Donnie Walsh and Mike D'Antoni have been at the hip. I think it's pretty odd that D'Antoni would bench the $20 million guy against his boss' intentions.

NJ: Don't you think Walsh would have waived him before the season and avoided all of this if he knew this was how it was going to go down? D'Antoni does whatever the hell he wants to do. The guy is known for being as stubborn as they come.

MM: I think D'Antoni is a professional who has the respect of managers and coaches in the league, and who's been known to work well with management that wasn't forced upon him, like, oh, say, Kerr.

I don't think Walsh would have waived him, because Marbury still wanted his full buyout. Walsh isn't going to be held hostage by Stephon Marbury. Little lunatic with a jumper is out of his element with Donnie.

To me it sounds like they're playing good cop, bad cop. D'Antoni won't play him, which frustrates him. Walsh wants to help him, and "didn't know anything" about him not playing. There's no way D'Antoni doesn't talk rotations with Walsh. That's not the vibe either of them gives off.

NJ: If Walsh planned this entire thing out, I definitely have lost a lot of respect for him. I mean, think about it: If you know you want someone gone, are you going to a) proceed with buyout talks before the season and try to work on a number that works for both parties to avoid controversy before the season starts, or b) start the season, cause controversy, and then end up doing the same thing you would have ended up doing before the season? Marbury still says he won't take less than what is owed to him, but you see he is now negotiating with the Knicks. If Walsh knew about D'Antoni's intentions, and decided this is the best way to go about things, then he is not as with it as I thought. "That's not change, that's more of the same."

MM: You act like we're dealing with a rational actor. We're not. It's Marbury. He made it pretty clear to start the year he's simply not going to accept a lower buyout. And Walsh said, "Fine. Put him in the tank. We're not buying him out for $20 mil." If they buy him out for the full amount it's because this team is looking better than projected (and shooting the lights out) and he realizes it's not worth dealing with the little scab.

NJ: Unless Knicks owner James Dolan forced Walsh to keep Marbury on through the start of the season, there is no reason to conduct business this way. You are in New York, where the media and fans are crazy. I mean, how many posts have we had on Marbury and the Knicks since the season started? In business, when you have a problem and want to move in a different direction, you attack that problem immediately. I don't know if Dolan was the one meddling in this because one of the conditions Walsh received when he became Knicks President was a lack of Dolan in basketball decisions.

And of course Marbury is going to say he is not going to except less than what he is owed. Almost every player says that in the press. And almost every team says they will not pay the player even close to what he is owed. But that is why you have negotiations. And they should have negotiated and moved on before things became a distraction.



As well, if it was about trying to find a trade suitor for Marbury, they could have followed the Pacers blueprint with Ron Artest and Jamaal Tinsley and told Marbury to stay as far away from the team as possible until they found a suitor for him. Steph is still traveling and practicing with the team, and this is the daily focus of the local media.

It's possible we are not hearing the entire story (wouldn't be surprised if Steph has dirt on Dolan or something), but I'm telling you they did not handle this in a smart and efficient manner. In the end, they will pay Steph about the same amount of money they would have paid him in a summer buyout. However, if this would have been handled before the season, the distractions that this has caused would not have been there. I mean the Knicks are winning and this is what is being covered! The Knicks really need PR training 101.

Imagine if the Knicks had a much worse record than they do right now. What kind of pressure do you think the fans and the media would have been putting on the organization about Marbury? Those "We Want Steph" chants would have just been just the tip of the iceberg. Luckily they are winning, because they really left the door open for this to turn into an absolute disaster.

MM: Well, for starters, who's making the Marbury news? Who's writing the posts? (That's a dig at Nate Jones' frequent Marbury Watch posts.)

I don't cover him because I don't think he's worth covering. He's a veteran who has an expiring that refuses a buyout. He's Antonie Walker with a worse attitude. Yawn. I don't think he's interesting.

Furthermore, I'm thrilled with what the Knicks have done. There's ignoring flareups in the locker room or dissent in the front office like what happened under Isiah. But that's not what's going on here. The Knicks refuse to get into a public squabble with the brat. He doesn't want to take the buyout, fine, we'll pay you as your contract says, and then you'll be gone. Whenever you want to quit throwing a tantrum over your money, we can talk about a solution.

But giving in to a player's demands when you're already paying him is ridiculous.

Trade? Ron Artest was still a productive member of a team. He still has guys in the locker room that get along with him. He's still a good player. Who the hell wants Marbury? Keeping him on the team is a decision the Knicks make, and to me it seems like a goodwill gesture. "Hey, if you want to quit being a pain in the ass, we can work on this."

Handling it before the season means the Knicks have no leverage. They haven't proven they can win without him, they haven't proven his trade value is nil, they haven't proven they're willing to go through with sticking him on the bench.

Meanwhile, you act like mishandling Marbury is mishandling Tracy McGrady or someone that actually, you know, contributes to the team. The only reason this is a story is because another regime was dumb enough to give him $20 million and because he's "eccentric." The fact that the media concerns itself with an irrelevant player isn't new or exciting, but it is kind of sad. But not as sad as Marbury not being willing to be a professional and work out a deal. He's well within his rights, and as you said, not the first or last person to do so, but he's the first and last to do so with the lasting legacy of disappointment and frustration he's laid in New York.

And they're not lucky they're winning. They're well-coached and playing together, Something they failed to accomplish when ol' Logohead was on the floor. Maybe it's got something to do with that D'Antoni feller being so stubborn about supporting players and getting them to believe in the system.