Should Marbury be paid

[capstone21]

If he refuses to go into a game.

He is making over 20 million a season and he is acting like a baby. I think if I was the knicks I would just suspend him without pay.

I wouldn't buy him out because all it does is give him the oppurtunity to go play somewhere else while NY pays the bill.

[Georgiaboi87]

Or they could just let him play somewhere else. They obviously dont want him there.

[tonegully]

The coach refuses to play him.

[capstone21]

The coach refuses to play him.

That is the coaches perogative to play him or not.

However, when he tried to play him Marbury refused.

[hussamga]

if i remember correctly, he isnt allowed to participate with the knicks in practice..they dont want him around. Whether thats his fault or not...i wouldnt appreciate being asked to play when im generally banned from team activities. I dont think Mike reached out to him, i think he just let the status quo go.

Yah i know Marbury is a headcase, but they helped create the situation so knicks should bear the brunt of it.

[tonegully]

That is the coaches perogative to play him or not.

However, when he tried to play him Marbury refused.

if i make 20 million and the star of the team and the coach doesnt want to play me. I wouldnt play either

[capstone21]

if i make 20 million and the star of the team and the coach doesnt want to play me. I wouldnt play either

You are being paid 20 million a year. If you are told to go in then you go in

[TroyMcClure]

If he refuses to go into a game.

He is making over 20 million a season and he is acting like a baby. I think if I was the knicks I would just suspend him without pay.

I wouldn't buy him out because all it does is give him the oppurtunity to go play somewhere else while NY pays the bill.

First let me say that I am in no way a Marbury fan. I think he should be paid every penny of the contract. It's not so cut and dry when the coach comes to him and says he won't play him, he's not in their plans, but they won't trade him. It's a better move to keep him and let the contract expire. They have the contract. It's on them.

[tonegully]

You are being paid 20 million a year. If you are told to go in then you go in

nope, im getting paid and sitting on the sideline. Since the coach tells me im not in his plans.

[capstone21]

nope, im getting paid and sitting on the sideline. Since the coach tells me im not in his plans.

nope...you are getting paid to do a job. You do what you are told. When u are told to sit you sit. When you are told to play you play. If you don't do your job then you should not get paid.

[BeeSwatter]

This is a touchy situation and I can see points from both sides. I agree with Cap that a player should do what the coach tells him to but there really is more to this story. I feel like the Knicks have egg on their faces too. D'Antoni has said all the right things up to this point but you have to think that in the back of his mind he had to believe that Marbury would already have been traded or released but Walsh refuses to do so. They played him, even started him in the preseason and led Marbury to believe that he was going to be a part of the team. Reading between the lines it looks as if they were showcasing him and D'Antoni had to figure that if Walsh couldn't trade him then he would cut him loose. Then opening night came and there D'Antoni was to deal with the problem.

I don't agree with Steph and think he should have played because of his teammates, but I can see his point because it does look like he was decieved a little.

[tonegully]

nope...you are getting paid to do a job. You do what you are told. When u are told to sit you sit. When you are told to play you play. If you don't do your job then you should not get paid.

uh, no. Im not playing and still getting paid.

[capstone21]

uh, no. Im not playing and still getting paid.

If you had an employee who just plain refused to do his job what do you do? Do you just keep paying him like it is no big deal? I don't think so.

If Thomas Gardner refused to play (even though he doesn't fit into the teams plans) what do you do? Do you just say hey no big deal. No you fine or release him. They can't just release Marbury because he has a 20 million dollar contract so I say don't pay him.

[BeeSwatter]

If you had an employee who just plain refused to do his job what do you do? Do you just keep paying him like it is no big deal? I don't think so.

If Thomas Gardner refused to play (even though he doesn't fit into the teams plans) what do you do? Do you just say hey no big deal. No you fine or release him. They can't just release Marbury because he has a 20 million dollar contract so I say don't pay him.

Talking about tough decisions in another thread and this is one too. I wonder if the Knicks owners have told Walsh no on a buy out? If Thomas Gardner did that he would be gone. Still they only suspend him for one game? Makes me feel like the Knicks are a little afraid as to whether or not they could win a grievance if Marbury files one.

[DrReality]

Who cares. He made his bed . . . . . .

[tonegully]

If you had an employee who just plain refused to do his job what do you do? Do you just keep paying him like it is no big deal? I don't think so.

If Thomas Gardner refused to play (even though he doesn't fit into the teams plans) what do you do? Do you just say hey no big deal. No you fine or release him. They can't just release Marbury because he has a 20 million dollar contract so I say don't pay him.

How are you going to tell a player, that he is not in your plans. Play him in the preseason and then bench him? Thats plain stupid. How is the best player on your team not part of your plans.

Then the only reason you play him is because you only have 7 players to play a game.

If im the Knick owners coach would never tell someone i pay 20 million that he is not part of the teams plan. At 20 million you gonna make him part of your plans coach.

They are not going to be able to move Starbury and he is not gonna take a buy out so why not make him part of your plans. At least then..

1. You are getting something out of him

2. Showcasing him for other teams that need a guard for playoff push

3. Not airing all your business in the streets.

They way the knicks are handling this not bad for them. Now noone wants him. They have to pay him and he is not playing.

Coach shouldve sucked it up and play Marbury just so they could move him. now he isnt going anywhere

[PlayaPat420]

IMHO, the Knicks and D'Antoni are getting exactly what they deserve, really. You tell the man he isn't in "your team"s plan but won't trade him AND THEN you make him sit on the bench in street clothes? That's disrespect and unprofessionalism to its maximum. And next, you ask him to play when "your team", whoms plans he didn't fit into, is short handed? That's ridiculous... sign a scrub from the D League or something, since Marbury is such a cancer and terrible player. Seems like they are just being spiteful at this point... we all know money isn't a thing to NY teams, so just buy him out or trade him

Edited December 2, 2008 by PlayaPat420

[AHF]

Personally, I would do the following if I were the Knicks:

(a) Tell Marbury he isn't in our plans and that we don't intend to use him most games.

(b) Tell Marbury to get his agent on the phone because if any team in the league wants him we will deal him for a second round pick. We'll listen to any offer and make any deal to get him out of town that makes sense for our team.

© Tell Marbury we will keep paying him even when he isn't playing. But if we decide we do need to play him we expect him to play since we are going to be paying him $20 million.

(d) If Marbury is told to play and refuses, he will be suspended and not paid for the game he refused to play and the period of suspension. The suspension would be for insubordination.

I think all of those decisions are reasonable management decisions and that the Union would not be able to overturn any of those.

[Gray Mule]

He's under contract. That's why he is getting paid. No way around that. Both

sides agreed to the terms of the contract, both the amount to be paid and the

length of the contract.

I'm sure the contract says he is to play whenever he is asked to play, health permitting.

If he's out due to injury, insurance would pick up the tab, or most of it as we know

from reading about our own Speedy.

His refusal to play, regardless of what else had been said - "You're not in our plans" - or

anything else, should void the contract - ENTIRELY!!

They should now be able to release him without paying him anything. He failed to

live up to the contract. Let him go and sign with any team he wants to and neither

he or the current team has any obligation whatsoever to each other. We know

that this is not possible. Otherwise, anyone wishing to leave a team, for any reason,

could simply refues to play, be released, and go his merry way.

As it is, both the team and the player are under obligation to each other. They can

and have suspended him for his refusal to play. Until he recants and agrees to

return to the team and play, they owe him nothing.

Both sides are acting like small, spoiled children in my opinion. Guess they deserve

each other.

[AHF]

His refusal to play, regardless of what else had been said - "You're not in our plans" - or

anything else, should void the contract - ENTIRELY!!

They should now be able to release him without paying him anything. He failed to

live up to the contract. Let him go and sign with any team he wants to and neither

he or the current team has any obligation whatsoever to each other. We know

that this is not possible. Otherwise, anyone wishing to leave a team, for any reason,

could simply refues to play, be released, and go his merry way.

The rest of the contract gives him protection against being released, though. The Knicks just don't have that right under the contract even if he refuses to play unless he continues to refuse to play to a point where it would be grounds to void the remainder of the contract. What he has done so far is almost surely not enough.

As it is, both the team and the player are under obligation to each other. They can

and have suspended him for his refusal to play. Until he recants and agrees to

return to the team and play, they owe him nothing.

I agree with this 100%.