Starbury Rumors to Boston is reason why NBA has no integrety

Talk about anything general in the NBA here.

Moderators: Mr. Crackerz, JREED, Guybrush, hobbes


Moderator
Posts: 5360
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 10:21 pm
Poster Credit: 21
PostPosted: Fri Jan 02, 2009 1:25 pm
Here is a rant... and part of it is based on rumor, and some on fact.

Stephan Marbury (Starbury) has been a joke on the NY Knick bench. Sure he is not fully to blame, as the Knicks as an organization has been a mess. But Starbury, and his big ego, has sat on his lazy behind watching the knicks play all season. Now, he wants to play for Boston! BULL CRAP!

This isn't new in the NBA. Disgruntle stars, who vow for their release, in a league which contracts are almost always guaranteed, b*tch and moan so they can bandwagon on a hot team. Starbury has stated that boston is tops in his list, and it is rumored (some journalists claiming its true) that Boston GM Danny Ainge is interested, if released by New York. SO in essence, the knicks will have to release a star making 21 mill this season, so he can sign some minimum deal, to a team he can win a ring for... and oh BTW, still gets all that 21 mill? BULL CRAP!

What happens if this happens in the NFL for example? Simple. Not only are contracts not fully guarenteed for the most part, but teams have the right to claim sabotage on players and opposing teams. Players can be stripped of their contracts, teams can be heavily fined and lose precious draft picks, and more. But in the NBA, it seems like this is embraced. What's the incentive of trying your best when you can b*tch and moan your way out of your team to any good team. How does this show teamwork? Sportsmanship? Quality basketball? It simply doesn't. What does it show? BULL CRAP!

The Knicks should have the right to go after Starbury's contract for attempting to negotiate with other teams. Can they? Nope! The NBA, the "star" league that it is, is all about entertainment, rather than fairness. Anyone see that 24 hours of LeBron special they had a couple nights ago on NBATV, on LeBron's BDay. So much for every player is equal. Not in the NBA. A star player, is worth more than any other player. If the MLB or NFL did this (aka star preference) there would be public outcry. Yet this happens in the NBA all the time, and it goes unnoticed. BULL CRAP!

Sick and tired of this monopolistic league's actions and favoritism. The NBA is a joke. Stern, the refs, the players, a joke. Its not basketball, its entertainment. People bitch about MLB not letting teams have a chance? C'mon, the NBA is worse. They want the same 7 teams winning it the last 30 years. Its a stars league. And I'm sick of it.

Rant done!
User avatar
All Star
Posts: 1758
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 11:49 am
Location: napa
Poster Credit: 2
PostPosted: Fri Jan 02, 2009 1:36 pm
Its really easy for all of this to be prevented....dont buy out the guys contract. Step has been a little bitch for the past 2 years.....let him be a little bitch for the rest of this one. At this point, there is no benefit to the Knicks to either waive him or trade him. Let him continue to rot and let his skills continue to erode on the bench and after the season his contract comes off the books. Teams do not have to buy out the contracts of disgruntled players, but it is something that has been done a lot as of late.

There are also rules against other teams conspiring to get a player that is currently under contract. Remember several years ago when the T-Wolves gave up 3 years of #1's because of illegal contact with Joe Smith? Atleast we only wasted 1 pick on that scrub.
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 18461
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:48 am
Location: Somewhere in this site...
Poster Credit: -4
PostPosted: Fri Jan 02, 2009 1:43 pm
"Always" Next wrote:Its really easy for all of this to be prevented....dont buy out the guys contract


Yeah, but that's also unfair for the player. That way, once a player signs a contract, he practically becomes a slave of the team, as they can do whatever they want with him as long as he's getting paid.

Everything would be much easier if contracts were not guaranteed, or if only one part of them were guaranteed.
User avatar
All Star
Posts: 1758
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 11:49 am
Location: napa
Poster Credit: 2
PostPosted: Fri Jan 02, 2009 1:47 pm
TMC wrote:
"Always" Next wrote:Its really easy for all of this to be prevented....dont buy out the guys contract


Yeah, but that's also unfair for the player. That way, once a player signs a contract, he practically becomes a slave of the team, as they can do whatever they want with him as long as he's getting paid.

Everything would be much easier if contracts were not guaranteed, or if only one part of them were guaranteed.


Lets just take the Marbury situation. He could have been botten out a month ago, but he would not leave any of his money on the table. Now that is lame, if a player wants to be relieved of the remainder of his contract then he should be willing to accept ZERO compensation to leave. If he is not willing to do that......then he is an employee that is under contract to serve the team that holds his contract. It must suck to be the kind of slave labor that is getting paid 20+ million to sit courtside at the Lakers game and go on vacation while the rest of your co-workers are working.

Moderator
Posts: 5360
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 10:21 pm
Poster Credit: 21
PostPosted: Fri Jan 02, 2009 2:10 pm
"Always" Next wrote:
TMC wrote:
"Always" Next wrote:Its really easy for all of this to be prevented....dont buy out the guys contract


Yeah, but that's also unfair for the player. That way, once a player signs a contract, he practically becomes a slave of the team, as they can do whatever they want with him as long as he's getting paid.

Everything would be much easier if contracts were not guaranteed, or if only one part of them were guaranteed.


Lets just take the Marbury situation. He could have been botten out a month ago, but he would not leave any of his money on the table. Now that is lame, if a player wants to be relieved of the remainder of his contract then he should be willing to accept ZERO compensation to leave. If he is not willing to do that......then he is an employee that is under contract to serve the team that holds his contract. It must suck to be the kind of slave labor that is getting paid 20+ million to sit courtside at the Lakers game and go on vacation while the rest of your co-workers are working.


yeah, its a simple solution, but u have to wonder if the league pressures these teams to release their disgruntle players. We saw this with Sam Cassel last year. the clippers simply released him, the clips paid the tag, and the celtics got him dirt cheap. Its pathetic.

All Star
Posts: 2320
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2008 5:40 pm
Location: lithuania, gargzdai
Poster Credit: 10
PostPosted: Fri Jan 02, 2009 2:44 pm
TMC wrote:
"Always" Next wrote:Its really easy for all of this to be prevented....dont buy out the guys contract


Yeah, but that's also unfair for the player. That way, once a player signs a contract, he practically becomes a slave of the team, as they can do whatever they want with him as long as he's getting paid.

Everything would be much easier if contracts were not guaranteed, or if only one part of them were guaranteed.


hope you understand that this is very very metaphorical :wink:
slave with some 1 million in his pocket, now that is hardcore :headbang:
"i wish i was a little bit taller" skee lo
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 18461
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:48 am
Location: Somewhere in this site...
Poster Credit: -4
PostPosted: Fri Jan 02, 2009 3:55 pm
martin wrote:
TMC wrote:
"Always" Next wrote:Its really easy for all of this to be prevented....dont buy out the guys contract


Yeah, but that's also unfair for the player. That way, once a player signs a contract, he practically becomes a slave of the team, as they can do whatever they want with him as long as he's getting paid.

Everything would be much easier if contracts were not guaranteed, or if only one part of them were guaranteed.


hope you understand that this is very very metaphorical :wink:
slave with some 1 million in his pocket, now that is hardcore :headbang:


Ok, I should have said "a slave", and always in terms of being subjected to teams wishes. :wink:

But it's still true. If the team doesn't consider you on its long term plans, it's not your fault, so why do you have to accept being bought out?. You'd be losing money for something that it's decided by other people. Why do you have to take the blame for that?
User avatar
Franchise Player
Posts: 7512
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2004 2:44 pm
Location: Brighton, England.
Poster Credit: -5
PostPosted: Fri Jan 02, 2009 4:46 pm
TMC wrote:
martin wrote:
TMC wrote:
"Always" Next wrote:Its really easy for all of this to be prevented....dont buy out the guys contract


Yeah, but that's also unfair for the player. That way, once a player signs a contract, he practically becomes a slave of the team, as they can do whatever they want with him as long as he's getting paid.

Everything would be much easier if contracts were not guaranteed, or if only one part of them were guaranteed.


hope you understand that this is very very metaphorical :wink:
slave with some 1 million in his pocket, now that is hardcore :headbang:


Ok, I should have said "a slave", and always in terms of being subjected to teams wishes. :wink:

But it's still true. If the team doesn't consider you on its long term plans, it's not your fault, so why do you have to accept being bought out?. You'd be losing money for something that it's decided by other people. Why do you have to take the blame for that?


So Marbury is worth his 21.9 million per season?.............like f*ck he is, and considering the buyout is probably for ATLEAST 15 million, then to be able to play again (and get atleast another 1.8 mil from whatever team he signs for)............isnt it worth it?

No, because Marbury would rather sulk and play pathetic games, than carry on his career.............which obviously means so much to him huh. :roll:

All thats happend here, is a new coach and GM have come in, seen the devastation his antics have caused, and decided they want to move away from that...........is it their fault he is signed to such an overblown, ridiculous contract? no............is it there fault he is a prima-dona? no.

If I was in charge of the Knicks, I would have done the exact same thing.

Moderator
Posts: 5360
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 10:21 pm
Poster Credit: 21
PostPosted: Fri Jan 02, 2009 5:04 pm
bigstrads wrote:
TMC wrote:
martin wrote:
TMC wrote:
"Always" Next wrote:Its really easy for all of this to be prevented....dont buy out the guys contract


Yeah, but that's also unfair for the player. That way, once a player signs a contract, he practically becomes a slave of the team, as they can do whatever they want with him as long as he's getting paid.

Everything would be much easier if contracts were not guaranteed, or if only one part of them were guaranteed.


hope you understand that this is very very metaphorical :wink:
slave with some 1 million in his pocket, now that is hardcore :headbang:


Ok, I should have said "a slave", and always in terms of being subjected to teams wishes. :wink:

But it's still true. If the team doesn't consider you on its long term plans, it's not your fault, so why do you have to accept being bought out?. You'd be losing money for something that it's decided by other people. Why do you have to take the blame for that?


So Marbury is worth his 21.9 million per season?.............like f*ck he is, and considering the buyout is probably for ATLEAST 15 million, then to be able to play again (and get atleast another 1.8 mil from whatever team he signs for)............isnt it worth it?

No, because Marbury would rather sulk and play pathetic games, than carry on his career.............which obviously means so much to him huh. :roll:

All thats happend here, is a new coach and GM have come in, seen the devastation his antics have caused, and decided they want to move away from that...........is it their fault he is signed to such an overblown, ridiculous contract? no............is it there fault he is a prima-dona? no.

If I was in charge of the Knicks, I would have done the exact same thing.


yeah i agree bigs. I just hope the knicks sulk him in the bench all year rather than cut him. Cuz then Marbury wins if he's released, and will chose a contender, play nice for a couple months, and try to win a ring (again, Celtics being the leading contender).
User avatar
Franchise Player
Posts: 7512
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2004 2:44 pm
Location: Brighton, England.
Poster Credit: -5
PostPosted: Fri Jan 02, 2009 6:06 pm
Mr. Crackerz wrote:
bigstrads wrote:
TMC wrote:
martin wrote:
TMC wrote:
"Always" Next wrote:Its really easy for all of this to be prevented....dont buy out the guys contract


Yeah, but that's also unfair for the player. That way, once a player signs a contract, he practically becomes a slave of the team, as they can do whatever they want with him as long as he's getting paid.

Everything would be much easier if contracts were not guaranteed, or if only one part of them were guaranteed.


hope you understand that this is very very metaphorical :wink:
slave with some 1 million in his pocket, now that is hardcore :headbang:


Ok, I should have said "a slave", and always in terms of being subjected to teams wishes. :wink:

But it's still true. If the team doesn't consider you on its long term plans, it's not your fault, so why do you have to accept being bought out?. You'd be losing money for something that it's decided by other people. Why do you have to take the blame for that?


So Marbury is worth his 21.9 million per season?.............like f*ck he is, and considering the buyout is probably for ATLEAST 15 million, then to be able to play again (and get atleast another 1.8 mil from whatever team he signs for)............isnt it worth it?

No, because Marbury would rather sulk and play pathetic games, than carry on his career.............which obviously means so much to him huh. :roll:

All thats happend here, is a new coach and GM have come in, seen the devastation his antics have caused, and decided they want to move away from that...........is it their fault he is signed to such an overblown, ridiculous contract? no............is it there fault he is a prima-dona? no.

If I was in charge of the Knicks, I would have done the exact same thing.


yeah i agree bigs. I just hope the knicks sulk him in the bench all year rather than cut him. Cuz then Marbury wins if he's released, and will chose a contender, play nice for a couple months, and try to win a ring (again, Celtics being the leading contender).


Yeah, that would be total garbage...........for a player like him to just go and get and bandwagon his way to a ring..........although he'll probably say he was the key to the whole thing of course. :roll:

I just read that the Knicks offered a buyout of ONE MILLION LESS than his current deal...............and he wouldnt accept it!!! how pathetic is that? 1 million out of 21.9! :roll:
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 21382
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 7:50 am
Location: Perth
Poster Credit: 27
PostPosted: Fri Jan 02, 2009 6:29 pm
If a player wants to leave hs team, he shouldn't be paid for that season at all. It is a business and teams have overheads and such, noone should be able to get paid without giving the service they were paid to do, especially such high paid employees. In the nba, the players have such power and can be stubborn and force a team to bend to their will, that is not fair
Image



Image


migya make the ring fall on ya
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 18461
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:48 am
Location: Somewhere in this site...
Poster Credit: -4
PostPosted: Sat Jan 03, 2009 3:42 am
bigstrads wrote:So Marbury is worth his 21.9 million per season?.............like f*ck he is, and considering the buyout is probably for ATLEAST 15 million, then to be able to play again (and get atleast another 1.8 mil from whatever team he signs for)............isnt it worth it?

No, because Marbury would rather sulk and play pathetic games, than carry on his career.............which obviously means so much to him huh. :roll:

All thats happend here, is a new coach and GM have come in, seen the devastation his antics have caused, and decided they want to move away from that...........is it their fault he is signed to such an overblown, ridiculous contract? no............is it there fault he is a prima-dona? no.

If I was in charge of the Knicks, I would have done the exact same thing.


Look, Bigs, I wasn't talking about Marbury specifically in that post, but about the guaranteed contracts that keep players tied to a team and to the team's wishes for the length of the contract.

In sports, I just don't believe in a system based on guarenteed contracts. It's bad for teams and also for the players, because it takes things for granted, like a consistent performance that may or may not happen, but that's hardly the player's fault. It's always the system.



That's in a general way, but now let's go into detail into Marbury's case:

I'm taking Marbury's side on this one. I'm no big fan of him (I am of his talent, because I think he's the most talented PG drafted in the last 15 years, but his ego gets in the way of his performance most of the time... In any case, it's not relevant for this discussion), but I agree with his stance. Why?. Because he signed that contract with the Knicks willingly, and this year the Knicks decided they don't want him in their future plans, so he's not gonna play. Why is that his fault?. Why does he have to condone a single buck?. They knew what kind of player they were signing (he was already a vet when he was traded to the Knicks), so why should Marbury be blamed for the Knicks changing their plans regarding him?.

Nobody would be saying anything if not for his salary, but he didn't force the team to sign him to that kind of contract. It was their mistake and they have to pay for it. Keeping a guy (Marbury or not) on the roster, not allowing him to carry on with his career when you don't plan to play him is a b*tch move by the franchise.

If people supports the Knicks on this, it's just due to jealousy and hate towards Marbury (and the money he makes), but it's not objective at all.

Rookie
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2008 1:49 pm
Location: Latvia
Poster Credit: 0
PostPosted: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:53 pm
I'm also taking Marbury's side on this one. Not much of a fan of him, but not a hater either.

bigstrads wrote:So Marbury is worth his 21.9 million per season?.............like f*ck he is


Well, that's a mistake made by the team, it's not Marbury's fault he was signed to such a huge deal. It might also hint at Marbury being quite a good player at the time (which kind of makes you wonder how good is he now, since he claims to be in the best shape ever).

bigstrads wrote:considering the buyout is probably for ATLEAST 15 million, then to be able to play again (and get atleast another 1.8 mil from whatever team he signs for)............isnt it worth it?


In order to fully understand the situation, imagine if you were in this situation - Knicks signed you to a huge deal, and in the last year they just don't let you play at all, pretty much killing your market value, despite you being in great shape. And now they offer you a buyout of 15 million, which is 7 million less than what you should earn, so you could play for another team for a small salary (1.8 million, right?), and, at that salary, it would only take you 4 years to get all that money back. The money they signed you for...
I'd think that losing 7 million is quite a big deal for Marbury (or any other player, really).
User avatar
Franchise Player
Posts: 7512
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2004 2:44 pm
Location: Brighton, England.
Poster Credit: -5
PostPosted: Sat Jan 03, 2009 3:10 pm
Zooey wrote:I'm also taking Marbury's side on this one. Not much of a fan of him, but not a hater either.

bigstrads wrote:So Marbury is worth his 21.9 million per season?.............like f*ck he is


Well, that's a mistake made by the team, it's not Marbury's fault he was signed to such a huge deal. It might also hint at Marbury being quite a good player at the time (which kind of makes you wonder how good is he now, since he claims to be in the best shape ever).

bigstrads wrote:considering the buyout is probably for ATLEAST 15 million, then to be able to play again (and get atleast another 1.8 mil from whatever team he signs for)............isnt it worth it?


In order to fully understand the situation, imagine if you were in this situation - Knicks signed you to a huge deal, and in the last year they just don't let you play at all, pretty much killing your market value, despite you being in great shape. And now they offer you a buyout of 15 million, which is 7 million less than what you should earn, so you could play for another team for a small salary (1.8 million, right?), and, at that salary, it would only take you 4 years to get all that money back. The money they signed you for...
I'd think that losing 7 million is quite a big deal for Marbury (or any other player, really).


The first thing about Marbury's contract was just about the fact that HE feels hes worth that much, in terms of not accepting the buyout.

The second there about the buyout............when you say about "losing" 7 million and then only getting 1.8 mil when he signs somewhere else..........well, you realise that will be ontop of the buyout money he gets, so essentially, if he accepted 15 mil from the Knicks, then 1.8 mil........then hes getting paid 16.8 mil for playing half a season............which he is no way worth.

Moreover, the buyout the Knicks offered him was 20.9 million.........ONE MILLION LESS THAN HIS DEAL!!!

Which he simply refused to even discuss..........even though he would knew he would get the vets minimum of 1.8 if he took that offer, so hence he would actually get 22.7 million for playing half a season..............but he still wouldnt accept that because hed rather sulk and be the prima dona loser that he is.
User avatar
All Star
Posts: 3244
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 6:29 am
Poster Credit: 0
PostPosted: Sat Jan 03, 2009 11:27 pm
spot on bigs. Everything I've read says he was originally offered a buyout of 21 mill. He wants it all


screw him
Next

Return to NBA Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron