Rhoden Defends Marbury

Earlier in the year Marbury was going to practice with his old high school Lincoln. That wouldn't have been weird.

As a Lakers fan, I disliked D'Antoni over the years, but I do defend him a bit against the whole "he's never won a thing" charge. Ok he's never won a title. But until 2004 neither had Larry Brown. Doc Rivers has won a title and I'd never say he's a better coach than D'Antoni. Same thing for Rudy T (and no, I will never, ever underestimate the heart of a champion).

In 2005 the Suns had to go most of the playoffs without Joe Johnson. In 06, they made it to Game 6 of the Western Conference Finals despite not having Stoudemire or Kurt Thomas. In 07, without the suspensions in the Spurs series I think they win that. D'Antoni never really had a full team for a whole playoff run.

 

Well, that certainly settles it for me.
He had the best team in his conference twice and...shit happens.
He's Don Nelson without the jowls.

 

Yeah, I agree that criticizing D'Antoni because he hasn't won a title is silly. He came into the NBA and coached his own, distinctive style of play rather than going with the cookie-cutter offensive plays that nearly everyone else used, and he was wildly successful with it. With a break here or there, particularly with the suspensions against the Spurs, he might very well have a ring.

As for the Marbury situation, while they could certainly have avoided all this drama by buying him out before the season began, it's clear now that the Knicks' (Donnie Walsh's) philosophy is that they're not going to pay people to go away anymore. As long you have a contract you're not going to sit home and collect the check, you're going to do what Walsh and/or D'Antoni tell you, no matter how demeaning. That's why they're sending Isiah on bullshit scouting trips and making Marbury show up to the games. Not the way I would have done it, but at least the organization has a philosophy and they're sticking to it, which hasn't been the case in a long time.

While I don't think Rhoden is totally defending Marbury, he implies that this mess is much more the organization's fault than Marbury's. Truth is they're both at fault, but Marbury is the one making the stupid play, because he has more to lose. Walsh and D'Antoni are bullet-proof right now, while Marbury is wasting a season and making it less likely that any team will touch him once NY is done with him.

 

Vermont Frost Heaves.

 

How could you tell?

 

Do you think D'Antoni is wishing he was dealing with a different pg now ... like Derrick Rose?

 

Here is last weeks Rhoden column on Marbury - pretty much says same thing as today's

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/23/sports/basketball/23rhoden.html

 

No kidding. And I'm sure Rose would prefer to play in D'Antoni's system over whatever it is Vinny Del Negro is running.

 

I would have thought last year that hiring a trained orangutan to run the franchise instead of Isiah Thomas would have been an improvement, but now I'm not so sure.

There are times when you do need to pay people to go away. As in "go away, pack up your junk, get out of here and never come back."

Keeping people who have been essentially fired around serves no positive purpose, and allows them to continue to negatively influence the function of your organization (directly or indirectly).

If you make a fundamental mistake and hire someone who is ultimately not good for your franchise, at some point you need to cut them a check, cut them loose and cast them out.

The money is a sunk cost. Write the check and be done with them.

 

Indeed, Starman. Just give him $21 million or whatever his contract is, a box of his stuff and go all bent-out-of-shape Willy Wonka on his ass: YOU STOLE FIZZY LIFTING MADISON SQUARE GARDEN DRINKS! YOU SOILED THE MANUAL OF WHAT IT MEANS TO BE A TEAM PLAYER FOR THE NEW YORK KNICKS, WHICH NOW HAS TO BE WASHED AND STERILIZED, SO YOU GET NOTHING!! YOU LOSE!! GOOD DAY, SIR!!

 

star --
I don't think it's smart to get rid of D'Antoni this quickly.

 

I don't disagree with that. Ridding themselves of Marbury certainly seems like the better way to go. Walsh apparently is just so personally opposed to buyouts that he couldn't bring himself to let Marbury or Isiah off that easily. But given the fact that he took about two hours to clean up a salary cap mess that had been years in the making, if Walsh wants to get his jollies by making Marbury twist in the wind, I don't really have a problem with it.