A couple weeks ago, Jalen Rose (i know, consider the source) said there was no way Marbury was refusing to play, lest the Knicks suspend him without pay. I thought he said the Knicks could even suspend him for multiple games, even the season? Thus Roses point was no way would Marbury refuse to play hence miss out on money.
Okay fast fwd to a few days ago. Knicks are down to 6 players, and i think two guards. DiAntoni asks Marbury to play. He refuses.
Marbury is now saying, and espn quotes: "Mike gave the option to play," he said. "He couldn't come to me man to man and say, 'You have to play.' It was an option."
Do you find this to be Clintonesque b.s., or in the context of the whole soap opera is Marbury justified? Whole article with many other quotes here:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3736322Myself, when Marbury said he would not take one penny less in a buyout, I lost any respect i had for him as a player. Zero interest in winning a RealTitle.