For the record, Steph (and Tommy), I believe in God
Anyone catch this blog at Deadspin.com that was posted recently by writer Tommy Craggs, who tossed some cutting-room-floor material from an interview he did with Marbury from a past training camp?
In the blog, Tommy reveals a chat he had with Starbury about God.
Yeah. About God. Buckle your seatbelts, kids.
I'll tell you what, there are places you just don't go with crazy people. Religion is one of them. But to Stephon's credit, aside from a memorable quote in which, in awkward effervescence, he says "Genesis is hot" (in reference to the biblical scripture, not the Phil Collins band), he comes off more shocked that Tommy would say he doesn't believe in God.
I'm more shocked that Tommy would then suggest to Stephon that the rest of the media were non-believers, too:
I ventured that in fact he probably had met an atheist before, and that many, if not all, of the journalists covering him are very likely atheists (not that I had any evidence). "For real?" Marbury replied. He thought that over for what seemed like a long time.
The next day, after practice, I was milling around the sideline with the rest of the media. I heard someone call out.
"Hey, Tommy! Tommy!"
It was Marbury, splayed lengthwise and propped on an elbow. He was rolling back and forth on some sort of padded cylinder. I went over to him. The beat guys, none of whom knew me from Adam, turned to look at me. "All?" Marbury asked, gesturing to the press. "All of them?"
No, Steph. Not all of them. In fact, I know for a fact that NONE of them are atheists. But I could see what Tommy was doing here in trying to make Crazy Steph appear with an outrageous, unfounded claim that Marbury probably believed to be true anyway. Tommy's a funny guy. It's all good.
I'll be honest, through 12 years of Catholic school, I wondered a few times. But hell, there has to be a God. How else do you explain things like the Sunday morning naps, Oreo double-stuff cookies and Jessica Simpson?
God Bless America, indeed.
Anyway, the point I actually planned to make today -- no really, I had one -- is with the Zach Randolph trade scenario now out there, if you look at the Knick roster after the Knicks trade one-for-two (Darko and Marko), they'd have 17 players on the roster. Of course if Darko is a Knick you have no need for Jerome James, so perhaps a buyout of the remaining $12.8 million left on his deal is worked out. That reduces the number to 16.
Patrick Ewing, Jr. could be that No. 16 on paper (and we're not even counting Allan Houston, who could be in camp as well). But Marbury might actually be the real odd man out here. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out with training camp looming in three weeks. The Knicks could bring him in and see what he does in the system Mike D'Antoni plans to use. But regardless of his condition and skill-level, I still am led to believe the team -- the entire franchise -- would prefer to move forward without him.
And he can finally be rid of us Godless heathens forever.
But we'll still have Jessica.
E-mail
Facebook
Digg
Delicious
Comments (6)
Of course Marbury, but I'd actually prefer they buyout Q instead of JJ. I wouldn't want JJ to pull a Darius Miles. Plus, with Galllo, Jaric, and Jeffries Q would be VERY redundant.
Curry
Lee
Chandler
Crawford
Duhon
----------------
Gallo
Nate
Darko
Jeffries
Jaric
Ewing
Roberson
-----------------
Rose
JJ
I'm no Starbury fan, but the build-up to that story about "the dark side of reporting" was ridiculous. It's not like Marbury pulled a Charlie Ward. Stephon didn't say anything too outrageous, and the writer was clearly trying to create a story by bringing up religion. I think the writer was also trying to take advantage of someone less intellectually gifted than himself. Perhaps that's the dark side they were referring to in the headline.
@Bruno, That starting lineup is so uninteresting. I would prefer to watch the bench instead. I can't think of any other team with a situation like this. I mean, seriously can any of the starting five legitimately claim that they deserve to start over the respective bench players. Or vice versa. I think this will be a unique team where you can pick any 5 and make them start. Whether they will be good or not is another question altogether.
Anyway, as for cutting a couple of players, I would start with the two least useful players. Right now, it has to be Jerome James and Malik Rose. Rose is not a bad player but, face it, there is no future with him. At best, he is going to play one more year and then cut. There is no point keeping him around. May be include him in the trade. He has a nice expiring contract that Memphis can use to get something better. We don't need expiring contracts. The only time you use them is when you get a supposedly better player, with obviously a bad contract, in return. We are done going that route.
I would invite stephon to camp and see what he has got. He could be kept on the team under strict rules and zero tolerance. Cutting him can be done anytime. But, if he toes the company line and plays well, he could be in demand at the trading deadline. Even though we do not need anything in return, we can always trade him for other expiring contracts or young promising players and draft picks.
I can't believe that the Knicks will bail on Ewing Jr. at this point. I would think that J.J., Rose and, perhaps, Jeffries would go first. Then, of course, more tinkering may occur. Ewing will get a shot, I believe.
In Stephon's defense, he may be confusing the cries of "There is no God!" that come from the long-suffering fans in the seats as coming from the Press Box.
any stupid thing you guys can think of to warrant the banishment. at the end of the day, it wont be the knicks holding any trophies, the fans at this state, don't deserve a winning team. These stupid fans dont know what makes up a good team, don't know why the other teams win, and don't know which of the Knicks are really quality guys for basketball, attitudes not withstanding, Isiah really destroyed you guys perception of good basketball. My friends Duhon is a 3rd guard, something Nate wasn't, he is not a lead guard. this writer alan, is a youngster, he doesnt know anything about sports, he asks the same question everyone else asks, and he's younger than Marbury. why would marbury show him any respect? so now he gathers any info he can find on Marbury. Stupid. i know I close my eyes and name any good knicks, I see Marbury and thats it. Ask people around the league, who's the Knicks best player. Not who you dummies think. by far.