Posted by Killa4luv:

If we win 45 games with Zeke, you will call those empty wins and find some other nonsensical way to discredit him and our teams progress. No one had mandate for LB above .500, but in Zekes one year, he must make the playoffs and be above .500? All i ask for is what I can never get from you guys, consistancy. An equal standard.

Posted by TMS:

Posted by Killa4luv:

If we win 45 games with Zeke, you will call those empty wins and find some other nonsensical way to discredit him and our teams progress. No one had mandate for LB above .500, but in Zekes one year, he must make the playoffs and be above .500? All i ask for is what I can never get from you guys, consistancy. An equal standard.

you're missing the point i think... whether Isiah brings this team to a .500 record or to a 1st round exit in the playoffs is really not the issue for the people who are more concerned w/the long range plan for this franchise... our ultimate goal is to win a championship (at least, it should be for those of us who've followed this team for decades & are sick & tired of rooting for mediocrity)... do you think this team is closer now to winning a championship now that Isiah Thomas is coaching this current roster he put together? or would we have won a championship quicker if LB was allowed to blow up the roster & bring in the types of players he wanted to coach? i have a hard time believing the latter choice might not have been the more prudent route to pursue, but obviously financially speaking, that was not an option our genius of an owner would go for.

Posted by Killa4luv:

Posted by codeunknown:

Posted by Killa4luv:

Posted by codeunknown:

Some here have done that. But, the LB detractors are no less. Not only did LB throw the season but he tricked his family into moving to New York and buying a house. Scoundrel.

FYI, many Brownies conceede that he threw the season. What is your point about 'tricking' his family into buing a house? He bought a house in a city where he signed a 5 year 60 million dollar contract. He had a house in Michigan too. What is your point?

In all seriousness, Killa, the point is I don't believe he bought the house that late in the season as a front. I think he believed he was staying for the long haul. And that he was going to implement his strategy. And that itself circumstantially supports his commitment to the team. Whether or not you like his practices.

The other alternative, as I sarcastically described, is that he bought it to gain leverage in arbitration with Stern. One can't be sure. Only that slick bastard, LB, knows for a fact.

Whether he planned on staying or not is irrelevant from my standpoint, it isn't my $40 million. What matters is the kind of job he did last year as our coach, and by any ojective standard, it was completely horrendous. We could have kept him, but based on all of the available evidence, he definitely earned this firing.

You initially commented generally on the Brown concubines and their stubborness - their tendency to defend Brown at all costs. That is by and large irrelevant to me. And it has nothing to do with my more moderate evaluation. My response merely compared the concubines, as you've described, with the Brown detractors/Isiah harlots, whom I've characterized. The point was that the Isiah harlots are frequently just as jaded. Many believe Brown came here to swindle Dolan and get intentionally fired. Thus, I brought up the house as a sign of Brown's commitment.

By commenting on the extremists, Killa, you can't escape the valid stance I took. I've outlined in this thread why firing Brown may have been a mistake in multiple scenarios. That was the second post in response to you that I made - one that you didn't respond to. I understand that you base your evaluation of Larry on his performance last year - but, again, I think we both agree that his potential to right the ship this year and next were more critical. Strategically, his experiment last year may or may not pay dividends long-term. In my opinion, the young player already improved significantly last year. Maybe thats where our disagreement begins.

Posted by Killa4luv:

Posted by codeunknown:

You initially commented generally on the Brown concubines and their stubborness - their tendency to defend Brown at all costs. That is by and large irrelevant to me. And it has nothing to do with my more moderate evaluation. My response merely compared the concubines, as you've described, with the Brown detractors/Isiah harlots, whom I've characterized. The point was that the Isiah harlots are frequently just as jaded. Many believe Brown came here to swindle Dolan and get intentionally fired. Thus, I brought up the house as a sign of Brown's commitment.

I don't think his plan was to get fired, I believe his plan was to get Isiah fired and have full control of the team.

By commenting on the extremists, Killa, you can't escape the valid stance I took. I've outlined in this thread why firing Brown may have been a mistake in multiple scenarios. That was the second post in response to you that I made - one that you didn't respond to. I understand that you base your evaluation of Larry on his performance last year - but, again, I think we both agree that his potential to right the ship this year and next were more critical. Strategically, his experiment last year may or may not pay dividends long-term. In my opinion, the young player already improved significantly last year. Maybe thats where our disagreement begins.

I dont think the youngster made any significant improvements that I can attribute to Brown. I think Nate probably learned the most, but again, I think the price that was paid last season was too much for any slight progress that may have been made.

I don't have undying confidence in anyone's abiity to right the ship; especially LB. LB lost me last year with his lack of leadership and general unprofessionalism, not to mention his crazy coaching decisions. I don't think we could move foward with him in good faith. I believe Isiah will do well with this team and get us on the right track, but if he doesn't I'm not married to him either.

Bottom line, I lost faith in LB, I don't think he is the man for the job, I don't think he was flexible enough in his thinking, and I think he did a far worse job than anyone expected with no discernable rhyme, reason or progress. LB's supporters seem to think he is a) definitely gonna get us a championship and b) he's the only one who can do it. There

Posted by Killa4luv:

Posted by codeunknown:

I can't tell if you accidentally hit post or if the "There" was put there for emphasis. Either way, I understand your opinion and I agree that, by the end of the season, there was reasonable doubt as to whether Larry could get it done with this team. I hope that you can start to understand why some posters feel that Larry was still capable of getting it done. Its a judgment call depending on how you evaluate his methods long-term.

LOL! I left that there by accident.

These are the things I believe he was guilty of, thigns with * are things with proof:

He requested Jalen and Francis and subsequently did not play them or want them on the team. (* he said he wanted Francis)
He gave wildly contradictory instructions to all of the players. (*corroborated by numerous players)
He didn't reward full effort with playing time. (*this was obvious from watching)
He started guys based on their hoemtowns. (*common knowledge)
He constantly badmouthed many of the players in the media. (*common knowledge)
He generally communicated through the media, even while not speaking directly to his players. (*corroborated by numerous players)
He asked to have 6 players waived as a condition of his continued employment.
He showed no sign of being willing to change his behavior.

How do you accept these things and still think you can move foward with him?
For many, they flatly deny or discredit these things, because that allows them to still believe in him. But I am just being reasonable, if numerous players say he was doing this, I will accept that. If it was just Nate or Steph and Francis, I wouldn't accept it, or would at least be very skeptical, but Channing Frye? David Lee? DId you hear not only what Frye said, but how he said it? I am a reasonable and logical dude, I'm not gonna keep twisting things and making up theories to justify Brown or discredit people who speak against him. There is a mountain of evidence against him that I can't deny, and don't want to deny. Others would prefer to ignore it, or explain it away.

If LB says he begged for Francis, its ridiculous for me to say he's lying. Hes lying on himself? This is the kind of thing I am up against. Larry Brown said he wanted the guy and his supporters are saying no he didnt.

Frye and Lee say this is what happened and his supporters say thats not really whathappened DOlan is paying/making/encouraging them to lie.

When I ask how many wins Zeke should have next year, one guy says 50, because he expected 50 in LB's 3rd year and this is Isiahs 3rd year. This is just crazy. Its unreasonable, illogical, and all based on the notion that LB can do no wrong, and he is the only way the knicks can be better.

The truth is killing the LBers.

Right, Killa, the accomodating assumption I worked under was that LB was guilty of all of the above, despite the fact that I'm not necessarily convinced that he was. And still, all of those charges can quite simply and reasonably be explained by the 1 scenario I described - LB's decision to endure losing to reinforce the teaching of adaptability in our young players. A strategy that involved testing the players and verifying their undying support. You yourself claim that this is quite possible and its not really an elaborate or contrived explanation by any means. Ultimately, whether its likely or not is anyone's guess - to me an explanation that includes a genuine LB is more valid as it corroborates 30 yars of coaching. Regardless of the likelihood, Brown's firing (as I explained before) should be treated independently and could very well be the consequence of a management determined to win now.

Reitterating the inconsistencies of Brown's coaching, as you've done, fails to detract from the fact that the theory above succesfully accounts for the quirks we all observed. A plan to expose players purposefully to adversity. A plan I believe maximizes the potential of our players 2 years from now even though it may alienate some players presently. Once you understand that this explanation is as plausible as a vicious tank job (and it is because both evenly account for the facts), you understand that letting go LB could have been a mistake.

Posted by codeunknown:


Right, Killa, the accomodating assumption I worked under was that LB was guilty of all of the above, despite the fact that I'm not necessarily convinced that he was. And still, all of those charges can quite simply and reasonably be explained by the 1 scenario I described - LB's decision to endure losing to reinforce the teaching of adaptability in our young players. A strategy that involved testing the players and verifying their undying support. You yourself claim that this is quite possible and its not really an elaborate or contrived explanation by any means. Ultimately, whether its likely or not is anyone's guess - to me an explanation that includes a genuine LB is more valid as it corroborates 30 yars of coaching. Regardless of the likelihood, Brown's firing (as I explained before) should be treated independently and could very well be the consequence of a management determined to win now.

Reitterating the inconsistencies of Brown's coaching, as you've done, fails to detract from the fact that the theory above succesfully accounts for the quirks we all observed. A plan to expose players purposefully to adversity. A plan I believe maximizes the potential of our players 2 years from now even though it may alienate some players presently. Once you understand that this explanation is as plausible as a vicious tank job (and it is because both evenly account for the facts), you understand that letting go LB could have been a mistake.

Posted by Killa4luv:

If we win 45 games with Zeke, you will call those empty wins and find some other nonsensical way to discredit him and our teams progress.

Posted by Killa4luv:

Posted by codeunknown:


Right, Killa, the accomodating assumption I worked under was that LB was guilty of all of the above, despite the fact that I'm not necessarily convinced that he was. And still, all of those charges can quite simply and reasonably be explained by the 1 scenario I described - LB's decision to endure losing to reinforce the teaching of adaptability in our young players. A strategy that involved testing the players and verifying their undying support. You yourself claim that this is quite possible and its not really an elaborate or contrived explanation by any means. Ultimately, whether its likely or not is anyone's guess - to me an explanation that includes a genuine LB is more valid as it corroborates 30 yars of coaching. Regardless of the likelihood, Brown's firing (as I explained before) should be treated independently and could very well be the consequence of a management determined to win now.

Reitterating the inconsistencies of Brown's coaching, as you've done, fails to detract from the fact that the theory above succesfully accounts for the quirks we all observed. A plan to expose players purposefully to adversity. A plan I believe maximizes the potential of our players 2 years from now even though it may alienate some players presently. Once you understand that this explanation is as plausible as a vicious tank job (and it is because both evenly account for the facts), you understand that letting go LB could have been a mistake.

While your story does account for some of the coaching moves, there are 3 main holes in your story:

1. IT and Dolan did not agree to endure losing. I think they were ready to miss the playoffs, but not for a 23 win season. Its bad for business, and this is a business. There is no way they signed off on this strategy. Not a cold chance in hell. So if he was in fact doing this, he was doing this on his own accord and in direct contradiction to what was stalked about when they hired him (based on all published reports). If your theory is true, Brown was acting alone, in a way and with results that were unacceptable.

2. He asked for Jalen and Francis and then refused to play them, and then asked for them to be traded. No way Isiah or Dolan signed off on 80 mill worth of salary, to have it traded within weeks, all as apart of LB's master plan.

3. LB was calling up GMs trying to make his own deals. Neither Dolan nor Zeke signed on to this, or expected it.


All 3 of these moves are not consistant with your theory, but are consistant with the theory that he was trying to get Isiah's fired and have control of the organization.

Here I don't agree at all. Those points are not holes. I feel like all 3 points are completely irrelevant - they are generalizations that mean close to nothing when you look at the subtletly of each situation. Point 1 is repetetive and I will respond to that briefly. Points 2 and 3 I will discuss extensively.

1. What Isiah and Dolan had in mind was clearly communicated poorly to Brown. This is a repetitive portion of our previous discussion. Just as you believe Dolan's goals to "not endure losing" were obvious, I would claim that LB's relentless rebuilding strategy was obvious. LB has been a tough, unpredictable, stubborn and egoistic coach at every stop. This was known. It is much more plausible that Dolan initially bought into Brown's rebuilding method but lost faith mid-season when he finally called a team meeting after 50 games. The hiring, made 7 months earlier, was made on a poor understanding of what each wanted. Remember, Dolan gave LB the red carpet treatment and paid him 50 MILLION - do you really think that Dolan was stern with LB about rules and regulations? This was not a though out agenda on Brown's part - this is a very typical case of Dolan becoming scared of a dip in short-term profits.

2. I think Larry agreed to both the Rose and Francis trades. Not because he liked either player - but instead because both deals unquestionably upgrade our team's assets. History shows that neither player is an LB player as neither emphasizes defense and Francis especially doesn't share the ball effectively early in the shot clock. Please don't ignore that, especially when you're making a flimsy case based on circumstantial evidence. If we were really interested in being fair, we should also point out that all those positive remarks made by Larry after these trades were also made simultaneously by Isiah. Both had the reason of political correctnes to make such statements so neither should be implicated more than the other.

Importantly, keep in mind that this trend of trade is typical of Isiah - stockpiling offensive talent has always been prioritized over chemistry or salary cap conerns. Examples of these deals include expiring deals for Marbury, KVH for Tim Thomas, expiring deals + multiple picks for Eddy Curry, expiring deals for Crawford, the MO Taylor Trade. I could analyze each trade separately but many of these deals are grossly egregious and the pattern of trades executed is undeniable. This is extensive history against Isiah - implicating him in careless trades of large expiring deals for offensive talent. Who advocated the Francis and Rose deals is unknown and will remain so. Any blame that singles out either Larry or Isiah here is misguided.

3. First of all, LB being generally involved in all trade talks is a tremendous benefit as Isiah has repeatedly said that the goal was to provide LB with what he needs. Really, the point of contention here is only the 2 instances Dolan cites where Isiah was "unaware" and got a "worse" deal as a result. Lets make an important note here that this is unsupported. Furthermore, this is directly a result of the poor communication between Isiah and Brown - again something that implicates both parties. High-powered coaches with connections, including Phil Jackson and others, are frequently involved in conversations with other teams. Its probable that Larry made calls on behalf of Isiah - something I'm sure carries a lot of weight - Larry's respect and affiliations with other coaches and personel can help persuade teams to exchange favors with the Knicks. In this case, if Isiah's instructions aren't clear on their goals, the product of said conversation is going to be problematic. Similarly, in these 2 instances, LB may have felt he had the influence to obtain a good deal - unless he was explicitly denied the right to discuss trades with other teams, he may have felt it was OK to negotiate with trading partners. Either of these scerios exposes poor communication but no "secret" agenda on Larry's part. Finally, keep in mind, the accusation is that LB and Isiah were talking to the same team - and that Isiah was unaware of LB's interference. So, clearly LB wasn't haphazardly talking to random teams - this was a joint effort to some degree. The initiator of these events is that Isiah notifies LB of a team and potential deal. At that point, Isiah either told Brown to get involved without outlining a cohesive strategy or Brown chose to get involved even though Isiah didn't expect that he would. If Brown chose to get involved despite Isiah's clear disapproval, it seems unlikely that this scenario would present itself in only 2 isolated events. 2 instances is clearly limited evidence and doesn't constitute a prolonged trend of behavior attempting to sabotage trades, especially considering the large volume of proposals considered during season. Thus, if Dolan and Isiah aren't blatantly lying, which itself is legitimately debateable, then Larry mistakenly got involved twice because Isiah failed to indicate that he would like to negotiate alone. This instruction is critical because, again, Larry (like most coaches) should have been a frequent participant in trade talks. So this remains a weak indictment of Brown at best.

Here, I have simply defended my stance. When I have some time, I will begin to point out numerous holes in your argument - that Larry tried to supplant Isiah.