|
martin
Posts: 80966
Alba Posts: 108
Joined: 7/24/2001
Member: #2
USA
|
I don't agree with it all, but interesting
http://www.nj.com/weblogs/knicks/index.ssf?//weblogs/knicks/index.ssf?/mtlogs/njo_knicks/archives/2006_11.html#200172
Re-hashing the Stern ruling
NBA commissioner David Stern has finally released made his decision regarding Larry Brown's $40-turned-52 million claim against the Knicks. If you thought you were going to get all of the dirt on the relationship between the two sides, you don't know Stern's forward-looking policies about scandals. He certainly didn't want one of the league's flagship teams in its biggest market being dragged through the mud, and Brown wisely accommodated (at least once his paycheck was on the line). The official word is that the two sides have met somewhere between $0 and $52mil, and that they're not allowed to talk about it. Beautiful.
Fortunately, much of the required information to make a ruling here was already in the public record. I was not in the September hearings, I do not have Larry Brown's contract in my hand, and I have not spoken with Stern on this matter. But it's not hard to piece together Stern's likely ruling, and since he's not here to do it, I'll have to help. The Knicks' case for refusing to pay Brown was divided into two categories: undermining Isiah Thomas and the team, and violating terms of his contract. The specific qualms against Larry Brown were: he wanted Steve Francis and Jalen Rose, but then changed his mind a few weeks later; he gave guys unstable minutes, using 43 different starting line-ups; he didn't play the rookies enough; he publicly bashed players to the media; he went over Thomas' head to propose trades; and he spoke to the media against league policy. Brown's case was much simpler: the team owed him money, and then dragged his name through the mud.
Let's look at the Knicks' case first.
1. Brown wanted Steve Francis and Jalen Rose, but then changed his mind a few weeks later
Sure he could have been the one who wanted two players that would not fit into his system. He was on record asking for other bad ideas, like Kenyon Martin and Theo Ratliff, and his opinions on players shifted with the wind. But those were two defensive-minded players that would fill a need for the Knicks at the center positions, while the players that were allegedly called in by him were not your classic hard-nosed hustle players like the Pistons, Sixers, or Pacers teams that I remember. Furthermore, Brown proved that he wasn't afraid to publicly call for trades when he asked for Martin and Ratliff, yet he never did so for Francis or Rose. And last but not least, if you heard that the Knicks had acquired a shoot-first no defense playing veteran with a tarnished reputation and a bloated contract to boot, who would you think was the one really pulling for that trade? Could it possiblyhave been the same guy who brought in Stephon Marbury, Penny Hardaway, Mo Taylor, Tim Thomas, Eddy Curry, Jamal Crawford, etc etc? Somehow, I find it hard to believe that Brown was pulling for those guys more than Zeke was. Although it's true that Brown publicly endorsed both trades after the fact, it's not an uncommon practice in the NBA for coaches to endorse every trade.
Verdict: I find it real hard to believe that Brown wanted those guys more than Thomas.
2. Undermining the team: Giving guys unstable minutes, using 43 different starting line-ups
Much has been made about the 43 starting line-ups that the Knicks used, but with as many injuries and poor conditioning as the Knicks had, that's not what concerns me. Those 43 would have been drastically reduced if A: there was a player who clearly dominated all others at his position (other than Curry and Marbury, the other three positions were toss-ups) and B: there weren't so many injuries/suspensions to potential starters (Curry, Frye, QRich, Antonio Davis, Marbury, Francis, Crawford). So I feel like the 43 line-ups is just an easy number for people to use if they didn't actually watch the games. What concerns me is when a player would have a great game (especially one of the rookies) and then he would sit indefinitely. That is a true indicator of undermining the team.
Verdict: Guilty as charged and inexcusable
3. Undermining the team: Not playing the rookies enough
The team also claimed that Brown tried to minimize Zeke's accomplishments by sitting the rookies. There's credence to that, because the veterans would get the team into a hole, the young guys would pull the team back, and then guys like Malik Rose would be finishing off the game and blow it in the last few minutes.
Verdict: Guilty as charged and inexcusable
4. Undermining the team: Bashing players to the media
Brown was also guilty of ripping his players in the media, but with the roster of quitters Thomas put together, I can't exactly blame him. For the most part, he was accurate; when players quit on him, he said it; when Marbury was playing selfishly, he said it; when no one would play defense, he said it. Ripping players to the media is nothing new for coaches, but one does have to wonder why Brown accepted this job if he hated everyone on the team.
Verdict: A very common practice and not really worthy of mention, although that didn't stop the Knicks.
5. Violating terms of contract: Going over Thomas' head to propose trades
When Brown was hired, he (as well as the media) was told he would have a large impact on personnel decisions. Which makes me wonder why he would do something as blatant as calling up teams and making offers over Thomas' head, which would be grounds for immediate dismissal if the team wanted (and also would have made Stern's ruling an open-and-shut case). If Brown was reduced to throwing out his own trades, I would imagine that it would mean that Zeke was not giving him that promised input, which could be a mitigating circumstance. Maybe he was trying to submarine certain moves that he didn't like, or maybe he was trying to prove to Zeke that the moves could be made. It doesn't make it right, but if Brown was given the input he was promised, he wouldn't have done it.
Verdict: Mitigating circumstances
6. Violating contractual terms: Speaking to the media
This is the most clear-cut case the Knicks had made. They had a policy, as ridiculous as it was, that no one was allowed to talk to the media without a PR flack present for most of May, June, and July. Was it fair? Certainly not. Was it unfairly designed with one particular person in mind? Probably. Was it a disgrace to the team? Obviously. But it was a public team policy, which - as an employee of the team - Brown was required to submit to, and he did not.
Verdict: Guilty as charged
It looks to me like Brown wanted to be coach and GM, but couldn't quite pull of the coup d'etat he had hoped for. He did his worst job ever of coaching while doing so, and while I don't buy that first and most heinous charge, the Knicks do have a point that he should have been fired - it's just that there's that pesky matter of a guaranteed contract. If you sign a guaranteed contract, you have to honor it, so the real legal question here is whether or not Brown violated that contract, not whether he undermined the team. Although he did, in a small way, I don't know if it was grounds for paying him nothing. Which brings us to...
Larry Brown's side:
1. The team owes him $40mil
Brown had $40mil left on his contract. No one was really contesting that, and I won't either.
Verdict: Correct.
2. The team dragged his name through the mud
I think Brown did much more damage to his own name through the above-mentioned coaching offenses than the team did by hanging him out to dry for a few months.
Verdict: Boo hoo.
So where does that leave the issue? Well, surprisingly enough, both sides come out on top. The Knicks' case was half-hearted at best, and it takes more than that to terminate a contract without pay. They're real lucky that Stern let them meet in the middle as opposed to giving Brown the full amount. Brown's case for the extra $12mil for damages was ridiculous, as he was really only hurting himself, but at least he gets what is probably a large portion of that $0mil and he also gets to move on.
Unfortunately, the ones who lose here are the fans. We had to sit through a year of a coach who refused to mesh with the team, our team took a major hit in credibility and became a punchline, and on top of all that, we're going to have to pay for Brown's contract through higher ticket prices.
So "Boo" to both sides.
Official sponsor of the PURE KNICKS LOVE Program
|
