Every time? No. Not every insubordinate is sentenced to death for every infraction. Or would you have Marbury kicked off the team for breaking plays and talking back to his coach?
Yes, every time when the flouting is constant. The difference between Brown and Marbury is that Marbury showed some restraint. He did not go on from the beginning of the season to the end, Brown did. Once Marbury did respond, he got his warning and changed his whole tune immediately. Isn't that a fact?
There is no "between races" in an NBA season. This off-season should be the time for that, but it's not looking like LB will be involved. He was given a jalopy and told to gun it till the engine quits, which he did, and it did quit, quite early in the race.
The off-season is the between races I was talking about. During the season, drive the car you got, and tear it down in the off-season. I don't think starting AD and Rose qualifies as "gunning it" so I guess we'll have to disagree on that.
Let me give you my example: You a running a presentation at a big convention. You find out that you don't have everything you need to give the presentation you want. Do you purposefully accentuate everything that you are missing and make your booth into a disaster to prove a point(Or for whatever reason.)? Or do you give the best presentation you can, and ask your employer to outfit you better next time around in private?
I guess it depends if one wants to keep one's job or not.
As for pissing off Dolan.. some times that just happens when the employee is at the top of his field and the owner is a dolt. Sometimes it's hard to do your job without showing him up. It's similar to the Marv Albert situation. You can't ask a nationally respected guy like Marv to act a homer like Tommy Heinsen. As Dolan learned, you just don't hire Marv if that's what you want. But we as fans come out the losers.
I agree that Marv's firing was badly handled and wrong. But they are not analagous situations. Marv was here before Dolan, LB was hired by Dolan and LB knew what he was getting into. Marv is not the coach; A coach should not air dirty laundry, let alone create it!
Similarly, if you hire Frank Gehry to design your sports complex you have to expect him to want to use titanium and stainless steel, not your crappy cinderblock and stucco. You have to know who you're hiring and if he's right for your expectations. Dolan simply should have never gone for a guy like Brown who's gonna want to do things his way.
If Frank Gehry sign a contract to do a certain thing, that is what he should do. And if you ask Frank Gehry to design that stadium for Football and he insists on creating a baseball diamond instead, you've got a reason to be upset.
I find this to be a strange argument overall. It seems that my position is that you have to do what your employer asks or you should quit/not take the job. It seems that you are arguing that because LB is a well-respected, sumpremely paid hired gun, or a consultant, etc., he has the right to do what he wants to do, not what his employer wants him to do.
That is simply not true. We all work, so we know it isn't true. Things don't change when you are paid well. I myself have freelanced quite a bit, and I have entered some places as a very well paid and respected consultant. I have been faced with tough situations where I did not have the tools I needed (software), and I did speak to my supervisor about it, but in the meantime, I made the best of it. One time it was so bad I quit. I did not try to go over the head of the person who hired me, and I did not make a big stink. Things like that follow you around.
That is the right way to behave, and I think we all know that, that is why I am truly astounded at this argument. When it comes to this LB argument, it seems like all the rules are suspended. Why? Because he is highly paid, highly respected, because he has the props!
Pretty sure there was nothing but praise all during the streak, but then Marbury started getting catty and spiteful with Brown. First he let Brown know through the media that his rehab was going to take longer than expected, and then he started with the "no set plays" stuff. Similarly, after Dolan quited them down and we finally had a two game win streak Marbury started up with the "Starbury" comments.
I don't want to doubt your veracity
, but I don't remember it going down like that. The injury updates were an offense? As I recall, Marbury tried to keep out of press-trouble until he had already come back once from his injury, so it was well into the second big losing streak. And weren't the Starbury comments directed at himself more than anyone else?
Marbury was no angel, except by comparison to Brown. (Exaggeration for effect!)
Yah, he did "it" up till our win streak. But every time I ask just what he did that was so egregious no one answers. The worst I recall was him saying "I have no heads out there to take the pressure off the kids", and that Ariza was "delusional" for not knowing why Brown was demoting him as a starter. Brown said he and the coaches had been talking with him a lot about what he was doing wrong and that if he couldn't figure out how that played into Brown's decision then UCLA can't be too good of an academic program.
No one has yet to evidenced worse (until the Marbury provocations), yet this is sold over and over as a fireable offense. I just don't see it.
Isn't this what you are saying: He wasn't that bad? That is in the eye of the beholder. What is or is not a fireable offense is up to Dolan. But I do know this: if it were any other coach this wouldn't be such an argument.
Did LB always name names? No. But he did name names a few times, and a bunch of other times you knew who he was talking about. Stack that with asking for players then burying them. I found his commentary to be quite annoying especially considering his baffling coaching manuevers. I guess that is something Dolan and I agree on.
Was any of that as bad as Isiah telling Marbury he's the worst defensive guard in the NBA, or to act like a man? What about when Isiah first came here and spoke of this team having a "disease" he needed to cure? How about Isiah breaking Shandon Anderson's league leading iron-man streak in front of his hometown and family because he didn't give him the right look in the eye?
Maybe it is just in the phrasing. Isiah's commentary was not constant eaither. However, it is Isiah's job to critique and improve the team as he sees fit. It is Brown's job to coach it. Something tells me that if Brown was doing a decent job, Dolan would give him some more rope to run his yap.
Yah, he did "it" up till our win streak. But every time I ask just what he did that was so egregious no one answers. The worst I recall was him saying "I have no heads out there to take the pressure off the kids", and that Ariza was "delusional" for not knowing why Brown was demoting him as a starter. Brown said he and the coaches had been talking with him a lot about what he was doing wrong and that if he couldn't figure out how that played into Brown's decision then UCLA can't be too good of an academic program.
No one has yet to evidenced worse (until the Marbury provocations), yet this is sold over and over as a fireable offense. I just don't see it.
Was any of that as bad as Isiah telling Marbury he's the worst defensive guard in the NBA, or to act like a man? What about when Isiah first came here and spoke of this team having a "disease" he needed to cure? How about Isiah breaking Shandon Anderson's league leading iron-man streak in front of his hometown and family because he didn't give him the right look in the eye?
Just for kicks.... these are quotes after our 10th game of the season against the Blazers. Which coach said which?
A)
"It's all about numbers. We have too many people concerned about numbers, touches and the way they look as opposed to playing the right way."
B)
"I thought Steph overall was phenomenal. I loved the way he was being aggressive. I loved the way he was trying to get other people involved. I loved the way he tried to guard. I told people before the game, he would play great."
"A" was said by Nate McMillian, the coach who's Seattle players overachieved the year before in his optempo offense. Many wanted him here to bring that to the Knicks, but Portland jumped on him while we courted PJ and LB. Portland thought his style would serve them and their "talent" well too, but his ragamuffin Portland creepos failed him and each other miserably to finish in last place.
But they aren't firing him after just one season because they understand their players have issues.
When your guys aren't getting it done tough things are gonna be said. That's life in sports. Our guys were NOT getting it done. However, in that brief period of time that they were Brown was effusive with his praise.
I don't keep up with the daily news of Portland (Even though I like the team and my lady is from Portland) enough to say their situation is analagous. However, I don't think their situation has anything to do our situation.
Blueseats, have you ever had a boss who treats you like garbage one day, then showers you with praise the next? I have a couple of times. This is a very poor way to behave and it makes enemies. It sows discontent and it does not make people want to go to the mat for you. I think we have seen this encapsulated this past season.
Pretty sure it was 5-8 games. Nate played in 72, so he only missed 10 for the entire season. Nate was our 5th highest minute getter. And the pause appeared to have served him well. He came back much more settled down.
You're right, it was 8 games. Perhaps NR's improvement wasn't due to a benching, but because of hard work?
And where EXACTLY was the limit exceeded?
Where and when?
Somewhere along the line, only Dolan and IT know that. I don't have the inside knowledge to tell you exactly where. According to the papers it was after Rose/Francis. But obviously it was exceeded repeatedly (If that is possible.). I am not here to tell you what the limit should be, but apparently, it was explained to Brown that he was approaching the limit and he did not stop.
Unless you're Stephon Marbury?
How many comments did Marbury make in comparison to Brown? AT what point of the season did Marbury start? Wasn't it much later? Wasn't it because he was fed up? Doesn't he have the right to respond when he is repeatedly offended?
NO!!! He doesn't! And that is why he shut up and changed his tune so quick! And that is the big difference.
I really don't buy the Robinson story. First off, I've never seen it in print, only from message board posters, and I know how all sorts of mythologies about brown are propogated. Second, if he did say something along those lines I think he was puffing to motivate him. Robinson was said by many to have too many interests aside from basketball (Navy, concert level pianist, charity, religion, etc) and to be unemotive and dispassionate about the game. I love Robinson, but Larry didn't want a guy like him squandering his talents. He didn't want an Eddy Curry or Kwami Brown. I think Larry tried to shake him up to bring out the best in him. After all they won 56 games in Robinson's rookie season. I doubt he was that down on him
I'm sorry, I can't search out the clippings right now, but I do believe at least one of them was by Ian O'connor, and maybe Berman. I did read it myself. I don't know that it is true, but like you said a week or so ago, if enough poeple are saying it, there is probably a grain of truth.
There is no way that Robinson could ever be compared to Curry or Brown, he was better from day one, a true franchise player, and he was none by everybody as a coaches dream. I am surprised that you are theorizing that he needed the LB treatment to reach his potential.
Here they are ranked in order of minutes played:
Robinson - 24 (rookie)
Cummings - 28
Willie Anderson -23 - (2nd yr player)
Sean Elliot - 21 - (rookie)
David Wingate - 26 - 4th year
2 rookies. 3 guys with 2 years or less in the top 5. People have to stop thinking Larry wants Snow, Lynch and Ratliff here now. He probably wants one of those guys in the clubhouse to preach hard work and patience. But what he really wants are the next generation of his guys.
We should be so lucky.
I don't know who LB wants really. I did see that he played our broken down vets when he should have been spreading that time around to the rookies instead of them racking up DNP's (especially Lee). I do suspect that he will always want a different player from the one he has. That is what worries me.
By the way, was the Robinson you described DR or NR? DR played 36 minutes a game as a rookie. Good thing to, or LB would have been fired that year. Good move LB!
Yeah, it's hard to use "warrior" in the same sentence as any of our guys, I agree.
Iverson never broke. Iverson was Newman's "Luke." You could keep slamming him into a locker and he'd come back playing harder the next day. Brown's real problem with Iverson was his entitlement complex, which was problematic. He was team captain and franchise player yet he was alienating himself from his teammates. No coach wants to ever have to hear Iverson's "we talking about practice" speech come out of their player's mouth.
In fact, had Brown NOT been his coach, and had Ivy NOT grown up, I'd bet he WOULD have been moved by now, and obviously NOT because of Brown.
Iverson is an ass. But I prefer the way John Thompson handled him than the way Brown did. I also prefer the way Cheeks is doing it. By the way, my buddies in Philly don't like Brown.
I don't want to speculate on whether Iverson would have been traded if not for Brown. But as we have all heard, if Brown had gotten his way Iverson would certainly not be there now.
I don't doubt that some guys will be happy with Brown gone, like some of the putzes he wants traded, but if they'd be more motivated without him why not get it over with and get them MOTIVATED?
I am not going to speak to their motivation, because I have no idea about that, except to say that I don;t think LB's firing should effect motivation North or South.
The point is that management needs to get with their own program, whatever that is! When AD was traded to toronto he said it was a circus with Brown and Isiah not on the same page, and him being happy to be with guys who listen to their coach and play for each other. I'm not pitying on Brown, I just want guys playing for their coach and each other. Unfortunately I think those problems predate Brown. But if there's a solution to this lets find it already!!!
Those are fine wishes. What I want even before the wins are no agendas outside of winning. Their are plenty of problems that predate Brown. That is what makes me mad about him, we certainly did not need him adding to it!
Whatever the damn disease is here needs to be cured as quickly as possible. If Brown is staying it's imperative he be included in the draft decisions. Isiah can't keep sticking him with inappropriate players. And if Brown is going then they'd best serve the franchise by appearing decisive and resolute, rather than floundering and "twisting."
I don;t think it makes a differnce at this point. The smart money is on Brown going so I bet everyone is acting like he is gone already. But who kows what is going to happen?
Remember when bringing in Marbury was "a step in the right direction?" Remember when bringing in Larry was "a step in the right direction?" It's time to actually take a step in the right direction already.
Actually getting Marbury was step in the right direction. Unfortunately almost every step has been backwards since then starting with the KVH trade.
oohah
