PresIke wrote:

TMS wrote:

martin wrote:

TMS wrote:

martin wrote:

TMS wrote:it doesn't hurt either... how much effort would it have taken MDA to just take Larry aside & let him know he's not out of the plans all of a sudden? u got to know the personalities on the team, not all of them need to be handled the same way... Hughes was a professional earlier in the season when he was benched... u can't just keep taking that for granted & expect that he'll just shut up & take another benching w/o getting upset... not everyone's wired like Fishlips... Larry Hughes has never been a scrub player over his entire career... this is a guy who's used to being featured on a team, not playing a bit role... he's still in his relative prime & he's looking to earn a contract this season, how can u blame him for wanting the coach to at least communicate w/him over this situation & not treat him like some unproven rook or scrub bench warmer? i'm not trying to get on MDA's case here but seriously, is it too much to ask? i mean even Shandon Anderson got upset at Isiah Thomas when he got phased out & got the ice treatment, & he's not someone you would expect to be a complainer or crybaby... guys just wanna know their roles... Larry Hughes is not a bench warmer type player, he's way too good for that.

what you are asking for is that before each game MDA should tell Hughes: You may play tonight, be ready?

no actually what i am asking is that MDA approach Hughes & let him know he's not out of the plans going forward just because he didn't play the last couple games... a little diplomacy can go a long way.

that's the thing though.... don't you think the Atlanta game and then Indiana games were true exceptions for Hughes not playing? Nate busting a nut and then Indiana laying over dead? Was MDA supposed to rush over to Hughes after each game to pet Hughes' ego and reassure him?

absolutely agree w/the ATL & IND games, but Hughes didn't play last nite either... at a certain point it's not asking for much for the head coach to communicate w/1 of his veterans who he is looking to provide some leadership on this team & explain his intentions going forward... i don't believe Hughes will be a diva like Dinglebury & refuse to play if MDA called his # after a prolonged benching, but does Hughes really deserve that? do u honestly think J Bender has done anything to warrant getting playing time over him at this point? or Marcus Landry for that matter? come on.

i kind of doubt going to the press to complain about d'antoni is going to help hughes' chances of coming back into the rotation, and could explain why landry has played, especially given that we hear the coaches like him.

if u believe that then u'r basically admitting MDA has personal reasons behind the things he does... based on ability there's no reason why Larry Hughes is not playing over Marcus Landry or Jonathan Bender... if Landry & Bender are playing because the coaches like them, that goes right back to that whole Nate issue all over again... this should be all about winning, not about personal likes, i thought u were agreed on that.

TMS - you ever consider that 6'7 Marcus Landry, who played out of position at center in college, could be kicking some serious booty in those closed Knicks practices?

Coaches like guys who play like winners.

misterearl wrote:"this should be all about winning, not about personal likes, i thought u were agreed on that."

TMS - you ever consider that 6'7 Marcus Landry, who played out of position at center in college, could be kicking some serious booty in those closed Knicks practices?

Coaches like guys who play like winners.

what about Jonathan Bender's play suggest to you he "plays like a winner", whatever the hell that means... & do u honestly think Marcus Landry is a better player than Larry Hughes? don't give me any more deflection here & give me a straight answer... do u believe Larry Hughes should be sitting on the bench in favor of guys like Bender & Landry?

this "it's personal" point is really a gross oversimplification of the issue, and is not -- from what i understand -- why hughes was benched in the first place, which has nothing to do with that old discussion.

however, to address your argument, if your player goes to complain to the press, rather than directly to you -- which for d'antoni, you expected him to do when informing hughes about his initial benching (and which i have never heard of a coach doing about whether you were in the rotation or not, even when i played in high school) -- how is then playing him after he disrespected you with words, not a benching for performance/need, going to help with your authority as coach? that's similar to what isiah did when marbury went awol, the players voted him out, and isiah then played him. if mda didn't have the respect to do that, and they thought it was "personal" this team would have chemistry problems -- which do not seem apparent at all, other than from your own speculation. with all due respect, it does not seem to me that you know much about being a manager in charge of people because you cannot let something like what hughes did go if you hope to maintain respect from your workers. that's not personal, that's about keeping order and maintaining your authority.

i find it quite interesting that you lay all of the responsibility on d'antoni for behavior, yet hughes gets a free pass for going to the press after he his coach does something he doesn't like that clearly had to do with basketball needs, since, again, if you were right the team would probably be in disarray after the nate benching and hughes benching. instead it keeps winning, which tells me the team respects mda and is behind his decisions.

with nate, the point that has been discussed ad nauseum, was that he also was not doing what he was asked to do. that's not personal, it's about being held to certain expectations and whether you can meet them or not. if a coach is doing grossly inappropriate things, like screaming at a player all of the time, or other forms of real mistreatment, then i can understand someone going against a coach publicly, but hughes also has a bad history of complaining, which is why he wound up on the bench on the bulls, lest we forget.

misterearl wrote:Marcus Landry

TMS - Before the discussion gets bogged down in the trivial pursuit of my posting history, let's take another look at Marcus Landry. Some homework about his work ethic may reveal what makes him so appealing to his coach.

Landry has a wife and three kids. In college, he carried his course load, a top-25 basketball program and the weight of a young family on his broad shoulders. His normal day started before 6AM and ended nearly 12 hours later. He was third on the Wisconsin team in scoring and rebounding and he was named most outstanding player at the Big Ten Tournament.

At the same time, there has never been a doubt about Larry Hughes talent. He was supposed to be Lebron's running buddy in Cleveland. It didn't work out. Perhaps there is an underlying reason Hughes has played for 7, count em - seven NBA, teams. Why do you think that is?

TMS - You really want to compare and contrast the work ethic and professional passion of a career journeyman - to that of a man with 3 kids to feed and a young wife to keep happy?

No contest.

wow, that was a lot of deflection there earl... ur getting better at this... so now u wanna indulge in making baseless assumptions about Larry Hughes' work ethic because of the fact that he's playing on his 7th team in the NBA? so there haven't been hard working players in the NBA that have played on a number of different teams over the span of their careers? has Larry Hughes done anything in his time as a Knick to make you believe he's not willing to work hard? what does Marcus Landry's wife & kids have to do w/this discussion? are u serious???

Something positive had to happen for Mr Marcus to get some burn in the big boy NBA, yes?

Chill, it ain't that deep.

Besides, in case you missed it - the Knicks won last night.

PresIke wrote:tms, if anything you are certainly persistent...

this "it's personal" point is really a gross oversimplification of the issue, and is not -- from what i understand -- why hughes was benched in the first place, which has nothing to do with that old discussion.

however, to address your argument, if your player goes to complain to the press, rather than directly to you -- which for d'antoni, you expected him to do when informing hughes about his initial benching (and which i have never heard of a coach doing about whether you were in the rotation or not, even when i played in high school) -- how is then playing him after he disrespected you with words, not a benching for performance/need, going to help with your authority as coach? that's similar to what isiah did when marbury went awol, the players voted him out, and isiah then played him. if mda didn't have the respect to do that, and they thought it was "personal" this team would have chemistry problems -- which do not seem apparent at all, other than from your own speculation. with all due respect, it does not seem to me that you know much about being a manager in charge of people because you cannot let something like what hughes did go if you hope to maintain respect from your workers. that's not personal, that's about keeping order and maintaining your authority.

i find it quite interesting that you lay all of the responsibility on d'antoni for behavior, yet hughes gets a free pass for going to the press after he his coach does something he doesn't like that clearly had to do with basketball needs, since, again, if you were right the team would probably be in disarray after the nate benching and hughes benching. instead it keeps winning, which tells me the team respects mda and is behind his decisions.

with nate, the point that has been discussed ad nauseum, was that he also was not doing what he was asked to do. that's not personal, it's about being held to certain expectations and whether you can meet them or not. if a coach is doing grossly inappropriate things, like screaming at a player all of the time, or other forms of real mistreatment, then i can understand someone going against a coach publicly, but hughes also has a bad history of complaining, which is why he wound up on the bench on the bulls, lest we forget.

interesting u would make baseless assumptions about me... actually i have managed personnel... i have about 7 years experience supervising a team of designers in the various ad agencies i've worked for... if 1 of my team members had an issue w/how i did things or objected to the projects i assigned & i heard about it from a 3rd party source, i would take that team member aside & talk to him about it & try to iron out our issues through communication... i wouldn't take an ambivalent stance & say "**** him, that's his problem if he doesn't like how i do things, i'm the boss not him" & expect to breed good will among my other team members... that to me is good management... your expertise in this area obviously leads you to believe otherwise... that's your right... i'm not questioning your knowledge on how to manage people, not sure why you would question mine... but that's not the topic of this discussion now is it?

getting back to my previous point... i never believed Larry Hughes' benching to be personal... this is a different situation than the one that happened to Nate in my eyes... Nate was playing well before the benching... Larry was clearly struggling... i thought Nate's benching was motivated by his behavior... Larry's was motivated by his lack of production in recent games... i'm down w/that... all i'm asking is that the coach simply talk it out w/the veteran & let him know what the deal is so he doesn't have a disgruntled veteran on the bench... that's not good for anyone w/an interest in the Knicks... Hughes has done his best to be a pro this year in my view before this incident & i believe MDA could show the guy a little common respect is not much to ask here... if Larry were unable to play for any reason he'd be expected to communicate that to the coaching staff i'm sure... i would expect to be talked to by my manager just like any of the rest of you would if my working terms had changed for any reason (except for anyone working for you i guess bro)

TMS wrote:

kam77 wrote:

kam77 wrote:

TMS wrote:i just don't think Bender's done anything to earn his minutes... he came here as an experiment, he should not be seeing minutes over a guy like Hughes who has been here longer & has made a much bigger contribution during games over the past

D'antoni likes Bender because he's almost 7 ft so he causes problems for the other team on defense. Plus he can shoot from outside better Hughes. He plays nothing like the game that Hughes plays. Its not an apt comparison to be saying that Bender is taking Hughes minutes.

No response?

i thought i was pretty much responding on the other comments i'm making on this thread... i already addressed the question about these guys playing different positions... Al, Gallo, FL & Wilson all play multiple positions on the floor... taking Bender out & putting Hughes in is easily workable & IMO Hughes make far more of a beneficial impact during games...

btw, u never responded to my last question to u on the whole Nate issue... but i guess u wanna sweep that one under the rug... that's cool w/me, i'm sick of talking about it anyway

What question? In this thread? I must've missed it.

TMS wrote:

PresIke wrote:tms, if anything you are certainly persistent...

this "it's personal" point is really a gross oversimplification of the issue, and is not -- from what i understand -- why hughes was benched in the first place, which has nothing to do with that old discussion.

however, to address your argument, if your player goes to complain to the press, rather than directly to you -- which for d'antoni, you expected him to do when informing hughes about his initial benching (and which i have never heard of a coach doing about whether you were in the rotation or not, even when i played in high school) -- how is then playing him after he disrespected you with words, not a benching for performance/need, going to help with your authority as coach? that's similar to what isiah did when marbury went awol, the players voted him out, and isiah then played him. if mda didn't have the respect to do that, and they thought it was "personal" this team would have chemistry problems -- which do not seem apparent at all, other than from your own speculation. with all due respect, it does not seem to me that you know much about being a manager in charge of people because you cannot let something like what hughes did go if you hope to maintain respect from your workers. that's not personal, that's about keeping order and maintaining your authority.

i find it quite interesting that you lay all of the responsibility on d'antoni for behavior, yet hughes gets a free pass for going to the press after he his coach does something he doesn't like that clearly had to do with basketball needs, since, again, if you were right the team would probably be in disarray after the nate benching and hughes benching. instead it keeps winning, which tells me the team respects mda and is behind his decisions.

with nate, the point that has been discussed ad nauseum, was that he also was not doing what he was asked to do. that's not personal, it's about being held to certain expectations and whether you can meet them or not. if a coach is doing grossly inappropriate things, like screaming at a player all of the time, or other forms of real mistreatment, then i can understand someone going against a coach publicly, but hughes also has a bad history of complaining, which is why he wound up on the bench on the bulls, lest we forget.

interesting u would make baseless assumptions about me... actually i have managed personnel... i have about 7 years experience supervising a team of designers in the various ad agencies i've worked for... if 1 of my team members had an issue w/how i did things or objected to the projects i assigned & i heard about it from a 3rd party source, i would take that team member aside & talk to him about it & try to iron out our issues through communication... i wouldn't take an ambivalent stance & say "**** him, that's his problem if he doesn't like how i do things, i'm the boss not him" & expect to breed good will among my other team members... that to me is good management... your expertise in this area obviously leads you to believe otherwise... that's your right... i'm not questioning your knowledge on how to manage people, not sure why you would question mine... but that's not the topic of this discussion now is it?

getting back to my previous point... i never believed Larry Hughes' benching to be personal... this is a different situation than the one that happened to Nate in my eyes... Nate was playing well before the benching... Larry was clearly struggling... i thought Nate's benching was motivated by his behavior... Larry's was motivated by his lack of production in recent games... i'm down w/that... all i'm asking is that the coach simply talk it out w/the veteran & let him know what the deal is so he doesn't have a disgruntled veteran on the bench... that's not good for anyone w/an interest in the Knicks... Hughes has done his best to be a pro this year in my view before this incident & i believe MDA could show the guy a little common respect is not much to ask here... if Larry were unable to play for any reason he'd be expected to communicate that to the coaching staff i'm sure... i would expect to be talked to by my manager just like any of the rest of you would if my working terms had changed for any reason (except for anyone working for you i guess bro)

chill, bro, maybe i shouldn't have gone so far, but the point wasn't baseless...it's based on what i'm reading.

it's all peace.

i hear you about taking someone to the side to explain things. you're absolutely right that that's how things are usually done. however, if the person you managed went over your head and made public statements to criticize you, behind your back, to try to get his way without directly talking to you...which is what hughes did, i'd expect that to cause some problem.

i had a person i managed before do that after being very clear about what was expected of them, and that i would work with them to resolve issues...

yet they still continued to do the same...

sometimes talks are not enough, and when a worker needs constant reminders, or is constantly seeming to work to undermine what you do as manager, which hurts team unity and chemistry, you HAVE to do something.

i'm not saying that's what's up here...

but while pro-basketball has similarities to other work environments, it doesn't seem common to me for coaches to take players to the side and say, "hey larry, we've loved your contributions thus far, but you're now on the bench since you aren't playing well." some people need that, but i would think at this level of basketball, most successful players don't need that as much, because they know being benched means they aren't playing well enough to get minutes. maybe i'm wrong, but players in the league get benched all of the time and someone better is waiting for your spot. that's the life of pro-athletes.

actually, the film, 'sugar' about the dominican baseball player trying to "make it" in the minors, greatly identified how real that is (one of my favorite movies last year).

it sucks for other workers, but that's why some make it in the nba, and some don't, and the best can sometimes be total ego-maniacal a-holes.

generally, i agree that talking to workers is the way to deal with issues, but i do think sports teams have some differences in how they function, fair or not to outside points of view. in the case of hughes, even if one accepts what d'antoni did wasn't the best way to let hughes know, what does going to the press do to help his cause?

to me, hughes is not the most reputable source. it's funny because perhaps i'm projecting my own experience, where the person i had the issues with, who was constantly doing the least amount possible, when people's lives were involved, and had such a negative attitude, but then complained about me to the person above me, the idea that this person was a reputable source because --- duhhh --- they were under the gun from me, seems like it could ring true here as well.

have you ever faced a hardcore disgruntled staff member before? in the one case i am thinking of, part of their beef was hugely legit (they weren't getting paid jack) and were asked to do a lot, but that was the job. see, that's what i mean about hughes and mda, and being an nba player. what has happened to hughes is part of the job, that all players face.

all of the literature about performance says you have to hold people to high expectations, and sometimes that means taking someone to the side, and sometimes using a different approach. perhaps d'antoni made a mistake with hughes, but none of us really know anyway.

regardless, if you aren't performing in a super-performance based job -- aka there is no gray area, either your team wins, or loses --- where you are paid millions of dollars to do the work well, it seems pretty self-centered of one to go against your coach, publicly, with a strong track record, no matter how big his ego is (which i think is a line that is either walked or crossed to much by very "successful" people...who can become arrogant), and not expect any consequences.

my point was that to call that "personal" seems more than a bit unfair to the coach.

peace.

PresIke wrote:my point was that to call that "personal" seems more than a bit unfair to the coach.

peace.

i never called it personal w/Hughes... u must have me mixed up w/someone else, unless ur just making a general point... anyway, if Hughes wasn't part of our team i could give 2 craps about the guy, but he's here & i'd like to avoid any drama if at all possible... i think it takes away from the team in some respects, we should just be focused on 1 common goal at this point & don't need any unnecessary distractions.

it's all good bro, we're just spouting off our own opinions here... i'm not discrediting anything u say, just have my own take that things can easily be done a different way where we avoid the unnecessary distractions... after all the drama that we went through during Isiah's tenure it would be nice to be rid of that type of stuff completely... thing is these pro athletes don't seem to think like u & me, a lot of them have huge egos & sometimes u gotta massage them a little to get what you're looking for... toss in the contract year factor & we're talking about millions of dollars in earnings that are potentially on the line... hard to fathom for most people like us who make modest working man salaries.

misterearl wrote:Pumping With Hans And The Answer Franz

Announcer: Good evening. And welcome again to "Pumping Up With Hans & Franz", the informative training program for the serious weightlifter.

Answer Franz: Hello! We're back!

Hans: I am Hans.

Franz: And I am The Answer Franz.

Together: And we just want to.. [ clap ] Pump.. you up!

Hans: Alright. But before we can pump you up tonight, we have to answer a piece of viewer mail.

Answer Franz: Ya. Ya. This is a letter we received from a TMS. I'll only read an excerpt, so I don't go into his loser details. "Dear Hans & Answer Franz: I wonder why Larry Hughes does not play instead of Marcus Landry you are so mo..., so mo..."

Hans: Moronic.

Answer Franz: "..Your moronic posts, and have wondered why you don't open your own Knicks site. Maybe you are too stupid." [ crumples letter ] You know, maybe you thought this letter would make us angry; but it only makes us sad.

Hans: Really, ya. We are sad, you know, because anyone who calls us "stupid" is really just jealous. Because their girlfriend looks at us, then looks at him, and realzies she's cuddling up with a little girly-man!

Answer Franz: Ya. Ya, girly-man. Hear me now and believe me later TMS - but don't think about it ever, because, if you try to think, you might cause a flabulance!

Hans: Ya!

Answer Franz: Poor little girly-man, alone in his girly-house!

Hans: Sorry, Mr. Girly-Man, but here's a treat for your girlfriend!

[ Hans & Franz flex their muscles egotistically ]

Hans: Alright.

Answer Franz: Oh, and thank you so much for the letter. [ put crumpled letter in his mouth and swallows ] Besides, I am so looking forward to see if Jonathan Bender builds on his 7' pumpitude of Thursday night in scoring, blocked shots and rebounding... to compliments the glue of Jeffries at 6'11 and the size of the almost pumped 6'10 Gallinari, who has shown the ability to defend the post. Or did you watch the Atlanta Hawks game?

Hans: Ya! Ya, don't think for a minute he's not eating it, because beleive me he is!

Answer Franz: That was one delicious piece of girly-man. Just like that 6'5 185 pound girly-man Larry Hughes.

Hans: Ya! You know, we're not here to eat. We're here... to...

Together: Pump.. [ clap ] ..you up!

Answer Franz: Oh, and by the way, we'd like to take this time to announce the opening of our new gym in Wayne, New Jersey.

Hans: That's right. Ya! It's called the Pumpatorium! Ya! And soon you will meet Marcus Landry. He works out at our new gym.

Answer Franz: Ya, you know, because we don't have time to babysit you losers. But believe me, we have trained him well.

Hans: Ya! And he's one tough 6'7 230 pound biscuit, believe me! Ya, come on out here, Marcus!

Answer Franz: Marcus, come on out!

[ Marcus Landry runs to the scorers table to check in Knicks game ]. Landry brings 45 extra pounds of hustle and muscle to throw around in traffic where the big boys bang.

Marcus Landry: Hey, Hans! How you doing, Answer Franz?

Answer Franz: Yes! do you ever show pity on those flabby losers?

Landry: No! These losers, they need discipline! They're fat, lazy pigs, who should be only dead! You hear me? Dead! Dead! Dead!

Hans: Ya! Ya! Alright. Interesting. Now, tell us, Marcus, what would you do with a girly-man who wrote a baby letter?

Landry: Here me now, and here me now, girly-man TMS! Don't be thinking I don't come to practice and pummel the slender, girly man flabbitude of that 6'5 185 pound Larry Hughes and then can't come to your house, and pummel your head with a 2x4 and knock some sense into your fat, lazy lard-filled ass! You should be dead! You hear me! Dead, dead, dead, dead!!

[ Hans & Franz subdue Marcus Landry ]

Hans: Alright. Alright.

Answer Franz: Enough talk.

Together, Marcus Landry now joined by Duhon, Gallo (in his spider man pose), Nate (flexing and baring his teeth), Lee (glaring), the Mayor (shyly), (even Jonathan Bender and Jared Jeffries) yoots Toney Douglas and Jordan Hill: We're not here to talk. We're here to pump.. [ clap ] ..you up!

That's messed up...
Not that anybody should care what I think..but this is uncalled for. Bad taste Earl, very bad taste.