While we all have our feeling of negativity over the media, they do know more than we do traveling with the team and haveing access to the locker room. Larry does have to balance his locker room.

Marbs may not be the man for leadership. Interesting read.

New York Daily News - http://www.nydailynews.com
Larry could use
allies like Davis

Friday, October 7th, 2005

CHARLESTON, S.C. - Just as the Knicks are counting on Eddy Curry to provide a presence in the post, they're looking to Antonio Davis to make his presence felt in another area, no less critical: their divided locker room.

But Davis - who was traded to New York along with Curry but has told Brown that he'd rather not leave Chicago for the Knicks - might never enter the Knicks' dressing room, which has been one big tension convention since Isiah Thomas brought Stephon Marbury to New York. More than a few teammates have been at odds with Marbury and eventually became ex-teammates. Kurt Thomas was one. Tim Thomas, sent to the Bulls as part of the Curry deal, was another. They and a few others who are still around hate the fact that Marbury has more clout with the team president than he should.

With Larry Brown, you know that will change. You know Brown will use his power to push for the addition of one of what he calls his "character guys." Just as Phil Jackson had Ron Harper in his first go-round with the Lakers to get his message across in the locker room - while Harper also dutifully reported back to Phil on what the climate was in there with Shaq and Kobe - Brown wants one of his character guys to serve as his eyes, ears and mouth when it's players-only in the dressing room. And, in this case, to lessen, if not stamp out, the Marbury influence.

Brown might have been in Detroit the last two years, but he knows that Marbury has been a divisive element at the Garden. There's no room for that on a Larry Brown team. He has a program and everyone needs to get with it - with no interference from star players or star executives.

"I thought it would be such a neat thing to have him here with our young kids," Brown said yesterday about Davis, whom he coached in Indiana. "But if it's not in his best interest, then we'll move on. ... I don't want to stand in the way if he doesn't feel comfortable. I'd be disappointed, but you don't want somebody who doesn't want to be here."

Brown is going to be more than just disappointed if Davis doesn't come to New York to be a locker-room leader. He's perfect for the role, which, incidentally, he was filling for Scott Skiles in Chicago before this week's trade. He's got the stature - he's president of the Players Association. He's been around long enough to have earned the respect of his peers. And he has the strong work ethic Brown seeks in his players.

"He'll have a presence in the locker room," Brown said Wednesday. "I look at him and his value will be amazing. On a young team, you need to have guys like him. It kind of reminds me of having Elden Campbell (in Detroit) and LaSalle Thompson (in Indiana). It makes it easier to get your point across to the younger kids."

If Brown sounded resigned yesterday to seeing Davis released, Isiah Thomas was the exact opposite. Here we have the first public disagreement between the two, and it's only been about five minutes since this unlikely alliance was formed. Thomas has held all the power since he arrived to fix the Knicks. But in Brown, the Knicks brought in a real heavyweight. Plus, Brown is better at his job than Isiah is at his. So clashes were inevitable.

"He has no choice," Thomas said, referring to Davis, who is expected to ask the Knicks for his release. "This isn't charity."

This is shaping up as a fascinating showdown between Thomas and Brown, but it's only the first. No one knows exactly why Davis doesn't want to be a Knick. He went back to Chicago to tend to a family matter and wasn't available. But the horror stories about Marbury's influence with Isiah are out there.

For Isiah, Davis' aversion to coming to New York has to be a slap in the face. He has been under the false impression that all 400 NBA players are dying to be on his team. Having Marbury here, that has been nothing short of a great miscalculation.

But from Brown's standpoint, if Davis doesn't fill the role, he's got to find another character guy - and fast - to starting getting his locker room in order. So don't be surprised if he begins pushing Isiah to make a trade for George Lynch. He was one of Larry's "character guys" in Philly when Allen Iverson needed some reining in. The other day, Lynch demanded that the Hornets trade him and he has been banned from their training camp.

You don't really think that Larry Brown missed hearing that news, do you?

I saw Kurt Thomas and Tim Thomas being used as examples and I just stopped reading.

also....Snow first and now Lynch? Two bums that play hard with minimal talent.

So we got till 6pm for Curry and another week to see our Knicks in pre-season.....

Oy vey!!!!

[Edited by - enyspree on 10-07-2005 10:57 AM]

Intersting read Nalod, and that worries me.. As much as I like marbs, if he is that divisive, then he needs to go... KT and TT are good guys, really they are despite how we feel about their oncourt play...

Posted by EnySpree:

I saw Kurt Thomas and Tim Thomas being used as examples and I just stopped reading.

also....Snow first and now Lynch? Two bums that play hard with minimal talent.

So we got till 6pm for Curry and another week to see our Knicks in pre-season.....

Oy vey!!!!

[Edited by - enyspree on 10-07-2005 10:57 AM]

enyspree, you can't ignore the marbury influence.. TT and KT are good guys..

Here's my take: Marb is strong-willed and sometimes not the leader he should/could be as the teams best player. Leadership is something you can learn to a certain extent, but for the most part you either have it or you don't.

another take: Mitch Lawrence likes to make stories up for publicity/readership.

Good read Nalod.

Posted by martin:

another take: Mitch Lawrence likes to make stories up for publicity/readership.

I think this is more accurate. Its probably true that Marbury is not a good leader but divisive? Come on Mitch, tell us how he has been devisive? KT & TT might have been good guys but there are basketball reasons why they were traded. Richard Jefferson and K-mart wanted Van Horn out. Vince Carter was the most hated person in Toronto. Rasheed Wallace was called a cancer! Who doesnt want those guys on their team? Media can make a mountain out of it.

I have always said this, when it comes to the media, just give me the facts. I dont like the media's analysis 90% of the times. The media disliked Patrick Ewing for christ sake. Marbury is probably not a good leader but I doubt he is a disruptive/divisive guy. I would rather have Mitch tell me what happened in the locker room with Marbury and TT or Marbury and KT. Then, if I am still confused I would ask Marv, martin, HARDCORE, Nalod, guns, VDesai, franco, Rich, fishmike, BRIGGS, tkf, Enyspree, joec32033 (I can seriously go on forever with names of guys on ultimate that make more sense than the media) to analyze it for me.

It was reported that Marbs went off on one of ths assistant coaches and lenny lost his locker room to a faction of players.

Sure the media has it slants to make interest of this stuff, but there are nuggets of thruth there also. Nothing he said was new news by the way, its just that for the majority, its topical.

WE are a minority of fan. we like to discuss it in greater detail.

Bottom line is the game itself, but there are dynamics that we prefer to understand.

As much as it's nice to assume all these writers just hate the Knicks so we can write off whatever they say as biased, it's not as if what they're saying doesn't have elements of truth to it. It's not like Marbury came to the Knicks and THEN people said he wasn't a leader and was bad for the locker room and had attitude problems. This was all happening way beforehand. KT, for as much negativity as he gets on these boards, always played hard and was focused on winning. He certainly didn't have a history of clashing with players, and he didn't seem too happy with Marbury.

What it comes down to is what side of the fence you are on. From the side I am standing on, it looks like they wont give Isiah credit for anything and every move he makes is a bad move. From the other side, it seems like they touch on some truth and they are consistent of most players.

Here is my point: Get the facts from the media and analyze it yourself. I am not saying the media is wrong, I am saying they are exaggerating stuff in a negative way. That we dont need.

The other side of the fence has a good point and I agree that the media shouldn't be ignored.

Posted by mythfaze:

As much as it's nice to assume all these writers just hate the Knicks so we can write off whatever they say as biased, it's not as if what they're saying doesn't have elements of truth to it. It's not like Marbury came to the Knicks and THEN people said he wasn't a leader and was bad for the locker room and had attitude problems. This was all happening way beforehand. KT, for as much negativity as he gets on these boards, always played hard and was focused on winning. He certainly didn't have a history of clashing with players, and he didn't seem too happy with Marbury.

You are definitely right. There are elements of truth in everything they write. But they can spin it whatever way they want, as well. Take everything you read with a grain of salt. The papers told us there were all kinds of things going on during Katrina, that never really happened. But I do find a lot of people that do beleive all this nonsense. Just take it with a grain of salt. For all we know, KT was completely unreasonable, and attacked Marbury for no reason and then started throwing out things at Marbury to get under his skin. But the media can spin it to make one guy look bad. It's not that hard. The reality is to this day, as much as we wish to believe that we do, none of us has any clue about what really happened in any of these incidences.

Posted by mythfaze:

The media wasn't always anti-Isiah. He did it to himself. When he was first introduced and made the Marbury trade there were tons of articles gushing about him. Since he continued to make moves that didn't improve the team, and questionably handled some situations, then the media has started to turn on him (as have many fans: i.e. "Fire Thomas" chants at the draft this year- though very brief and from only one section of the room)

I think this is very innaccurate. There were about 40 articles about Zeke being a snake in the grass teh day he was hired. The media has disliked Zeke ever since his Larry Bird comments.