Flogging a dead poodle

> What you've described above says more about KG than Wally. Dislike a
> guy because he's picked for Team USA and is confident? Seems rather
> silly to me. Of course, KG's the superstar, so he's going to get the
> benefit of the doubt.
>
> The Wolves would be better off with Wally on the team. It's too bad it
> coudn't work out . . .

Like Taylor said, if he told the whole story, everyone would deny it,
so we the fans will never know. I'd tend to think Wally was the
problem. He wanted to be the diva, but he was never more than a member
of the chorus. A very well compensated member of the chorus.

Chemistry is a vital thing in a NBA locker room. 60's celtics, recent
Pistons, the Duncan Spurs. KG has been really generous to the bit
players, and foolishly loyal to guys like Spre, when he had become a
real boil on the organizations butt. KG is all heart, and I pray the
day comes when the chemistry comes together, and he wins here.

I'm hoping Casey gets a rotation that makes sense, and does a better
job of match ups, both related to who the other teams has on the floor,
and the situation. Needing defense more than offense, etc. So far it's
been sketchy. Of course I'm being annoyingly particular, but I'm
still feeling salty after the last two years.
 >> Stay informed about: Flogging a dead poodle 

Scott Smith wrote:
> On 5 Nov 2006 08:35:43 -0800, "ikrushlots@aol.com"
> <ikrushlots DeleteThis @aol.com> wrote:
>
> >levi wrote:
> >>
> >> Aschburner in Sunday's STrib discusses Britt Robson's interview
> >> with Glen Taylor and digs a little deeper into the Wally/KG
> >> relationship. Apparently the bad blood began as far back
> >> as 1999, when Wally was added to the Team USA qualifying
> >> squad, which already included KG. Supposedly, several
> >> players on the team disliked the "ultraconfident" Szczerbiak,
> >> who also reportedly razzed KG. Then, after years of friction,
> >> punching incidents, etc., Wally became unwilling to defer to
> >> KG, polarized the locker room, and basically became an
> >> intolerable presence.
> >>
> >> I'm sure that Rex Chapman's intervention(?) didn't help.
> >>
> >> I, for one, am glad they're both gone.
> >
> >What you've described above says more about KG than Wally. Dislike a
> >guy because he's picked for Team USA and is confident? Seems rather
> >silly to me. Of course, KG's the superstar, so he's going to get the
> >benefit of the doubt.
>
> I think it goes beyond Wally being simply confident. It sounds
> a lot more like he hassled KG and was a disruption in the locker
> room in general. Given Wally's attitude and actions on the court,
> I can easily see this being the truth about Wally.
>
> >The Wolves would be better off with Wally on the team. It's too bad it
> >coudn't work out . . .
>
> I disagree. Wally didn't contribute that much on the court most
> nights...and was unhealthy on a regular basis as well. Add to that
> his obvious whiner status and I think the Wolves are much better
> off without him to worry about these days.
>
> Time for us all to forget Wally and move on.

I'm all for that . . .
 >> Stay informed about: Flogging a dead poodle 

On 5 Nov 2006 08:35:43 -0800, "ikrushlots@aol.com"
<ikrushlots.TakeThisOut@aol.com> wrote:

>levi wrote:
>>
>> Aschburner in Sunday's STrib discusses Britt Robson's interview
>> with Glen Taylor and digs a little deeper into the Wally/KG
>> relationship. Apparently the bad blood began as far back
>> as 1999, when Wally was added to the Team USA qualifying
>> squad, which already included KG. Supposedly, several
>> players on the team disliked the "ultraconfident" Szczerbiak,
>> who also reportedly razzed KG. Then, after years of friction,
>> punching incidents, etc., Wally became unwilling to defer to
>> KG, polarized the locker room, and basically became an
>> intolerable presence.
>>
>> I'm sure that Rex Chapman's intervention(?) didn't help.
>>
>> I, for one, am glad they're both gone.
>
>What you've described above says more about KG than Wally. Dislike a
>guy because he's picked for Team USA and is confident? Seems rather
>silly to me. Of course, KG's the superstar, so he's going to get the
>benefit of the doubt.

I think it goes beyond Wally being simply confident. It sounds
a lot more like he hassled KG and was a disruption in the locker
room in general. Given Wally's attitude and actions on the court,
I can easily see this being the truth about Wally.

>The Wolves would be better off with Wally on the team. It's too bad it
>coudn't work out . . .

I disagree. Wally didn't contribute that much on the court most
nights...and was unhealthy on a regular basis as well. Add to that
his obvious whiner status and I think the Wolves are much better
off without him to worry about these days.

Time for us all to forget Wally and move on.



- Scott Smith: scott.TakeThisOut@sludgereport.org
Books Blog: http://scottsbooks.blogspot.com
Blue States Rising: http://www.bluestaterising.blogspot.com
 >> Stay informed about: Flogging a dead poodle 

Andy H wrote:
>
> Chemistry is a vital thing in a NBA locker room.

I call bullshit. Chemistry is just a fancy term for "everyone is happy
because we're winning." And you win with talent, not a web of
personalities.

Give me the choice between a "good clubhouse guy" and a guy who can
play and I'll take the player every time. Chemistry is a myth. It's
something invented after the fact to describe winning teams.

Matt
 >> Stay informed about: Flogging a dead poodle 

Scott Smith wrote:
> On 6 Nov 2006 07:21:07 -0800, "ikrushlots@aol.com"
> <ikrushlots DeleteThis @aol.com> wrote:
>
> >>levi wrote:
> >>
> >> Personalities aside, no. Wally plain just does not have
> >> the talent to be anything but a off the bench role player.
> >
> >24 points, 4.7 rebounds and 2.3 assists. I would love to have a bench
> >role player who could do that!
>
> Actually, Wally is more along the lines of a 19.0 points, 3.0 assists
> and 4.0 rebounds player when he plays a full season and a full
> 37-38 mpg.

Numbers that don't warrant being called "anything but a off the bench
role player."
 >> Stay informed about: Flogging a dead poodle 

Matt wrote:
> Andy H wrote:
> >
> > Chemistry is a vital thing in a NBA locker room.
>
> I call bullshit. Chemistry is just a fancy term for "everyone is happy
> because we're winning." And you win with talent, not a web of
> personalities.
>
> Give me the choice between a "good clubhouse guy" and a guy who can
> play and I'll take the player every time. Chemistry is a myth. It's
> something invented after the fact to describe winning teams.
>
> Matt

Of course with the choices you just gave us, we go with the guy who can
play. However, if the choice is an uber talented guy who is selfish and
is not a good teammate, versus a guy who is very good and plays team
ball, I'll take the latter every time. The Kobe/Shaq Lakers are the
only team since the 80s I can think of that wasn't mostly made up of
team oriented players.
 >> Stay informed about: Flogging a dead poodle 

On 6 Nov 2006 07:21:07 -0800, "ikrushlots@aol.com"
<ikrushlots.TakeThisOut@aol.com> wrote:

>>levi wrote:
>>
>> Personalities aside, no. Wally plain just does not have
>> the talent to be anything but a off the bench role player.
>
>24 points, 4.7 rebounds and 2.3 assists. I would love to have a bench
>role player who could do that!

Actually, Wally is more along the lines of a 19.0 points, 3.0 assists
and 4.0 rebounds player when he plays a full season and a full
37-38 mpg.

Which is about what I would expect his numbers to level out at this
season, that is IF he can stay healthy and IF he can actually keep
his numbers that consistent. A couple of seriously big "IF's" for
Wally-world, IMO.




- Scott Smith: scott.TakeThisOut@sludgereport.org
Books Blog: http://scottsbooks.blogspot.com
Blue States Rising: http://www.bluestaterising.blogspot.com
 >> Stay informed about: Flogging a dead poodle 

Matt wrote:
> Andy H wrote:
> >
> > Chemistry is a vital thing in a NBA locker room.
>
> I call bullshit. Chemistry is just a fancy term for "everyone is happy
> because we're winning." And you win with talent, not a web of
> personalities.
>
> Give me the choice between a "good clubhouse guy" and a guy who can
> play and I'll take the player every time. Chemistry is a myth. It's
> something invented after the fact to describe winning teams.
>

I know we've discussed "chemistry" before. For some
re@son (b@d first letter key...cr@p - b@d exl@m@tion
point too.) I seem to remember it is Krush who didn't believe
in chemistry being vit@l. I think it's like religion - you either
believe or you don't. No obvious difference one might point to.

Like Neil Di@mond wrote for the Monkees: "I'm @ Believer".
 >> Stay informed about: Flogging a dead poodle 

levi wrote:
> Matt wrote:
> > Andy H wrote:
> > >
> > > Chemistry is a vital thing in a NBA locker room.
> >
> > I call bullshit. Chemistry is just a fancy term for "everyone is happy
> > because we're winning." And you win with talent, not a web of
> > personalities.
> >
> > Give me the choice between a "good clubhouse guy" and a guy who can
> > play and I'll take the player every time. Chemistry is a myth. It's
> > something invented after the fact to describe winning teams.
> >
>
> I know we've discussed "chemistry" before. For some
> re@son (b@d first letter key...cr@p - b@d exl@m@tion
> point too.) I seem to remember it is Krush who didn't believe
> in chemistry being vit@l.

Not quite.

"No, there is such a thing. The argument back then was adding talent
helps the team, and certainly does not hurt it. If Wally gets hurt,
this team is going to get worse, not better. Team chemistry with
regard to players bitching about contracts and not playing motivated,
that definately exists, and was not part of the discussion before.
These players know how to play with each other. They just aren't doing
it. "

>I think it's like religion - you either
> believe or you don't. No obvious difference one might point to.

With "chemistry", there's actually some evidence to base your opinion,
whichever opinion you subscribe to. Not quite the same with religion.

> Like Neil Di@mond wrote for the Monkees: "I'm @ Believer".
 >> Stay informed about: Flogging a dead poodle 

Matt wrote:
> ikrushlots RemoveThis @aol.com wrote:
> >
> > Of course with the choices you just gave us, we go with the guy who can
> > play. However, if the choice is an uber talented guy who is selfish and
> > is not a good teammate, versus a guy who is very good and plays team
> > ball, I'll take the latter every time.
>
> Ahh, but that's not the same thing. If a guy PLAYS selfishly, that
> diminishes his value as a player. I'm talking about the myth of
> everyone needing to love one another and have good "chemistry."

I agree that they don't need to love each other, and that team
chemistry on court is more important than clubhouse chemistry.
However, when you look at the teams that have won, it seems more often
than not they are the teams that get along. Besides the Phil Jackson
Lakers, can you think of a team that has won that didn't get along? I
can see a "winning takes care of everything" argument coming, but does
winning really temper egos and personality conflicts?

I look at the stark difference between the two Cassell/Sprewell teams.
There definately was a difference in the clubhouse going into the
second season, before any losing had yet to take place. The lack of
chemistry, IMO, doomed the team from the start.
 >> Stay informed about: Flogging a dead poodle 

Chemistry is 1 or 2 stars, and 10 happy role players that compliment
the stars, and stars
that cheer the role players, and take care of their egos, and praise
their efforts. I hope James and Davis can fill that other star thing.

HEY.....Foye scored a point, Foye scored a point, Foye scored a
point..................
this should be a crawl on ESPN tonight and the next night. :)

Kid needs to relax, and I think the ice will thaw when he nails a few
3's. I did appreciate Reed and SMith in the lineup at the same time, no
matter how briefly. The consistent fight tonight was number 5. I'm
really starting to enjoy "Baby Barkley" otherwise the night was a
totally forgetfull mess.
 >> Stay informed about: Flogging a dead poodle 

ikrushlots DeleteThis @aol.com wrote:
> Matt wrote:
> > ikrushlots DeleteThis @aol.com wrote:
> > >
> > > Of course with the choices you just gave us, we go with the guy who can
> > > play. However, if the choice is an uber talented guy who is selfish and
> > > is not a good teammate, versus a guy who is very good and plays team
> > > ball, I'll take the latter every time.
> >
> > Ahh, but that's not the same thing. If a guy PLAYS selfishly, that
> > diminishes his value as a player. I'm talking about the myth of
> > everyone needing to love one another and have good "chemistry."
>
> I agree that they don't need to love each other, and that team
> chemistry on court is more important than clubhouse chemistry.
> However, when you look at the teams that have won, it seems more often
> than not they are the teams that get along. Besides the Phil Jackson
> Lakers, can you think of a team that has won that didn't get along? I
> can see a "winning takes care of everything" argument coming, but does
> winning really temper egos and personality conflicts?

Check out Bird/McHale. I'd say they won a little bit.
But perhaps because of his personal experience, McHale
discounted the KG/Wally discord.

>
> I look at the stark difference between the two Cassell/Sprewell teams.
> There definately was a difference in the clubhouse going into the
> second season, before any losing had yet to take place. The lack of
> chemistry, IMO, doomed the team from the start.

Yes, but the "chemistry" problems were Wally and Kandi, not
Spree and Sam. The Poodle and the Sasquatch weren't real big
problems the year before because Wally was mostly hurt and Kandi
pretty much benched for Erv, MadDog, and Ollie.
 >> Stay informed about: Flogging a dead poodle 

levi wrote:
> ikrushlots.RemoveThis@aol.com wrote:
> > Matt wrote:
> > > ikrushlots.RemoveThis@aol.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Of course with the choices you just gave us, we go with the guy who can
> > > > play. However, if the choice is an uber talented guy who is selfish and
> > > > is not a good teammate, versus a guy who is very good and plays team
> > > > ball, I'll take the latter every time.
> > >
> > > Ahh, but that's not the same thing. If a guy PLAYS selfishly, that
> > > diminishes his value as a player. I'm talking about the myth of
> > > everyone needing to love one another and have good "chemistry."
> >
> > I agree that they don't need to love each other, and that team
> > chemistry on court is more important than clubhouse chemistry.
> > However, when you look at the teams that have won, it seems more often
> > than not they are the teams that get along. Besides the Phil Jackson
> > Lakers, can you think of a team that has won that didn't get along? I
> > can see a "winning takes care of everything" argument coming, but does
> > winning really temper egos and personality conflicts?
>
> Check out Bird/McHale. I'd say they won a little bit.

While Bird and McHale had their differences, I don't recall them ever
being to the point of creating bad chemistry. Do tell if you have some
juicy info that goes beyond the much reported McHale being a light
hearted prankster while Bird was no-nonsense.

> But perhaps because of his personal experience, McHale
> discounted the KG/Wally discord.
>
> >
> > I look at the stark difference between the two Cassell/Sprewell teams.
> > There definately was a difference in the clubhouse going into the
> > second season, before any losing had yet to take place. The lack of
> > chemistry, IMO, doomed the team from the start.
>
> Yes, but the "chemistry" problems were Wally and Kandi, not
> Spree and Sam. The Poodle and the Sasquatch weren't real big
> problems the year before because

Because they thought they were getting the contracts they wanted. It
had nothing to do with Wally.
 >> Stay informed about: Flogging a dead poodle