RealGM

Posted: **Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:57 pm**

Now is the time of year we will have some dicey info leak out. Looks like it's starting. LK doesn't want to spread negative publicity on his way out. That never looks good for his next job.

One part that was very interesting was the mention of Redd and Mo's "non-existant" relationship. If true, this supports that one of them is gone. Most likely Mo.

http://www.madison.com/wsj/home/sports/bucks/281551

Bucks: Krystkowiak took path of least resistance
By VIC FEUERHERD
608-252-6175
vfeuerherd@madison.com
MILWAUKEE -- The 16 seconds of silence in response to the question may have been the most telling answer that Larry Krystkowiak has given during his short, unspectacular run as the coach of the Milwaukee Bucks.

"If I had to do it all over again," Krystkowiak finally said Monday night after being asked if he had the freedom to coach the Bucks the way he wanted, "things would be different.

"Some were self-inflicted. Some were external."

That begged the questions: What exactly was self-inflicted? And what were the external forces that forced Krystkowiak to coach one way while wanting to do it another?

Krystkowiak wasn't going to go there.

"No sour apples here," he said. "I want to focus as much on the positive as I can."

At some point following Wednesday night's season finale at Minnesota, Krystkowiak is going to meet with the Bucks' new general manager, John Hammond. The forecast is the two will meet Thursday or Friday, and shortly after the team will announce it is in the market for a new coach.

That is expected to be the first step in Hammond's rebuilding of the woeful Bucks, who if it were not for the New York Knicks and Miami Heat, would be the laughingstock of the NBA's Eastern Conference.

"I'm really glad I'm not Isiah Thomas (for whom) it was a daily thing all season long," Krystkowiak said of the criticism of the embattled and soon-to-be-departed Knicks coach. "I don't know how he handles it. I know it's no fun."

Tough season, situation

Krystkowiak's honeymoon wasn't long.

It lasted all of the 18 games he coached last season when he took over for Terry Stotts, who took over for Terry Porter less than two years before that. But with turnover like that, coaches shouldn't expect long honeymoons -- unless your team wins.

The Bucks haven't been on the winning side of the ledger since they were 7-6 about a month into the season. Following Monday night's 151-135 loss to the Chicago Bulls in their final home game of the season at the Bradley Center, Milwaukee is 26-55.

"There's been an awful lot of excitement in the city," Krystkowiak said, alluding to the Green Bay Packers' recent playoff run and the high expectations for the Milwaukee Brewers this year, "and we haven't shared in that."

The first real step the Bucks took in their transformation came a month ago when then general manager Larry Harris was fired. Now Hammond has inherited a massive rebuilding project.

Milwaukee has 10 players who account for nearly $60 million in payroll this season. Of those players, only center Andrew Bogut and rookie forward Yi Jianlian are considered close to untouchable.

But the other eight, including Michael Redd and his $14.5 million salary, essentially are untouchable, too, because their salaries will make it difficult to trade them.

"I'm going to let John deal with that," Krystkowiak said when asked what pieces the Bucks have left for their puzzle. "It's dangerous to start naming names."

Perhaps it's dangerous for Krystkowiak, but here goes.

Redd is too selfish, some say, and his relationship with point guard Mo Williams ($7.8 million) is non-existent. Forwards Bobby Simmons ($9.2 million), Charlie Villanueva ($2.7 million) and Dan Gadzuric ($5.8 million) are non-factors on the floor.

Forward Desmond Mason ($5 million) is a complementary player with no one to complement and at too steep a price. Guard Charlie Bell ($3.1 million) still is seething over how the Bucks treated him last summer, matching an offer sheet from the Heat despite Bell saying he didn't want to play in Milwaukee.

There is only one cure for all the problems.

"Winning," Krystkowiak said, "is pretty good medicine."

The path he picked

In January, when Redd was coming back from a thigh injury, Krystkowiak said he might bring Redd off the bench -- similar to what San Antonio does with Manu Ginobili.

Later, Krystkowiak was asked if he would consider making such a move permanent. The coach smiled at the one reporter remaining in his office.

"I like my job security," said Krystkowiak, essentially acknowledging the hammer the Bucks' highest-paid player can carry with owner and the front office.

For a myriad of reasons, that was how Krystkowiak chose to coach. We'll never know if he could have been successful if he had chosen his own route.

Apparently, it is something Krystkowiak is asking himself, too.

Posted: **Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:59 pm**

Interesting. Maybe more proof that the Mo/Redd era needs to come to a quick end.

Posted: **Tue Apr 15, 2008 3:02 pm**

Edit: Obviously its more proof that the Mo/Redd era needs to end.

Posted: **Tue Apr 15, 2008 3:03 pm**

I don't doubt that he wasn't allowed to do things his way.. but I also recognize how advantageous his disclosure is at this point. This guy is a few days away from unemployment, and from the looks of this season he was never able to live up to all the promise many believed he had when he got the job. Right now he looks like a guy that was never ready to move up to this level of coaching, and most likely will end up on someone's team as an assistant coach or back on the college/high school level real soon.

This is the NBA.. there are constraints on most coaches and there isn't complete autonomy in a majority of situations.. As a coach you just have to have the skill, talent and experience to make it work regardless.. Unfortunately for Kryskowiak he just wasn't ready for the politics behind coaching on this level. I wish him well.. perhaps in a few years, after getting more experience as an assistant/lead assistant he can try again.

Posted: **Tue Apr 15, 2008 3:18 pm**

Larry was very short-sighted for allowing Kohl to dictate what offenses he's allowed to run. What was the worst that could have happened if Larry ran the triangle as he wanted to? That he would get fired and collect checks from home? He's getting fired anyway.

Posted: **Tue Apr 15, 2008 3:21 pm**

adamcz wrote:Larry was very short-sighted for allowing Kohl to dictate what offenses he's allowed to run. What was the worst that could have happened if Larry ran the triangle as he wanted to? That he would get fired and collect checks from home? He's getting fired anyway.

Yeah, but when your boss tells you to do something. Usually, you do it.

That said, would Kohl even be able to tell if LK continued to run the triangle?

Posted: **Tue Apr 15, 2008 3:28 pm**

EastSideBucksFan wrote:Yeah, but when your boss tells you to do something. Usually, you do it.

I don't think normal rules apply here because of the gauranteed contract, the high odds that he would fired eventually like all coaches do, and because he's always auditioning for the next coaching job.

If somebody who knew next to nothing about my profession were telling me how to do my job, and I would get paid even if they fired me for not listening, and that firing would bring about sympathy from others in my field, including other prospective employers, I would probably want to stand my ground. Easier to say than do I know.

That said, would Kohl even be able to tell if LK continued to run the triangle?

I've wondered the same thing. What does Kohl know about different offenses? Can he really tell by watching what plays they're running?

Posted: **Tue Apr 15, 2008 3:33 pm**

Yep.. if he really wanted to run the triangle, and from what he was saying before the season guys were catching on very well.. then he should have fought hard for it. They spent a lot of time learning the triangle and experimenting with it here and there in a couple of early games during the season only not to use it at all in the end (which also lead to more confusiion on the offensive and defensive side of the ball). Changing from the intended offense to something else seemed to confuse the players and the coach.. and they didn't know where to go from there, which made things worse for an already struggling team. It really was to the detriment of the team in a lot of ways to spend so much time doing something that was never honestly going to be used.. Honestly, the more I think about it.. he probably should have gotten a commitment from Larry Harris, Senator Kohl and the cronies that they would allow them to play that way offensively this season before teaching them anything.. and for whatever reason that didn't happen. Again, I see that as his lack of experience with the political side of the NBA.

Posted: **Tue Apr 15, 2008 3:43 pm**

adamcz wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

I've wondered the same thing. What does Kohl know about different offenses? Can he really tell by watching what plays they're running?

I'm guessing one or more of the players complained directly to Kohl about it. So, the complaints would probably have continued. I doubt Kohl nixed it because it wasn't aesthetically pleasing to him.

Posted: **Tue Apr 15, 2008 3:47 pm**

Rockmaninoff wrote:I doubt Kohl nixed it because it wasn't aesthetically pleasing to him.

You're right, it was probably Max copmlaining about it, but it's much funnier to assume that Kohl has his own opinions about how to call plays and run an offense.

Posted: **Tue Apr 15, 2008 3:49 pm**

Rockmaninoff wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

I'm guessing one or more of the players complained directly to Kohl about it. So, the complaints would probably have continued. I doubt Kohl nixed it because it wasn't aesthetically pleasing to him.

Actually I believe you are right on that.. and if I remember correctly whoever reported that stated it wasn't Bogut or Redd that did the complaining. I could be wrong, but I think it might have been Mo, and maybe CV or even Simmons. Not sure..

But if whoever reported that could tell us again who complained that would be great.

Posted: **Tue Apr 15, 2008 3:50 pm**

adamcz wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

You're right, it was probably Max copmlaining about it, but it's much funnier to assume that Kohl has his own opinions about how to call plays and run an offense.

I picture Kohl in boxershorts and silken robe with kleenex boxes on his feet drawing up plays in crayon, late at night. Smiling and drooling...

Ron Kistler, I mean Smithers, I mean Ron Walter is there to assist occasionally...

Posted: **Tue Apr 15, 2008 4:42 pm**

That article has a good summary of the deadweight contracts this team has.....

Inexperienced guy brought into a bad situation. And the end result is winning less games that the year prior, even though everyone was healthy and no overt tanking taking place.

Posted: **Tue Apr 15, 2008 5:14 pm**

You mean scratching the triangle offense after using it all of the preseason wasnt his idea?

Posted: **Tue Apr 15, 2008 5:19 pm**

carmelbrownqueen wrote:but I think it might have been Mo

what's your reasoning for that? i'm not saying it couldn't have been him but why do you think it was? going by the general description of what a point guard is required to do in the triangle, mo should have liked it

Posted: **Tue Apr 15, 2008 5:24 pm**

I think Kohl meddled with Larry K and Harris because they are not proven guys in the NBA so he felt he had to take some control on and off the court.

Posted: **Tue Apr 15, 2008 5:30 pm**

jerrod wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

what's your reasoning for that? i'm not saying it couldn't have been him but why do you think it was? going by the general description of what a point guard is required to do in the triangle, mo should have liked it

In general he should have..but I'm not sure he was ever comfortable with it. It was merely my guess. I know that Woelfel wrote about the triangle being axed in February, and that a number of players and Bucks personnel at the time indicated that it wasn't Kryskowiak that gave up on it but Kohl pulling the plug.. However, I seem to recall from that time someone stating that Mo Williams, perhaps CV or Simmons (not sure on Simmons though) weren't happy about changing the offense to that style. I could be wrong on that though..so much came out this season about how players, Kohl, and others within the organization manipulated for their personal gain that I might be getting all the stories mixed up.

I will say this though, many of the conversations I have had.. really highlight how over the top Mo has been all season long. There have been a lot of concerns regarding his attitude toward teamwork, his role on the team, and other things that have drawn a lot of concern.

Posted: **Tue Apr 15, 2008 5:31 pm**

Bucks_Revenge wrote:I think Kohl meddled with Larry K and Harris because they are not proven guys in the NBA so he felt he had to take some control on and off the court.

He meddled because he felt that his approach to let Karl/Grunfield have more control during their heyday was a monumental mistake and did more harm than good. He wanted more hands on control again...

Posted: **Tue Apr 15, 2008 5:35 pm**

carmelbrownqueen wrote:I will say this though, many of the conversations I have had.. really highlight how over the top Mo has been all season long. There have been a lot of concerns regarding his attitude toward teamwork, his role on the team, and other things that have drawn a lot of concern.

i just think this team has been so dysfunctional all the way to the top, i thnk we're gonna see a few players get traded and then do well on other teams and these attitude issues will fizzle away. that'll be disappointing but probably neccessary

Posted: **Tue Apr 15, 2008 5:40 pm**

Just because a player does well on another team doesn't mean we made a mistake in trading them. If Mo Williams is traded (and I hope that he is), then in the right situation he will prosper.. This isn't the right situation for him and probably never has been. He's not a good decision maker and isn't an instinctive playmaker. Having him as your starting point guard is a mistake, but in a Bobby Jackson type role where he is coming off the bench and providing instant offense or starting because the better point guard is injuried is his niche.

I don't hate Mo, but I do think he is a hinderance to this team. We have some problems throughout the organization however we can rectify one by moving Mo to a place where his play making isn't as big of a concern because his role is to make shots. I think that's why the Miami situation is perfect for him..

RealGM

WSJ: LK not allowed to coach his way

WSJ: LK not allowed to coach his way