Moderators: LyricalRico, nate33, montestewart
Ruzious wrote:So, where are we trading Ish? With no Wall trade and Neto aboard - not to mention drafting a PG and saying TBJ will play some PG, seems like there's no room for Ish. Hmm, that would be a good title - "No room for Ish".
Ruzious wrote:So, where are we trading Ish? With no Wall trade and Neto aboard - not to mention drafting a PG and saying TBJ will play some PG, seems like there's no room for Ish. Hmm, that would be a good title - "No room for Ish".
smoothSeph wrote:Ruzious wrote:So, where are we trading Ish? With no Wall trade and Neto aboard - not to mention drafting a PG and saying TBJ will play some PG, seems like there's no room for Ish. Hmm, that would be a good title - "No room for Ish".
Sheppard said Wall wouldn't be playing in B2B games. I guess they brought Neto in to be the back up in these situations?
smoothSeph wrote:Sheppard said Wall wouldn't be playing in B2B games. I guess they brought Neto in to be the back up in these situations?
Sheppard wrote:“With the schedule that we’re being told may have up to 14 back-to-backs, we’re going to have to be real selective, but I can’t see him playing in every one of those back-to-backs,” Sheppard said. “… We’re going to do everything that we can with John’s health. We’re going to be conservative as he comes out the starting blocks and really make sure we’re always a step ahead of him a little bit. If it was up to John, he’d play in every game, play every minute out there.”
queridiculo wrote:smoothSeph wrote:Sheppard said Wall wouldn't be playing in B2B games. I guess they brought Neto in to be the back up in these situations?
For sure, from the Post.Sheppard wrote:“With the schedule that we’re being told may have up to 14 back-to-backs, we’re going to have to be real selective, but I can’t see him playing in every one of those back-to-backs,” Sheppard said. “… We’re going to do everything that we can with John’s health. We’re going to be conservative as he comes out the starting blocks and really make sure we’re always a step ahead of him a little bit. If it was up to John, he’d play in every game, play every minute out there.”
Washington isn't going to take any chances with Wall having setbacks or anything of the sort
payitforward wrote:I read the article, Ruz. I know what he says in it. As I wrote, he's exactly correct in pointing to Ted as the person who must take responsibility for solving this problem.
But Aldridge is a journalist (a good one) not a businessman, a story-teller not a problem-solver. Aldridge takes all the pieces of the issue at face value & treats them as the elements of a drama or a film scenario -- there's a plot, characters, drama & a denouement.
The problem with that point of view is pretty simple: if you treat life as if it were Othello or King Lear, then you get the same result as in those plays -- everyone suffers. No one comes out whole.
There is no upside in this situation if it continues on that basis. Once John Wall becomes a malcontent, the guy who forced a trade because his ego was too big to handle the situation he was in, he'll always be that. & he'll be traded again -- I can guarantee it. His career will be significantly diminished, more likely ruined.
IOW, John Wall -- not the Wizards -- is the one with the most to lose. Though, of course, the Wizards will lose too. That's how tragedy works: one person is at the center of the suffering, but everyone suffers. & the entire structure in which they lived -- whether it was family, country, whatever -- is destroyed.
There is no need to accept that framework, because there is no benefit to accepting it. Just pain.
This situation is, at its heart, a business problem. & if it isn't one, it needs to be turned into one. When Ted Leonsis met John Wall he was a 19 year old kid. Ted has watched him turn into a man. & a star. Ted & only Ted has the seniority, the standing with John, to help him turn the head of this beast of an issue before it slams into a wall.
Yes, John has an ego; he has a right to an ego. & he's sensitive; he has a right to that sensitivity. But, no human issue is solved via the assertion of ego. None. Never.
I'm not saying this one can be solved at all. I'm saying that if it can be, it will only be by Ted -- & only if Ted Leonsis is smart enough, big enough & deep enough to take it on.
The worst & weakest thing to do will be to trade John Wall -- as if this will put the problem behind you. The opposite, if you trade him then you have the problem on your resume & your balance sheet forever. It's failure. For the Wizards & (as I've said several times now) all the more for John.
payitforward wrote:Well... I've made myself clear. I simply do nothing. Certainly, I don't give stuff away to move John.
Come the start of training camp, John either shows up or he doesn't. 99% he shows up. By then he'll have had enough conversations to realize that he can't help himself by being intransigent.
Once he's in camp, there are plenty of opportunities for Tommy to say he's sorry for the "building around Beal" remark -- & that it was taken out of context, didn't mean *not* building around you, John! Ted shows up with the same attitude. Beal says "I don't know what he was talking about, can't wait for us to be on the court together," etc. etc. etc.
In the end, it's "Hey we're family -- & every family has squabbles -- let's show the world that we can get past this."
DCZards wrote:payitforward wrote:Well... I've made myself clear. I simply do nothing. Certainly, I don't give stuff away to move John.
Come the start of training camp, John either shows up or he doesn't. 99% he shows up. By then he'll have had enough conversations to realize that he can't help himself by being intransigent.
Once he's in camp, there are plenty of opportunities for Tommy to say he's sorry for the "building around Beal" remark -- & that it was taken out of context, didn't mean *not* building around you, John! Ted shows up with the same attitude. Beal says "I don't know what he was talking about, can't wait for us to be on the court together," etc. etc. etc.
In the end, it's "Hey we're family -- & every family has squabbles -- let's show the world that we can get past this."
Agree with this. I too believe that the prudent thing to do is to do nothing when it comes to trading Wall...with the hope and expectation that things can be talked through and that a lot of John's frustrations will take a backseat when he's back on the court competing again.
However, I disagree with a previous post by you, PIF, where you laid the blame for this current mini-crisis with Wall at the feet of Leonis. Not sure how that can be the case when it was Tommy--and not Ted--who made "building around Beal" remark that may have pissed JW off.
But I do agree that Ted, who is apparently very close to Wall, has a critical role in restoring the positive vibes between Wall and the franchise.
DCZards wrote:...I disagree with a previous post by you, PIF, where you laid the blame for this current mini-crisis with Wall at the feet of Leonis. Not sure how that can be the case when it was Tommy--and not Ted--who made "building around Beal" remark that may have pissed JW off.
But I do agree that Ted, who is apparently very close to Wall, has a critical role in restoring the positive vibes between Wall and the franchise.
doclinkin wrote:...Apparently (from David Aldrige) it was Ted who was 'furious' about the shirtless gang sign Party John video, and from there he was lightly shopped around when Houston called, which was what precipitated the "Wall wants to be traded" tweets. Maybe the Building around Beal thing added to it, but that's not what the jump off was for the trade talk. That sort of thing comes from the top down, and ran counter to what Tommy had been saying even after that incident. Wall hearing that Ted is okay with trading him would probably feel like a betrayal of the whole "DCFamily" thing. So yeah, it is up to Leonsis to smooth over that part.
payitforward wrote:Let me put that a little more strongly: it was Ted's job to make sure nothing like this happened. The single best way for him to solve it now would be to tell both of them that this conflict is entirely his fault. Defective leadership on his part. & he doesn't want them to suffer for it. He doesn't want it to be his fault that John's career is ruined and/or that Tommy's is.
doclinkin wrote:
Apparently (from David Aldrige) it was Ted who was 'furious' about the shirtless gang sign Party John video, and from there he was lightly shopped around when Houston called, which was what precipitated the "Wall wants to be traded" tweets. Maybe the Building around Beal thing added to it, but that's not what the jump off was for the trade talk. That sort of thing comes from the top down, and ran counter to what Tommy had been saying even after that incident. Wall hearing that Ted is okay with trading him would probably feel like a betrayal of the whole "DCFamily" thing. So yeah, it is up to Leonsis to smooth over that part.
DCZards wrote:doclinkin wrote:
Apparently (from David Aldrige) it was Ted who was 'furious' about the shirtless gang sign Party John video, and from there he was lightly shopped around when Houston called, which was what precipitated the "Wall wants to be traded" tweets. Maybe the Building around Beal thing added to it, but that's not what the jump off was for the trade talk. That sort of thing comes from the top down, and ran counter to what Tommy had been saying even after that incident. Wall hearing that Ted is okay with trading him would probably feel like a betrayal of the whole "DCFamily" thing. So yeah, it is up to Leonsis to smooth over that part.
Aldridge may very well be right that it was John's gang sign video that made Leonis furious.
I'm with Ted. But not because of the gang signs. Leonis and Tommy should be furious at Wall for letting himself be videotaped in such a compromising situation. I know I am. Not only was his throwing up gang signs but John looked intoxicated (although he may have not been) and the guy sitting next to him was smoking a blunt and giving the double middle finger. Not a good look.
John has been in the spotlight long enough to know that he shouldn't allow himself to be videotaped like that. I'm cool with the partying--I've done my share of it--but when you're a celeb the rule should be NO photos or videotaping.
DCZards wrote:payitforward wrote:Let me put that a little more strongly: it was Ted's job to make sure nothing like this happened. The single best way for him to solve it now would be to tell both of them that this conflict is entirely his fault. Defective leadership on his part. & he doesn't want them to suffer for it. He doesn't want it to be his fault that John's career is ruined and/or that Tommy's is.
PIF, this is the quote from the previous post that I was referring to. Seems to me like you're blaming Leonis for a problem that I assume was caused by what Tommy said. But I may be wrong about that. It may have been, as doc says, that it was Ted's reaction to the gang sign video that pissed Wallstar off.
DCZards wrote:...a problem that I assume was caused by what Tommy said. But I may be wrong about that. It may have been, as doc says, that it was Ted's reaction to the gang sign video that pissed Wallstar off.
payitforward wrote:DCZards wrote:payitforward wrote:Let me put that a little more strongly: it was Ted's job to make sure nothing like this happened. The single best way for him to solve it now would be to tell both of them that this conflict is entirely his fault. Defective leadership on his part. & he doesn't want them to suffer for it. He doesn't want it to be his fault that John's career is ruined and/or that Tommy's is.
PIF, this is the quote from the previous post that I was referring to. Seems to me like you're blaming Leonis for a problem that I assume was caused by what Tommy said. But I may be wrong about that. It may have been, as doc says, that it was Ted's reaction to the gang sign video that pissed Wallstar off.
Well, that's an extreme way that I put it! -- but, even in this case, it does't mean Ted *caused* the problem, or at least I didn't mean that! What I meant was that, as leader of the whole joint, I would expect Ted to have an active understanding of his key people & be ahead of the game in making sure "we" are all thoughtful in how we express ourselves.
For sure that includes his own expressions. Thus, however he reacted internally to Wall's gang signs, he should have talked with John privately, immediately, to let him know what kind of problem this created for the Wizards, & that he was going to have to express something about it in an "official" way, i.e. publicly.
That said, none of us can be smart enough or rational enough or have enough self-knowledge that we handle problems perfectly every time.
The other thing I say above, which is a little different, is that once the problem existed, "the single best way for him (Ted) to solve it" is to take responsibility for it. To say, if you will, a version of what your post describes me as saying.
But, this is leadership strategy, not an indictment of Ted. If the guy at the top says "it was all my fault," other people learn that it's okay to have made a mistake & cop to it. Turn it into, as they say, "a teachable moment."
In fairness, it's a lot easier for me to sit here at my desk & "understand" this situation than it is for people who are actually in it to step coolly outside of their emotions & perform at A+ level!
payitforward wrote:At the risk of going on excessively, one more thing. This --DCZards wrote:...a problem that I assume was caused by what Tommy said. But I may be wrong about that. It may have been, as doc says, that it was Ted's reaction to the gang sign video that pissed Wallstar off.
Even if it was what Tommy said led to this, I think it's excessive to suggest that his words "caused" the problem.
Don't get me wrong; it was thoughtless of Tommy to express himself in that way -- not to have realized that it might cause a problem for John. Especially since there was no particular reason that he had to say it.
But, absent the brouhaha about the gang signs, & -- even more -- absent what must be some latent anxiety John feels about his return, I doubt the words would have led to anything much.
