OT: Larry Hughes comments (Loser Alert)

[BrokenLeftyJumper]

I think people read into these comments way too much. I can certainly understand what Hughes said, and I don't think Marion was that off base with what he said either. In the end, playing basketball is something people do for fun. You play because you enjoy the game. While winning is certainly more fun that losing, I can totally understand Marion when he says he might rather play for a team where his role is bigger, despite the fact the team might not be as good. If I was in Larry Hughes situation, I might feel the same way. For people who love playing basketball, it might not be that enjoyable to play on a team where your only responsibility is walking the ball up the court and handing it off to Lebron, no matter how many wins you get. To me, it seems like all Hughes and Marion said is basically "I'd rather play basketball and enjoy doing it, than win basketball games but not enjoy it." I don't see anything wrong with that.

Saying you don't play hard is a whole different story, and I think its unfair to make that implication from these types of comments. Shawn Marion plays hard every single night, I don't think that's debatable. Larry Hughes tried to play in the Finals on one foot.

[Pogue Mahone]

The way I look at it is like this:

You are a pretty big deal in the IT field. You are highly sought after and an enterprising start-up offers you the biggest contract of any of it's competitors. You were brought in to continue doing that which has made you successful.

The company already has a younger and more dynamic IT guy with a somewhat similar skillset but, because the younger guy can do it all, it should be entirely possible for to continue doing your thing. At least in theory.

You quickly realize after committing to the company that they didn't plan for the meteoric rise of it's young IT guru. Because your skills overlap much of what the younger guy does better, you are asked to take a lesser position in the company but they will continue to pay you your current salary.

Now, who wouldn't want to get out of that situation? Keep in mind, this is the 2nd time in your career this has happened to you, as well. When you were put in positions that accentuated your skills, you were a highly sought after commodity. When you were relegated to a lesser role, one that didn't suit your skills, many people questioned whether you were worth the investment.

I said it at the time of the deal but I think Hughes is going to help Chicago A LOT. They needed a penetrator and they needed an off-guard with the ability to create his own shot. They have that now.

As for Cleveland, I don't know about this board but elsewhere, at the time of the Hughes signing, many thought it was an ill-fit but if LeBron could improve his ability to play off of the ball it could work. LeBron wasn't able to do that. Superstars and MVP candidates are able to patch holes regardless of who they are playing with. If LeBron is truly as good as everyone says, why not allow some of the playmaking to fall on the shoulders of a slightly less talented playmaker so LeBron could focus on making other players better by remaining a threat without the ball in his hands?

It's because LeBron is ineffective without the ball in his hands. Which is fine but that doesn't make Larry Hughes a bad player because he is ineffective without the ball in his hands, as well. I don't blame either player (I think Mike Brown is a terrible coach but that is for another day and another thread.)

Hughes had a right to be unhappy, imo. He was signed to fill a role that he was never allowed to fill. Would anyone get mad at Ray Allen if he was instructed to stop attempting to be a playmaker, transform his game to purely catch-and-shoot and he ended up feeling unhappy about his role? I mean, Ray Ray is better equipped for that role than Hughes, especially when you consider the players on the roster. Yet Hughes was essentially relegated to that role.

Any player is going to eventually get disillusioned if they play hard on the defensive end, support more talented teammates offensively and don't get rewarded for it. Unless your name is Brian Scalabrine but he is an outlier and not the norm.

[John Locke]

I think it all comes down to people's needs. Most players need to feel like they are important. I think that Hughes was almost feeling as if he was a burden on the team.

He was not utilized properly. And I think that all of that stuff comes down to coaching and the way LeBron delegates.

I think that Hughes would be happy to play a lesser role if he felt important.

[UGA Hayes]

The way I look at it is like this:

You are a pretty big deal in the IT field. You are highly sought after and an enterprising start-up offers you the biggest contract of any of it's competitors. You were brought in to continue doing that which has made you successful.

The company already has a younger and more dynamic IT guy with a somewhat similar skillset but, because the younger guy can do it all, it should be entirely possible for to continue doing your thing. At least in theory.

You quickly realize after committing to the company that they didn't plan for the meteoric rise of it's young IT guru. Because your skills overlap much of what the younger guy does better, you are asked to take a lesser position in the company but they will continue to pay you your current salary.

Now, who wouldn't want to get out of that situation? Keep in mind, this is the 2nd time in your career this has happened to you, as well. When you were put in positions that accentuated your skills, you were a highly sought after commodity. When you were relegated to a lesser role, one that didn't suit your skills, many people questioned whether you were worth the investment.

I said it at the time of the deal but I think Hughes is going to help Chicago A LOT. They needed a penetrator and they needed an off-guard with the ability to create his own shot. They have that now.

As for Cleveland, I don't know about this board but elsewhere, at the time of the Hughes signing, many thought it was an ill-fit but if LeBron could improve his ability to play off of the ball it could work. LeBron wasn't able to do that. Superstars and MVP candidates are able to patch holes regardless of who they are playing with. If LeBron is truly as good as everyone says, why not allow some of the playmaking to fall on the shoulders of a slightly less talented playmaker so LeBron could focus on making other players better by remaining a threat without the ball in his hands?

It's because LeBron is ineffective without the ball in his hands. Which is fine but that doesn't make Larry Hughes a bad player because he is ineffective without the ball in his hands, as well. I don't blame either player (I think Mike Brown is a terrible coach but that is for another day and another thread.)

Hughes had a right to be unhappy, imo. He was signed to fill a role that he was never allowed to fill. Would anyone get mad at Ray Allen if he was instructed to stop attempting to be a playmaker, transform his game to purely catch-and-shoot and he ended up feeling unhappy about his role? I mean, Ray Ray is better equipped for that role than Hughes, especially when you consider the players on the roster. Yet Hughes was essentially relegated to that role.

Any player is going to eventually get disillusioned if they play hard on the defensive end, support more talented teammates offensively and don't get rewarded for it. Unless your name is Brian Scalabrine but he is an outlier and not the norm.

I have a few problems with this analogy. First to claim that "who knew" LeBron would be so good at the time Larry signed on is a stretch. LeBron was already the face of the league when Hughes signed.

Secondly Larry was pretty much the second scoring option on the Cavs. Its just the cavs were one of the slower paced teams so Larry didn't got the volume of shots he had on the Wizards, and thats the only team in the league that would let him play like that (the Chicago board is already turning on him b/c he has taken a huge number of shots since being traded).

Third I hate comparing bball to a company. Is there really a real-world analogy to not playing hard defense even though it will help your team win.

Aside from that, your assessment of Hughes is probably one of the biggest barriers I have to embracing the stats movement. My eyes tell me that Hughes kills a team's efficiency but stats reward him for creating shots.

Also how is LeBron supposed to play off the ball without anyone available to get him the ball. That guy certainly wasn't Hughes. In the cavs games since the trade LeBron has been much more effective off the ball.

As for Ray, some of us actually are upset that Ray takes too much responsibity in the offense since his efficiency is only so-so at this point. And if Ray was unhappy about it and felt the need to speak about it I would expect to say it in a way that suggested he would still play his butt off.

[GuyClinch]

Seems like Lebron is doing it all now - I haven't noticed him being more effective off the ball as he always has it.. Besides the Cavs have played a winning team what once since the trade - and lost right?

Pete