JAG, this is where I disagree with you. I don't think Rogers, Maloney, or Hakeem is a saint. They're like the rest of us -- they often shade or stretch the truth (I'm too hurt to play, I'm not getting opportunities, I'm worth $3M a year, I tried to make things work out between me and the team) to get what they want or make themselves look better. After the Stoudamire non-trade, I sure as hell don't think Grunwald is a saint. So when these people complain that Rockets management isn't credible, I infer nothing more than that the posturing goes both ways.
all i know is.............. matt bullard wasn't mad at the rockets organization last summer.. he was calling out hakeem for costing him and others money etc casue he wouldn't make up his mind... he wasn't saying anything about the rockets handling business wrong.... i think that shows some lack of class by knowing you weren't going to sign with the rockets but not coming out and saying it. in stead just costing other players opportunities etc
But you're trying to determine if Rogers was right or wrong, I'm not. I'm just pointing out that he's one of many who have spoken out against the Rockets. He may not have a clue, but he obviously felt like he needed to say something. Him getting beaten out is your opinion. I don't think Rogers thinks at all that he was beaten out -- on the contrary, he thinks he was better than the guys in front of him, and proved it on the court. Again, whether he's right or wrong isn't the point. And Hakeem said many nice things in his Blinebury column as well, but nobody focused on that -- why should we focus on the nice things Rogers may have said here? I understand the viewpoint, and it's just that, your viewpoint. I'm not going to speculate about some fictional secret agreement, I'd rather go by what's on the record in this case. What? I didn't start the thread, JAG did. He was pretty specific on what the thread was supposed to be about. Besides, you're the king of "that's not what this thread is about"....I guess you think that's as annoying as I do. Like I said, people have many positive things to say about the Rockets. You'll get no debate from me on that. People also have many positive things to say about Hakeem too. JAG was trying to examine the track record of people speaking out negatively (RIGHT or WRONG) about each party, to try to see who has more credibility. We could line up all the positive comments about each, and be here for months. I don't think that was the point of the thread. Sorry if you feel "boxed in" by that. Again, you're trying to interpret what the Rockets told Rogers, when that isn't the point. The point is what he thought they meant, or what caused him to speak out, just like in the Hakeem case. Obviously there is a disagreement between a player and management when that player chooses to speak out. Maybe it wasn't management's fault and the player shouldn't have said anything....or maybe it was. We're not trying to determine who's right and who's wrong here. What I've been trying to say is that when a player speaks out against a team, that doesn't automatically make him a jerk or mean he's delusional. It's best to look at the record, like JAG says, to see if a pattern exists.
Well, with all that boxing in that you can only discuss credibility without interpreting the players words...we don't have a thread, except for examining what one side said. That is classic TheFreak deconstructionist tactics. My "viewpoint" is both sides have no public credibility here, nor did they go for it, until Hakeem spoke up to explain his side, while Rudy responded (almost mechanically) and Les took the 5th. My debate point is that we don't have to take a stand with one side's credibility over the other from only public records like Jag wants us to...unless we are playing within Jag's courtroom of forced polarized judgement. So, if Jag wants me to be the juror, I am going to (and certainly can) take into consideration other witness testimony. Don't you see that Jag is playing a lawyer here and making a case by defining the decision making. What you seem to be saying is that the defense lawyer (Jag) gets to make his case, and we must judge strictly off of that. Wrong. I can make my credibility decision by using character witness quotes of Pippen, Shandon, and Bullard, and I can interpret Rogers' as I did. But that is not what my point was. I am not a jury here. Jag wants us to be a jury. He is demanding us to side with Hakeem or Mgmt, when really I want to say they both lied to the public. They both lied; neither has credibility over the truth in this case. That is my only reason for speaking here. And my other reason was (off-topic or not) to tell you that the Rogers quotes carry no weight in this case. I was not making a Right or Wrong case about Rogers; I was saying it is weak character witness testimony for Hakeem's case.
JAG, Pippen's last comments about the Rockets were glowing reports of credibility. You can take Pippen off your list. This is correct. Here is more character witness testimony to toss in. Bullard called out Hakeem. That offsets Rogers. I guess Bullard was toeing the line, though, but wouldn't that be "<b>speculation.</b>" Whatever. Barkley also called out Hakeem. Pippen did, too (before he trashed Barkley), when he said Dream and Barkley don't practice with the team...which to me hurts the free agent's credibility for management wanting to keep them. Right or Wrong about who practiced and whether it was OK'd by mgmt, Pippen was saying that is not how to be a professional...and that is the only comment on record. String that together with Pippen's comments to Rice, and you have a good case that Pippen questioned the players' professional credibility more than mgmt during his tenure here and quotes afterwards. You can argue with this just fine. <b>But I consider the sum of the elusive truths here to completely bodyslam the use of Rogers' quotes.</b> You cannot build Hakeem's case here by using Rogers. Rogers is a very weak litmus test of the Rockets credibility with free agents. besides that, we could say Rudy called out Hakeem's public quote credibility by saying Hakeem was not communicating before he went public with not feeling involved and that's why Hakeem apologized last December. Does Hakeem lose credibility for having to make that apology? I don't see how you can put Hakeem in your list of witnesses without saying Rudy is one for the mgmt side? Isn't the case about Hakeem vs Mgmt. You can't put Hakeem on your list then, JAG. You are left with Thorpe (who was traded aggressively for Drexler), Horry (who was traded aggressively for Barkley) and Scottie Brooks. Matt Maloney was waived and took 4 months to get picked up by another team. That is nothing more than a queston of his credibility as a basketball player. <b>Rockets showed credibility with promised paybacks to Barkley, Mo and Shandon</b> Further, Rockets mgmt held true to their promise to Barkley for taking his $1m contract. They held true to their promise of Maurice for taking his $2m contract. And we can say they held true to Shandon and Fegan by landed him a huge payback for taking his $2m contract. So, I'm back to saying this is a wash. Neither side wins the credibility argument.
Well I didn't understand most of that, so I won't try to argue with you. JAG wants to know who has more credibility, you think neither has it. Okay, that's fair. Your main problem seems to be with Hakeem going public. I will be glad to argue that speaking out via the media is not a big deal somewhere else. I don't know how I'll be able to concentrate on the topic though with all the action happening on the weak side in the Rockets' offense.
C'mon Crispee. Bullard is your definitive answer? Carlos + Maloney = at least one Bullard. And lets not forget Rashard Lewis. And vice versa. Remember the famous Drexler 'One of them has a ring and one doesn't' comment. Also, if Pippen is credible then Barkley is not since it was Barkley who Pip originally called out. Sure he said Hakeem didn't practice hard, but his main beef was Barkley being a big mouth fat ass. Actually if you saw the interview with Pippen when he heard Dream had echo'd some of the criticism of himself (Pippen), Pippen said "Dream said that? Man, well I don't have anything bad to say about Dream." This was in the post-Barkley bust up. So to infer that Pip damages Dream's credibility is a major stretch. Not to mention that Pip got in trouble for going to the media, having the exact credibility gap you put on Hakeem. Maybe Hakeem was toeing the line for the betterment of the team. We can't know for sure. And maybe he was giving Rudy the benefit of the doubt, even though Rudy showed later in the year that he could indeed talk out of both sides of his mouth. Your 'sums' are pretty interesting. Pip + Bull = bad Hakeem credibility. But Thorpe + Horry + Brooks + Rogers + Rashard + Hakeem does not equal anything? Interesting addition and subtraction you got there. Sure, because they can't deny those deals to future free agents. It would be obvious they were lying if they said Mo 'just took less money' cause he likes us, or that Shandon 'just took less' cause he wanted to be a Rocket. They would NEVER EVER be able to get another FA if they did that. Those were forced choices, not examples of the Rockets keeping good faith when they had a choice.
Boy this is biased. I'm saying that IMO neither side wins the credibility argument in Dream's case. That is my vote. OK, can I vote, please. 1. Thorpe was a trade that landed a ring. You can't use that. 2. Horry was a trade that landed Barkley, for good or bad, and I don't see Cassell complaining....did Brown??? So, even if you use Horry, what did Cassell and Chucky Brown say? I'm sure Chucky showed no animosity. here is what Cassell said later: Business is Business. Exactly what Rogers said. No Animosity. Looks like Cassell, Brown and Bryant said fine, and Horry whined to me. 3. Brooks and Rogers, fine. 4. Rashard?? That is a stretch to talk about a draft selection. 5. Hakeem....here I'm saying that you can't use Hakeem's comments when discussing credibility of Hakeem's comments vs Mgmt...sheesh. We are talking about who has more credibility. I'll give it to you if you bring into the evidence the December Apology as admission of guilt for going public without trying to solve things through internal communication...that was the final statement on the December incident. <b>Tally it up, then</b> So, you have players involved in two blockbuster trades (one that brought a ring) and Brooks and Rogers. I have comments by Pippen, Barkley, Cassell and Bullard and mgmt following through with Shandon, Mo and Bullard. Look you cannot take away the later because many here said that we should renounce them all to go for Webber. You can't say that was forced, like we didn't have other choices. I'm just here saying what credibility does either side show via the known facts. It is a wash. <b>TheFreak</b> You're just too busy waving T-Shirts to see the weakside. I'll wave a towell tonight everytime someone moves on the weakside. That should add some excitement.
oK...PHEW! I was off writing an exam today, and then at work, so I just got in and read all this...I hope I can address all the comments, especially those directed at me, but first...Freak, Hayes, just like to thank you for ( accurately) representing what I have been trying to say, not what it has been interpreted as...I appreciate it... Ok, next. With regards to my new career as defense lawyer... I have never asked anyone to conclude anything. What I said was, IN RESPONSE TO THE POLL WHEREIN MOST PEOPLE CONCLUDED THAT HAKEEM WAS DELUSIONAL, what is the basis for this conclusion? It can't be knowledge of the negotiations, we are not privy to that. It can't be differing perspectives because, based on what we KNOW, their statements are diametrically opposed. There is no room for interpretation based on fact. Yes, if you believe that there was some deal where both parties agreed to cover up the fact that Hakeem wasn't injured, etc. then, yes you can probably find some middle ground...however this is based on speculation, which is fine. You are entitled to your opinion. However, were you to CONCLUDE that Hakeem, and Hakeem alone was responsible, to the point where, on a poll with middle ground answers given, you CONCLUDE that Hakeem is delusional, I would question your basis for that beyond blind loyalty...and it was the majority of responses CONCLUDING exactly this which was the (stated) impetus for this thread...Beyond that, I don't believe I ever " demanded" that anyone conclude anything. What I said was, failing information we don't possess, all we can base our conclusions on is objective public statements about honesty ( that IS the issue here, not who's nicer) or supposition. With regards to positive quotes about the Rockets... Of course there are positive quotes about the Rockets. I'm a Rockets fan, are you seriously suggesting that I'd think there are only negative aspects to the organization? What I'm talking about here is very specific...what is the public record of each part with regards to their honesty? That some people respect the Rockets is irrelevent to the discussion. What would be relevent is if there are any public statements out there wherein other parties are questioning Hakeem's HONESTY....not calling him out, or saying he's lazy, or fat, or that he has no rythm...These would be germane if we were discussing an issue about which "side" has more class, work ethic, etc...But the basis for this debate is that there are two parties saying opposite statements, and that accusations of dishonesty have been levelled...Therefore, that is the only quality in question...If you were to ask me if Adolph Hitler was a mass murderer, and I was to respond that he was very kind to animals, I would be making an accurate, positive statement about him, but I wouldn't be on topic...( By the by, I have a habit of making very extreme analogies, so please don't infer that I am comparing the Rockets to Hitler, or whatever...) Also, whether or not every former Rockets player feels that he was treated without honesty is also irrelevent, and would hardly be likely. We're talking about relative terms between two parties, neither need be absolute for there to be an obvious distinction...For example ( warning, extreme analogy coming!) were there to be two workers in a shop while the boss is away, and money were to go missing, and an examination of their records shows that one fellow has been charged with stealing at 4 other jobs while the other fellow never has, the fact that the first fellow has also worked at 7 other jobs where he didn't steal isn't going to make you more likely to conclude that the second fellow's guilty, or that it's a toss up...And I have yet to hear anyone quote someone saying that Hakeem lies. I acknowledged at the beginning of this thread that I have heard him accused of many things, but never that. I have since heard people repeating many of these things, or describing possible scenarios wherein Hakeem would have been lying, but as yet not one person outside Rockets management has, to my knowledge, ever said that about Hakeem...whereas the reverse is clearly not the case. Several people have claimed the Rockets were dishonest...yes, some of those people are jerks...yes, some of those people have obvious reasons to be bitter...yes ( and this one I still don't get ) some of those people were part of trades which helped us ( seriously, what is the relevence of this, please!?!?)...but there is still a record of many people accusing the Rockets of behaving in exactly the way Hakeem has described; dishonestly. Whereas there is no one who has claimed that Hakeem is dishonest, which he would have to be if you conclude he's wrong (or delusional, which I'll admit I really hadn't taken seriously). Again, my problem ISN'T with people saying " I don't know enough to conclude anything..." I happen to partly agree with you...My problem is with the majority CONCLUDING that ( surprise!) the Rockets are in the right, and Hakeem is the one lying or hallucinating...Other than biased loyalty, what FACTUAL basis is there to state that, in a question of honesty, the Rockets are clearly to be believed over Hakeem? IF you are to use what we KNOW, not suppose or infer ( which is the logical basis for conclusion ) to arrive at a conclusion, please show me how the majority arrived at the conclusion it did...or is it possible, just possible, that these conclusions were knee jerk ones based on loyalty and supposition to arrive at a pre-ordained pro-Rockets decision...
I ( surprise again!) disagree...I see no correlation between shooting your mouth off and being dishonest...In fact, I have often heard the reverse correlation...How often do you hear, of someone who's constantly getting in trouble for saying innapropriate things, " Well, at least what you see is what you get...."or,"he may be a loudmouth, but at least with ------ you know where you stand", or such like. I an NOT saying shooting your adds to your credibility, but I don't see how it lessens it either, when it comes to dishonesty...There are many negative things a person can be without any correlation to his honesty being made...violent, pig headed, lazy, loud mouthed, cheap, a bad dresser, a poor judge of character, etc...and I don't see how this one is relevent either.
1) Man, I miss my old name... 2) Hayes, we have apparently agreed before. 3) I think that this was a great thread to re-read, even if i did notice the odd typo I'd made... 4) The weirdest part is reading stuff you can't remember writing, as though it were someone else's words..Not that I now disagree, just seems surreal...
