# Hughes myths and realities



## gswslashLHfan

I'm a gsw fan and also a Larry Hughes fans. Heres my opinion on the situation.

Myth #1- Larry Hughes lost the starting pg position. Many people have posted this and its untrue. Flat out the warriors are the poorest run team in the league. Larry Hughes put up better stats with a much better winning percentage and much better defense,playmaking and many others than Gilbert Arenas. He was fazed out because he made it known that he wanted big cash and with the drafting of Richardson and the need to tank for Jason Williams it made sense in there eyes not to play him.
Myth#2-The wizards made a mistake by signing Larry right away rather than waiting. Larry would be gone to minnesota or miami or many others if you did that. And after watching him for the last 2-3 years he can easily be the best FA of this class including those resigned by there own teams. His upside is unlimited and if Jordan can ride him and the team is willing to let him grow he can easily be a top 5 pg in the league.
Realities- Larry is a very flawed player who has underdeveloped basic basketball skills but can dominate even at this stage based purely on athleticism,agility and pure feel for the game. Like I said before if given the opportunity and the proper tutelage he will not only be a good deal at 4.5 but also at the max as your best player.


----------



## Machinehead

:laugh:


----------



## gswslashLHfan

You want to respond to my post?? I'm willing to defend my post and if you're unwilling to be a man and make an argument than I pity you.


----------



## Machinehead

I've wasted too much time debating Larry Hughes lately with those sippin the Larry kool aid brew

If you want , you can go have a look at my position and others (in the context of how MJ is doing as a GM ) on a thread on the Bulls board called 

Sam Smith "Where are MJ's fre agents"

Enjoy


----------



## gswslashLHfan

I read the thread on this board with a similar title and nobody there had any kind of insight on Larry Hughes' play.


----------



## Machinehead

Of course not , Homers are not going to diss their GM on his "full boat" free agency signing of the summer


----------



## gswslashLHfan

I just read the bulls version- 70 something posts. It was ugly with only a few posters who had any common sense. You spent the entire time taking a few stats and defining a player by them then you come up with your own ranking system that uses those stats as proof. You haven't seen him play, so how dare you give sh1t to people who have and understand what actually happened. Can you account for the 20 games at the end of the year where Hughes was given 5 to 10 minutes game (which destroyed his stats which were 15,5,4 43%) and then benched or given a DNP the next game. And in more than a few of those games he outperfmed every player on the team often putting up 15 pts and lockdown defense in a quarter. He got screwed by our moron management the fact that you haven't lived in the bay area and watched Hughes play shows your stupidity on the situation. No teams wanted to sign him and the teams that did have stupid gms?? And the warriors are smart for not giving him 3.2?? Ever heard of St.Jean (worst gm of the worst team)??


----------



## Machinehead

Temper. Temper

BCH - you are moderator of this board - I suggest you PM our testy young friend and familarise him with some of the rules of this website

You may specifically wish to point out the denigrating language that is personally insulting with stupidity being levied and the general aggressive , threatening and not so nice tone of his ill conceived reply

Thanks much


----------



## gswslashLHfan

If you can't take the heat then don't cry to mama-just leave the kitchen.


----------



## Machinehead

Boy

Your replies are not adding value to any basketball discussion .

Try to seperate emotion from the points you wish to make otherwise you use threatening and abusive tones that get personal 

I don't mind myself - someone with your seeming grasp of matters and issues does not really bother me 

Its just that there are rules and standards in place on this board and if you wish to behave like a lout may I direct you to www.espn.com

Good lad.


----------



## gswslashLHfan

You can skip out on defending yourself but I've wrote a hell of alot about basketball in this post and if you're unwilling to back it up and just b1tch and moan then go ahead


----------



## local_sportsfan

Please F Jerzy...you have offered no kind of insight in the argument, and as a warrior fan I'll take his opinion over your silly flawed statistical model. I know as a Bulls fan you are bitter as hell the Bulls suck and will continue to suck, but at least try and make a point in your posts. :laugh:


----------



## gswslashLHfan

Thankyou, I'm not trying to corrupt the board but just give insight from a warriors fan. If you disagree then debate the issues not rely on koolaid and begging the moderator for help


----------



## Machinehead

Ummm I did debate the issues - on anotehr board which I directed you to 

You chose to disagree with that .

No problem

But there are rules on this site as to one expresses one self and it was you who enagaged in abusive tone and language

Try to familarise yourself with what is aceptable those if a moderator has not already spoken to you about acceptable discourse

No hard feelings - I just put it down to you being unaware


----------



## jazzy1

FJerzey stop posturing and offer some insight or skip to the bulls forum, he made some good points seeming as he actually was man enough to admit that he was a Warriors fan, that was good insight that seemed pretty reasonable to me JerZey if you have something to the contrary bring it could be really interesting ,Hughes is so awfull that at least 4 teams were seriously interested, thats alot of interest for a useless player.


----------



## Machinehead

> Originally posted by <b>jazzy1</b>!
> FJerzey stop posturing and offer some insight or skip to the bulls forum, he made some good points seeming as he actually was man enough to admit that he was a Warriors fan, that was good insight that seemed pretty reasonable to me JerZey if you have something to the contrary bring it could be really interesting ,Hughes is so awfull that at least 4 teams were seriously interested, thats alot of interest for a useless player.


Sure they were - just not at the price MJ paid which is why he is a Wizard

Good luck to him though


----------



## BCH

Ok. This thread is in danger of being locked. 

gswslashLHfan: Please try and exhibit a modicum of self control when replying to another poster. Vulgarity and personal attacks are not tolerated and they are inexcusable. You made good points, stick to them rather than the choice words of obscentity.

F.Jerzy: You are not the innocent bystander you want to make yourself out to be. You are specifically attmepting to bait me, but secondarily you are trying to get the goat of gswslashLHfan. Either respond with something more than a , a blatant rip at calling people a "homer", and deragatory terms such as "boy" or PM a moderator to take care of it. Your participation is as an instigator as well as a contributer to the problem. 

If either of you wish to discuss this issue further, PM me and we can discuss it. If not get back to discussing the points.


----------



## johnston797

> Originally posted by <b>gswslashLHfan</b>!
> I'm a gsw fan and also a Larry Hughes fans. Heres my opinion on the situation.
> 
> Myth #1- Larry Hughes lost the starting pg position. Many people have posted this and its untrue. Flat out the warriors are the poorest run team in the league. Larry Hughes put up better stats with a much better winning percentage and much better defense,playmaking and many others than Gilbert Arenas. He was fazed out because he made it known that he wanted big cash and with the drafting of Richardson and the need to tank for Jason Williams it made sense in there eyes not to play him.


I live in Oakland. I do think that it's fair to say that Hughes lost the PG position and that Arenas outplayed him. However, IMHO, GSW really screwed Hughes and themselves in the process. 

Hughes is not a natural PG. Cowens wanted him to play PG to get all of their best players on the court. This worked great for the first 10 games of the year and Hughes played very, very well. The wheels started coming off for lots of different reason, the main reason was that Cowens lost the team probably b/c he was not backed by management and subsequently fired. 

Winters, the interium coach, was going down in flames and decided to make some big changes. Why not, right? Arenas in at PG, Jamerson played more 4, Fortson played less and Hughes benched. This was probably the best short term decision - play the PG that gave them the best chance to win - Arenas. (BTW, Arenas is very good - there were some great guards late in the 1st round and early in the 2nd last year.) Needless to say, Hughes who sacrifriced for the team by moving to a new position to accomidate JRich during a contract year was less than thrilled about this change of events and I'm sure told GSW that he was out no matter what.

IMHO, Arenas, JRich and Hughes could have been a pretty potent 3 guard rotation but due to short term thinking, they just blew Hughes up rather than continue to invest in him. I think Hughes would have been greatly helped by having another good ballhandler like Dunleavy in the lineup. Oh well. Could be the Wiz's good fortune.



> Originally posted by <b>gswslashLHfan</b>!
> Myth#2-The wizards made a mistake by signing Larry right away rather than waiting. Larry would be gone to minnesota or miami or many others if you did that. And after watching him for the last 2-3 years he can easily be the best FA of this class including those resigned by there own teams. His upside is unlimited and if Jordan can ride him and the team is willing to let him grow he can easily be a top 5 pg in the league.


Yes and no. He could turn out to be the best of the FAs but will never be a natural PG. He could be a very good Ron Harper type point with better scoring ability than Harper had left during the 2nd Bulls 3peat. Or a Jalen Rose type swing player. These 2 player types are actually pretty similar IMHO.



> Originally posted by <b>gswslashLHfan</b>!
> Realities- Larry is a very flawed player who has underdeveloped basic basketball skills but can dominate even at this stage based purely on athleticism,agility and pure feel for the game. Like I said before if given the opportunity and the proper tutelage he will not only be a good deal at 4.5 but also at the max as your best player.


You might be right. As a GSW fan, I loved the talent, but he never seemed to put in as much work as I would have liked in the weight room, improving his outside shot, practicing better shot selection, commiting to D, etc. But, maybe getting dumped by GSW and moving to the Wiz will be just the kick in the pants that the kid needs.


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> Ok. This thread is in danger of being locked.
> 
> gswslashLHfan: Please try and exhibit a modicum of self control when replying to another poster. Vulgarity and personal attacks are not tolerated and they are inexcusable. You made good points, stick to them rather than the choice words of obscentity.
> 
> F.Jerzy: You are not the innocent bystander you want to make yourself out to be. You are specifically attmepting to bait me, but secondarily you are trying to get the goat of gswslashLHfan. Either respond with something more than a , a blatant rip at calling people a "homer", and deragatory terms such as "boy" or PM a moderator to take care of it. Your participation is as an instigator as well as a contributer to the problem.
> 
> If either of you wish to discuss this issue further, PM me and we can discuss it. If not get back to discussing the points.


Thank you BCH 

That's what I was asking for too 

Good moderating ensures a board stays in good shape - you seem to understand this.

Props to you


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway

*Re: Re: Hughes myths and realities*



> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> IMHO, Arenas, JRich and Hughes could have been a pretty potent 3 guard rotation but due to short term thinking, they just blew Hughes up rather than continue to invest in him. I think Hughes would have been greatly helped by having another good ballhandler like Dunleavy in the lineup.


I think you have hit the nail on the head, Johnny 

When the lottery balls fell it seemed more than likely that Dunleavy was Golden State's

I thought this was a natural solution to the Larry Hughes point guard experiment and a big guard back court of Hughes and JRich was enticing 

It appears as though GSW are committing a lot of their offense through Mike Dunleavy and this draft opportunity may have sealed Larry's fate more than anything else

Larry seems to need the ball in his hands and be controlling the offense - this seemed to be a problem with him in Philly and why Larry Brown tired of him and his whining for more minutes and more offense direction duties . He ( like Stack ) was never going to mesh with Allen Iverson - and this is an interesting analogy to me as I see Larry with a better chance of becoming a Stack like player than Ron Harper 

Ron Harper before his knee injuries was probably in the top 5 2 guards in the league - in his first few years in Cleveland and LA - and to my mind at a comparative age and stage of their development - Harper was streets ahead . Harper had to remodel his game as he slowed due to injury and the re emergence of MJ - he played within his limitations as a vet , focused on being a very good defensive guard and was a productive member of not only the 2nd 3 peat but the Lakers 2000/2001 season.

Just because someone is " a big guard" and not a true point but playing there anyway does not automatically make them "Ron Harper' -maybe it only works that way in the processing of our own value proposition that we want to apportion to each player

If you went to Larry now and said "Laz, we are going to make you a 4th option and we are going to need you to chase and body up the perimeter guys on D and play the passing lanes" do you honestly think Laz would buckle down ?

I say no 

He is young and in his mind ( and his agents mind ) this would be a denial of natural ability in how he thinks he can play the game 

Remember Stack's value/pereption was in the toilet for the first few years and it was not until he got to pair with Grant Hill that people started appreciating Stack more and made people start changing their view on him . He was a poor shooter and a slasher too that demanded an inordinate amount of the ball 

The season before last - people said the Pistons are crap and will go nowhere because Stack has crap to play with - and this was a defense on Stack not playing better team ball . Well they only really got Cliffy , Jon and Zej - hardly an addition that makes you an EC contender - but hey they turned it around because Stack matured and maybe became a better teammate .

Maybe Larry follows Stack's path more so than Harp's. Maybe he does'nt. Who knows.

Anyway back to Dunleavy - if the offense was going to flow through him and you had your finisher/slasher in JRich - you really needed a perimeter shooter at the other guard - which Laz isnt .

That's why they acquired Jiri Welsch - who I admit I have not seen but apparently can shoot the lights out 

Dunleavy and Welsch changed the whole complexion of GSW's offense in how they want to play . It had nothing to do with dissin Larry at all IMO - they just wanted to go in a different offensive direction and they were getting better productivity out of Arenas to boot at one seventh of the cost they would have had to pay someone that was made redundant with a different offensive direction that they seemingly want to go in


----------



## johnston797

*Re: Re: Re: Hughes myths and realities*



> Originally posted by <b>FJ_of _Rockaway</b>!
> Dunleavy and Welsch changed the whole complexion of GSW's offense in how they want to play.


For the most part, I don't disagree with your post. 

I will say that Hughes was through as a Warrier before the ping pong balls bounced. The bridge had already been burned.


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Hughes myths and realities*



> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> For the most part, I don't disagree with your post.
> 
> I will say that Hughes was through as a Warrier before the ping pong balls bounced. The bridge had already been burned.


This maybe so - you would know better than I being in Oakland and all

But there were reasons for this - as there were in Philly -as there were in Chi when we passed him over ( and Jerzy loves big guards )

Have the Sixers, Bulls, and Warriors all got it wrong about Larry

Yeah Yeah I know - the Sixers supposedly wanted him back - but it was likely only for Greg Buckner money due to L Tax (see thread we have been conversing on in Bulls forum for this rationale )


----------



## johnston797

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hughes myths and realities*



> Originally posted by <b>FJ_of _Rockaway</b>!
> Have the Sixers, Bulls, and Warriors all got it wrong about Larry


Well, as you said, the Sixers did want him back.

The bulls could have had LH and took GSW's pick instead which was either the Mihm\Craw pick or the Fizer pick. I would not count this against LH much b/c this was the year that Krause was trying to sign 2 FA Full Boats and most of the FAs that Krause was interested in were swing players - Hill, TMAC, etc. And Krause would have had to taken Billy Owens to get LH. Owen had another year on his deal rather than Starks and this would have cut into his precious cap space.

As for GSW, the last player this talented that GSW let go was Marshall. Worked pretty well for the Jazz for the last 2 years.


----------



## gswslashLHfan

To the guy from Oakland who responded about Arenas outplaying Hughes. If you want to talk about game 50-80 I can't disagree with that. Hughes lost all interest due to being screwed in a contract year and not traded and being given 5-10 minutes at most and no matter how he played his minutes were unaffected. I'm talking about games 1-50 in which Hughes averages were better than Arenas rookie of the month numbers. Arenas had played sparingly and all of a sudden he is the starting pg and Hughes' pt goes down to nothing regardless of play. As for best chances of winning in Arenas' favor, I disagree based on win/loss record. Hughes 16-35,Arenas 5-26 and IMO the last 31 games were an easier stretch in the schedule. Also let me add that if the warriors run the offense through Dunleavey they are doomed to failure. IMO Anthony Mason is more prepared to run a team. But I do agree for the worst shooting team in the league it makes sense to add shooting to the entire team front to back but it still lacks any kind of defense,coaching,experience or a consistent go to player who can get to the hole and create.


----------



## Machinehead

Well maybe they think JRich is that guy from the back and Antawn is that guy from the front 

With JRich and Tawn as the principal scoring options , Dunleavy as the creator and shooter 1 to Welsh's shooter 2 - and with Damp and Adonal providing defense at the back , I think the GSW are structurally in the best shape they have been for a long long time 

If you could move Fortson for a JYD type ( which would be tax advantageous to the Raps ) and allow another lottery pick to spice the mix ( as well as having patience in time for development ) I think GSW could have a very exciting future .

I guess they just saw something in Larry that did not figure in their plans and the opportunity to acquire Mike Jr and Jiri sealed it


----------



## Da Grinch

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Hughes myths and realities*



> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> For the most part, I don't disagree with your post.
> 
> I will say that Hughes was through as a Warrier before the ping pong balls bounced. The bridge had already been burned.


definitely although i kind of do blame g.s for burning it i actually thought he would fit in there better than anywhere else with their selection of Mike jr.(a ball handling 3) who could have shared the point duties with hughes and arenas and posibly welsh 

with the types of players they have a motion offense where a lot of players have the opportunity to make plays seems ideal 

but oh well i guess he'll have help runing the point from rip who can handle the ball and eventually Jeffries


----------



## gswslashLHfan

Jamison is not much more than a garbageman like scorer, he cannot create his own offense unless everybody else on the floor sets him up. He is a poor passer and not a go to player. Richardson may get there but he has shown the inability to consistently get to the basket and is not a good passer as well. If one player had to be defined as a go to player from last years team it would be Hughes when he was given the opportunity to play.


----------



## johnston797

*GSW Lux Tax Concerns*

From http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2002/09/06/SP231440.DTL

"the luxury-tax- conscious Warriors are reluctant to add more than $500,000 to their near-$47.5 million payroll"

a few comments about this.

1. GSW seem to be concerned that the lux tax could kick in lower than $50.

2. The SF Chronicle has stated a few times that the GSW payroll is a few $100k higher than http://www.hoopshype.com/salaries/golden_state.htm even after adding a minimum contract in for Rafer Alston.

3. Either way, to keep their ability to match offers to LH as a restricted free agent, GSW would have had to extend an offer that if accepted would have led to a $49-50M on their payroll.

4. As it turned out, GSW would have been at $51-52M had they kept the right to match and matched the Wiz offer.

Given all of the above, it's certainly fair to say that the lux tax was a consideration for GSW reqarding Hughes.


----------



## NISMO

*Your are really a LH fan because you only seem to see the good.. not the bad..*

1)He tends to make a lot of bad decisions.
2)He was like 20% or less in 3pt% percentage and was still jacking up 3's like there was no tommorrow.
3)Always jumps up in the air and while not knowing wether he is going to shoot or pass with no one in his vesinaty and ends up turning the ball over.
4)Bad shooting percentage for someone who slashes a lot and gets close to the rim.
5) (A) POOR WORK ETHIC, ex. ( chris mullin, one of the greatest warriors and better shooters offered to help him with his shooting mechanics, declined to be helped.
(B) I sicerely doubt he worked on his game during the summer, can be judged by his game the next summer. That is why he lost his starting job to a rookie and was benched a couple of games.
6) Bad Shooting mechanics- shoots when he is already coming down from his jump. instead of shooting while he was at the apex of his jump. 

I am not trying to attach you HUGHESFAN, I was a fan of his to.. till I really took a look at his overall game, and finally realized that hype that was given to him was not lived up to and probly will not be acheived untill he works on those aspects of his definiencies. I have watch almost every warrior game. I know what I am saying.. He does some good things as well but is far overshadowed buy the negatives. IMO.


----------



## BCH

Just wanted to make a quick point. Hughes hardly jacks up three point attempts. He had 93 attempts last season, while Chris Whiney on the Wizards had 323.

Not accepting help from Chris Mullin is not indicative of a bad work ethic. It just means he didn't want Mullin's help.

His A/TO ratio was > 1 so, while he may be guilty of making bad decisions, he apparently is making some pretty good ones as well.

There is plenty to criticize but I felt these needed to be addressed.


----------



## higginj44

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> *Not accepting help from Chris Mullin is not indicative of a bad work ethic. It just means he didn't want Mullin's help*.


Quick question - Did you mean to say that not accepting help from Chris Mullin is not *necessarily* indicative of a bad work ethic? Or are you familiar enough with this particular accusation to state as a fact that he didn't accept help from Chris Mullins simply because he didn't want his help?


----------



## WizardsKev

I agree with BCH that declining help from Mullin may not necessarily reflect a poor work ethic. When a player is struggling with a particular aspect of his game, he usually gets advice from everyone he talks to. Perhaps Hughes felt he didn't need another voice in his head.

I do think that his decision to decline Mullin's offer is evidence of poor judgement. I don't care I'm making 50% of my shots. Mullin was one of the best shooters I've ever seen, and if he wants to work on my shot with me, I'm making time.


----------



## BCH

> Originally posted by <b>higginj44</b>!
> 
> Quick question - Did you mean to say that not accepting help from Chris Mullin is not *necessarily* indicative of a bad work ethic? Or are you familiar enough with this particular accusation to state as a fact that he didn't accept help from Chris Mullins simply because he didn't want his help?


No. I meant what I said. Choosing to accept someone's help or not has no reflection on Hughes' work ethic. As WizardsKev said, it might be poor judgement, but what does it seriously have to do with his work ethic?


----------



## higginj44

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> 
> 
> No. I meant what I said. Choosing to accept someone's help or not has no reflection on Hughes' work ethic. As WizardsKev said, it might be poor judgement, but what does it seriously have to do with his work ethic?


Well, if his "_poor judgement_", or decison to pass up on this opportunity was based upon a lack of desire to seriously work on improving his game, IMO, it could have everything to do with work ethic issues. I am not stating that there is necessarily a connection, but I don't see how you can state that there isn't.

That is why I asked whether or not you know specifics.


----------



## BCH

> Originally posted by <b>higginj44</b>!
> 
> 
> Well, if his "_poor judgement_", or decison to pass up on this opportunity was based upon a lack of desire to seriously work on improving his game, IMO, it could have everything to do with work ethic issues. I am not stating that there is necessarily a connection, but I don't see how you can state that there isn't.
> 
> That is why I asked whether or not you know specifics.


If that was the case then it would be his lack of desire that was indicative of his poor work ethic. You can not make a conclusion about anything based on his refusal to work with Mullin.

Not accepting help, does not indicate that Hughes' has a poor work ethic.

Lacking desire to work on your game indicates a poor work ethic.

Not accepting help from Chris Mullin does not indicate a lack of desire to work on his game, it indicates he did not want to work with Chris Mullin.


----------



## higginj44

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> 
> 
> If that was the case then it would be his lack of desire that was indicative of his poor work ethic. You can not make a conclusion about anything based on his refusal to work with Mullin.
> 
> Not accepting help, does not indicate that Hughes' has a poor work ethic.
> 
> Lacking desire to work on your game indicates a poor work ethic.
> 
> Not accepting help from Chris Mullin does not indicate a lack of desire to work on his game, it indicates he did not want to work with Chris Mullin.


Good logic BCH,

But, I am still wondering whether or not you are familiar with the details behind Hughes' decision to pass up on this opportunity? I am not trying to argue that Hughes has a poor work ethic. However, if you do not know the specifics behind this situation, then while this statement 

_Hughes didn't want help from Mullins because he has a poor work ethic_

may not work, this one

_Hughes didn't want help from Mullins because he didn't want to improve his game, which indicates that he has a poor work ethic_

could possibly be completely true.

For the Wizards sake, hopefully WizardsKev's scenario is closer to what really happened.


----------



## BCH

To be honest, the only mention I have ever heard he refused Mullin's help was from Warrior fans on a message board. I also heard from them that he proclaimed he is not the type of guy to take 500 jumpshots a day during the offseason. 

I haven't researched it at all so I am unable to verify the veracity of these statements.

If it is established he has a poor work ethic, I have no problems stating that his refusal to work with Mullin is a part of it. I just don't know what happened at all. I wish I did to be honest.

I like the thought of Hughes, but I am willing to wait until he plays to pass judgement.


----------



## jazzy1

Paul Pierce refused to work out with Jordan to improve his game does that make his work ethic lacking No, before you say it Pierce is way better than Hughes but that doesn't indicate work ethic, if you want to say Hughes doesn't work hard just say it it's okay but unless you have solid knowledge of what his workouts entail how can you be sure he doesn't work hard, other situations sometimes come into play why a player doesn't reach his full potential in a certain place, Ben Wallace was here for a while he wasn't the wallace we know now maybe the organization was a mess at the time we didn't allow him to fully develope, lets see Hughes has played with Iverson, and with a terrible GSW franchise maybe this is the right situation for him finallly.


----------



## higginj44

> Originally posted by <b>jazzy1</b>!
> Paul Pierce refused to work out with Jordan to improve his game does that make his work ethic lacking No, before you say it Pierce is way better than Hughes but that doesn't indicate work ethic, *if you want to say Hughes doesn't work hard just say it it's okay but unless you have solid knowledge of what his workouts entail how can you be sure he doesn't work hard*, other situations sometimes come into play why a player doesn't reach his full potential in a certain place, Ben Wallace was here for a while he wasn't the wallace we know now maybe the organization was a mess at the time we didn't allow him to fully develope, lets see Hughes has played with Iverson, and with a terrible GSW franchise maybe this is the right situation for him finallly.


Well, despite the "_logic_" exercise that we went through, I am fairly comfortable that we have established that while no one here knows for sure whether or not Larry Hughes has a poor work ethic, it is possible. It is just as possible that he does not, but I do not have some "hidden" desire to say that he does.


----------



## gswslashLHfan

Nismo, Hughes has a poor work ethic, has very poor fundamentals and does make a lot of bad decisions. I'm not going to defend that but I am going to say that performance wise he was far better than Arenas and that he was screwed in a contract year. He has incredible untapped upside and right now thats really the only the thing that can be said. He's not an allstar,or a top starter, and he has a long long way to go. Having to play for 5 different coaches with different agendas and different idea of what he should do on the court can stunt a players growth and hopefully washington will be willing to wait through the growing pains while giving him a defined role and keeping him there. There are signs of promise: Hughes has hired a shooting coach and a nutritionist,gone to a place where he wants to play and wants him there versus gs who killed any chance of succeeding in that uniform. My hope is that Jordan will take him under his wing and demand improvement.Hughes needs tough love and getting screwed in a contract year isn't it. Also let me add that the doubt of working on his game should be alleviated when you look at his shooting stats after game 30. 46%fg and 33% 3pt percentage and for jacking up threes like another poster mentioned 93 is about 1 a game. Did the improvement stay, no, but ankle injuries and the before mentioned screwing don't help you maintain confidence


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway

Why and how was he screwed exactly ?

The inference is that he was _ screwed _ in a _contract year_

Me no understandy 

I mean if they were consciously trying to tank his value because they wanted to retain him and didnt want to be competing with higher offers - this does not add up seeing as though they discarded him - and as some allege that decision was made a long time ago 

OK .... if that was the case - why not a trade in February ? Perhaps no one really wanted him to trade for him and those with mild interest may have preferred to see how things pan out over the summer with draft and FA. Additionally , maybe there was nothing comiing back of any interest to Golden State who may have been prepared back them to lose him for nothing if they had already made the determination at that time that they didnt want him.

Could it be the GSW wanted to go in a different direction as they exercised their prerogative that their future did not include Hughes? That they wanted to see what they had in Arenas that would determine draft strategy ? 

As it turns out the GSW were pleasantly surprised when Arenas outperformed Hughes - and please no mumbo jumbo about their W/L records as starters like such stats are entirely attributable to Hughes or Arenas and take no account of other rotational /injury issues that they might have been faced with at any given point in time.

Fact is - and based on their individual production , Arenas outplayed Hughes - which made the GSW final decision to let him go a lot easier .

So again .. how exactly was Larry _ screwed _ with in a _ contract year _ ??

Does a ball club subrogate team based decisions for the greater good based around an individual who just may happen to be ina contract year ?

Do they drop everything in their forward planning just to accommodate Larry ?

No . Of couse not .

It was regrettable individual circumstances for Larry I'm sure .. but It's a business and the GSW/ NBA does not revolve around Larry's universe which will always make him suspectible to supposedly getting "_ screwed _ in some fan's minds


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway

*Re: GSW Lux Tax Concerns*



> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> From http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2002/09/06/SP231440.DTL
> 
> "the luxury-tax- conscious Warriors are reluctant to add more than $500,000 to their near-$47.5 million payroll"
> 
> a few comments about this.
> 
> 1. GSW seem to be concerned that the lux tax could kick in lower than $50.
> 
> 2. The SF Chronicle has stated a few times that the GSW payroll is a few $100k higher than http://www.hoopshype.com/salaries/golden_state.htm even after adding a minimum contract in for Rafer Alston.
> 
> 3. Either way, to keep their ability to match offers to LH as a restricted free agent, GSW would have had to extend an offer that if accepted would have led to a $49-50M on their payroll.
> 
> 4. As it turned out, GSW would have been at $51-52M had they kept the right to match and matched the Wiz offer.
> 
> Given all of the above, it's certainly fair to say that the lux tax was a consideration for GSW reqarding Hughes.


I also think it was fair to say it was a consideration in not extending him a qualifying offer - but not for the reasons that you put forward 

Nearly every report surrounding the L Tax has it between $50M (low) and $53M ( high ) 

Whilst it may be plausibe the GSW want to leave themselves a 4% margin for error off the lower estimate - I personally doubt it

You think if it was a rook like JRIch that they had to make the qualifying offer to they would have balked at having a $49.5M payroll. 

It could be that they were playing it safe and Larry was not sufficiently sexy enough for them to be bothered. That is - they didnt want him 

I personally think the real motivation was to set themselves up for trade capacity with cap room - I mean if they are working to a max payroll of $50M - they have set themselves up to potentially take back up to $7.15M in salary for players that are not wanted ( for whatever reasons - but presumably for the luxury tax - elsewhere ) 

How this works is as follows :

1. They have expiring contract Chris Mills that they could send to a team that was around $1.5M over the mooted limits that was looking to shed around $7.2M 

2. The $1.2M salary differential between Mills and acquired player(s) is effectively a large part of the $2.5M that they preserve in not resigning Larry.

So my points are :

1. They had already made a decision to go in a different direction ( and Larry was not part of this future ) before the BRI levels were known which determined the mooted limits at the lower and higher end of the estimates

2. Their strategy in moving forward and not committing to Larry were enhanced with the salary structure and the soon to be very valuable expiring contract players like Chris Mills that served as "cleansers" 

3. Saving that extra $2.5M positions themselves to be a player ( albeit a limit one ) as a facilitator come the trade deadline whereby thet get a decent role player or two and draft picks for facilitating a "cleanser" service

So , I agree L Tax was _ perhaps _ a consideration .. but where they could get positive benefit from it not necessarily being concerned with getting compromised by it


----------



## gswslashLHfan

uh no, fj, better stats, better win/loss percentage and injuries were at least the same. They asked too much for him during the deadline and add that to the fact that they had luxury tax concerns it made it hard for the worst gm in the league to make a deal. You say mumbo-jumbo and I show cold hard facts now please try again. You tell me how a player who has scant minutes for most of the season is handed a starting position and by some people's estimates the best player on the team for the first 2 months of the season is given scant minutes after the trading deadline. Read between the lines and don't rely on mumbo jumbo. They tanked for Jason Williams and failed to trade him at the deadline because they asked for too much. The only names coming up around in conjunction with Larry was a trade for the glove. Like I said try again.


----------



## gswslashLHfan

also let me add that Larry Hughes has made it pretty much known that he would want big money during the offseason. Sure if they wanted him back they could just match any incoming offers but after what happened with Marc Jackson its not much of an option. Hughes may be a victim of circumstance but the team set him up for failure by drafting a sg forcing him to a new position and having him alongside the worst shooting,passing, ballhandling team in the league. Nobody on that team could get to the hole,shoot,move without the ball. They were the anti euro team and Larry Hughes as a first time pg was certainly not put into a position to succeed. Any thoughts of Larry Hughes not ever being a pg is BS since Jason Kidd couldn't make that lineup work.


----------



## johnston797

> Originally posted by <b>FJ_of _Rockaway</b>!
> Fact is - and based on their individual production , Arenas outplayed Hughes


Clearly, given the thread on the Bulls board, you can only comprehend individual statistics.



> Originally posted by <b>FJ_of _Rockaway</b>!
> So again .. how exactly was Larry _ screwed _ with in a _ contract year _ ??


Given the above, I don't think that you would understand.


----------



## gswslashLHfan

Individual production?? He doesn't base his findings on them as they clearly show Hughes was better as starting pg. So he bases them on opinion and mumbo-jumbo


----------



## johnston797

*Re: Re: GSW Lux Tax Concerns*



> Originally posted by <b>FJ_of _Rockaway</b>!
> I personally think the real motivation was to set themselves up for trade capacity with cap room


In your last post about lux tax issues, it's very difficult to decipher your various points.  For example in the quote above, are you stating the GSW could be concerned about only being a hair below the lux tax line so that they could take additional salary back in trades this year?


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Clearly, given the thread on the Bulls board, you can only comprehend individual statistics.
> 
> 
> 
> Given the above, I don't think that you would understand.


What's with the "tude , dude ?

No need to get personal and surly because someone has an alternate opinion than yours which is at the vwey least equally as plausible

If you have an opinion on how you think he was screwed I would like to hear it 

Also , I saw maybe 3 or 4 GSW games when Arenas came in last season and he really energised the team and got his props from GSW fans and non GSW fans alike - so I don't know how you can't acknowledge that he didnt perform when he came in . The statistics merely show this. I don'y know why you seem to feel so threatened by this in the line of the argument and have to take it downtown with your back handed quips that is not conjucive to a mature discussion taking place

We cool ? 

Also 797, with regard to the Magic /Denver example your brought up - I think there will be a lot of wacky trades like that coming up that seem bizzare on the surface but wil have greater financial imperatives in play then what we would otherwise nominally assess the merits of on the surface

GSW/LHfan - I am trying to have a balanced discussion with all participants on this thread - your last post is personally based .

Try harder and argue your case about basketball - preferably with facts to back up your opinion. Thanks


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway

*Re: Re: Re: GSW Lux Tax Concerns*



> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> In your last post about lux tax issues, it's very difficult to decipher your various points.  For example in the quote above, are you stating the GSW could be concerned about only being a hair below the lux tax line so that they could take additional salary back in trades this year?


No not concerened.

You thought they were concerened and had purposefully built a further margin for error

My interpretation was that it was by purposeful design to set themselves up to take back additional salary in the room they created under the luxury tax by not offering Larry his qualifyiing offer.

I thought that was pretty clear and basic. Sorry if it was not comprehended as such - I will try and make it easier next time


----------



## johnston797

> Originally posted by <b>FJ_of _Rockaway</b>!
> If you have an opinion on how you think he was screwed I would like to hear it


If you are really interested, look at my earlier post on this thread about the dynamics in GSW and also look up Hughes stats for the first 2 full months of last season on ESPN.


----------



## gswslashLHfan

You've seen 3 or 4 games with Arenas. Whoopdidee. I saw most of last season and Arenas is a solid player just not in Hughes' league. As for making it personal, I just made a reference to your mumbojumbo while 90% of the rest of my posts are facts you can't debate or at least haven't tried


----------



## johnston797

*Re: Re: Re: Re: GSW Lux Tax Concerns*



> Originally posted by <b>FJ_of _Rockaway</b>!
> You thought they were concerened and had purposefully built a further margin for error


It ain't me, bro. The $48M figure came from the Chron beat writer. It's just the lastest example of something that has been written locally for some time.


----------



## johnston797

*Re: Re: Re: Re: GSW Lux Tax Concerns*



> Originally posted by <b>FJ_of _Rockaway</b>!
> I thought that was pretty clear and basic. Sorry if it was not comprehended as such - I will try and make it easier next time


Sounds great. 

Personally, I have learned over time that pretty verse or flowerly prose is great for poetry, but does not seem to work as well in discussing business issues such as statistical algorithms and lux tax issues.


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Clearly, given the thread on the Bulls board, you can only comprehend individual statistics.


THis is grossly unfair and if you were fair dinkum you would know me better than this 

I can appreciate X factors and intangibles in my subjective opinion just like other subjective opinion based on the immeasurable but yet how we place premiums on those players with such X factors .

Personally , I don't think LH is worthy of such hype 

Sorry if this rankles some posters that see him as a max or near max player in the making ( as GSW/LHfan alluded to earlier in this thread I believe ) 

For the sake of your own fervent beliefs in this regard GSW/LHfan - I hope you are right


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway

> Originally posted by <b>gswslashLHfan</b>!
> You've seen 3 or 4 games with Arenas. Whoopdidee. I saw most of last season and Arenas is a solid player just not in Hughes' league. As for making it personal, I just made a reference to your mumbojumbo while 90% of the rest of my posts are facts you can't debate or at least haven't tried


I will slash fan - just be patient . There is ample material to debate you on here


All in good time ( when I have the time ) to consider and reply to your points in the manner that you deserve


----------



## gswslashLHfan

He deserved more than he got but nowhere near the max. If he had put the time in and had the right situation around him he could easily be a max player but it didn't happen and now its the Wizards that will hopefully have the patience to reap the benefits


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> If you are really interested, look at my earlier post on this thread about the dynamics in GSW and also look up Hughes stats for the first 2 full months of last season on ESPN.


I will surely do that and post back on my findings within the next few days


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GSW Lux Tax Concerns*



> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Sounds great.
> 
> Personally, I have learned over time that pretty poise is great for poetry, but does not seem to work as well in discussing business issues such as statistical algorithms and lux tax issues.


I have no idea what this means


And I think prose is the word you are looking for - not poise


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway

> Originally posted by <b>gswslashLHfan</b>!
> He deserved more than he got but nowhere near the max. If he had put the time in and had the right situation around him he could easily be a max player but it didn't happen and now its the Wizards that will hopefully have the patience to reap the benefits


Like I said - it was your opinion that he was one in the making.


----------



## gswslashLHfan

Ask anybody on his team, anybody in GSW's management and most everybody around the league and they'll tell you he has more than enough talent to be a max player. The reason he's not and is making 4.5 is simply because his work ethic is crap, his drive to dominate and compete is not great and there is a huge question whether they will come around. Him going to Jordan will hopefully wake him up and let him fulfill his promise


----------



## johnston797

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GSW Lux Tax Concerns*



> Originally posted by <b>FJ_of _Rockaway</b>!
> I have no idea what this means
> 
> And I think prose is the word you are looking for - not poise


You are correct, sir!!

p.s. IMHO, you are already off to a great start in your promise to make things easier (e.g. short & concise sentences) for the rest of us when you post. Thanks!!


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GSW Lux Tax Concerns*



> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> It ain't me, bro. The $48M figure came from the Chron beat writer. It's just the lastest example of something that has been written locally for some time.


Here is what the article says when it is referenced in talking about adding Darvin Ham 

_

But acquiring the high-energy Ham appears to be a longshot because the five-year veteran would cost at least $700,000 for one year, and the luxury-tax- conscious Warriors are reluctant to add more than $500,000 to their near-$47.5 million payroll. _

They could be reluctant to add Ham for your reasons ( having a more conservative buffer - on purpose than mostother teams in the league where league wide consensus is generally working at $50M as the lower end of the estimate ) 

or...the alternate 

They could be wanting to keep the powder dry to facilitate a trade by deadline using Chris Mills and his expiring $6M contract which enables them to take back $7.2M and utilise $1.2M of the $2.5M in room they have got. They could even add further players like Sura to utilise this $2.5M buffer they have under the $50M - and their "reluctance" to sign marginal players who can't make a big difference now could really be about being patient and being a player at trade deadline

Who knows ? 

Mills and Sura may get you Austin Croshere and say Jonathon Bender - just as an example off the top of my head - the point is there will may be plenty of young talent Joe Johnson types (as we saw last year ) whose heads come up out of the foxhole - and if you have expiring contracts to cleanse you could be a legit chance to snare one of these types of players with a crap contract that comes with them ( the price to pay )

See how there are two ways this could be interpreted , Johnny - when there is no specific mention of the fact that the Warriors are considering the L Tax in the way you allege they are - where quite possibly there could be other motivations/strategies in play 

I don't really think its pretty prose at all . Just pragmatic and thoughful strategic planning . But that's only my opinion of course


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GSW Lux Tax Concerns*



> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> You are correct, sir!!
> 
> p.s. IMHO, you are already off to a great start in your promise to make things easier (e.g. short & concise sentences) for the rest of us when you post. Thanks!!


Sometimes verbosity is the price to pay for detail in supporting discussion on complex issues


----------



## johnston797

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GSW Lux Tax Concerns*



> Originally posted by <b>FJ_of _Rockaway</b>!
> or...the alternate
> 
> They could be wanting to keep the powder dry to facilitate a trade by deadline using Chris Mills and his expiring $6M contract which enables them to take back $7.2M and utilise $1.2M of the $2.5M in room they have got. They could even add further players like Sura to utilise this $2.5M buffer they have under the $50M - and their "reluctance" to sign marginal players who can't make a big difference now could really be about being patient and being a player at trade deadline


Funny, but I specifically mentioned this to you on the Bulls tread 

_Originally posted by <b>Johnston797</b>!
quote: 
Lastly, you really seem to be struggling with this one so I will lay it out nice and slow. If GSW signs Hughes, they are at $49M plus. So assuming they want to stay under $50M and a nice trade offer comes along later, the GSW could not take back much extra salary – either the standard 15% extra allowed or more if a trade exception is used by the other team. So, of course, GSW is giving up trade flexibility due to the lux tax if they sign Hughes. Therefore, the lux tax could very well have been a factor in the GSW thinking. 
_

You quoted this in it's entirety with the following response:



> Originally posted by <b>FJ_of _Rockaway</b>!
> I think I have proven on this board that I understand L Tax as good as anyone particpating here and probably better than most. That is not idle boast - go back and check the threads dedicated to such
> 
> So put your peashooter away
> 
> You really should drop this L Tax motivation because it makes you look pretty silly - Im actually embarrassed for you


Let's see. The point I made was silly on the Bulls board, but now you have 'borrowed' it on this thread. Apparently, to look smart. I'm starting to see what's silly around here.


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway

No not to try and look smart - because I beleive it 

Anyway props to you for flagging the idea first 

I was little confused ( not about the L Tax ) but about what points you were trying to make in that thread as well as this thread

I could have this wrong but it seems you have overwhelmingly been "they want to give themselves a buffer for fear of having to pay it if it comes in lower"

This seemed to be your predominate

If you interspersed this with this alternate - its a fair cop - I missed it . Props to you

In any which way as the discussion on the other thread was going I thought ( from memory ) that line of it was that the GSw wouldnt sign Hughes for L Tax concerns _ because they didnt want to pay it _ not because they wanted better options - which means it wasnt about Larry and the L Tax per se - it was about Larry and _ preferred options _ and the luxury tax as I have been arguing in this thread - and which I acknowledge co incides with the fleeting reference ( which I missed ) on the other thread

At least we now agree that it wasnt about Larry and the L Tax in isolation - it was about Larry and other preferences to strategy and the L Tax. 

Yes ??


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway

Your initial point in the other thread was that acquiring Hughes would have pushed them into luxury tax land - that is what was said .

It was a context ( as presented by you ) of do we sign Larry and risk luxury tax or do we not 

My point was it had nothing to do with this

It was only several posts later that you clarified your point ( if this was in your thinking to begin with ) 

And so on this point that we both share a mutual view of now we seem to agree that the luxury tax didnt have anything to do Larry in isolation ( IE to sign him at the qualifying offer , if they could have , and risk it or not to take such action ) 

As stated above it was about not wanting him first and foremost - the extra cap / trade benefit that we both agree on was an ancillary benefit when they had made the determination that they didnt want him 

You did change change contexts and I didnt pick it up - but it was a good suggestion of yours. It has to be because I agree with it :laugh:


----------



## johnston797

> Originally posted by <b>FJ_of _Rockaway</b>!
> You did change change contexts and I didnt pick it up - but it was a good suggestion of yours. It has to be because I agree with it :laugh:


So best case, there was yet another honest communication breakdown. And worst case, you intentionally bashed me despite logic so sound that you "borrowed" it later when it fit your purpose in a new thread.

At this point, I really don't care which is the case.


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway

I do 

I thought you would have taken me at my word as I have explained it above


----------

