You Hughes, you lose by Carol Slezak

[djecak]

You Hughes, you lose: Revised Bulls miss out
It can't be good if winning doesn't matter to your star
Linky: http://www.suntimes.com/sports/slezak/8 ... 04.article

March 4, 2008
BY CAROL SLEZAK Sun-Times Columnist
It was just about this time last year that the Bulls began playing like a pretty good team. They were a selfless group, and they seemed to have a bright future. And now? Just when you thought the season couldn't get any worse, the Bulls hit have hit a new low. As if the weekend losses to the Wizards and Cavaliers weren't bad enough, newcomer Larry Hughes decided to elaborate on his time in Cleveland. I wish he hadn't.

When the Bulls visited Cleveland on Sunday, Hughes told reporters that playing for the Cavs had not been an enjoyable experience.

''They wanted me to sacrifice things so we could win,'' he said.

It seems that not even a trip to the NBA Finals last season could put a smile on Hughes' face.

''We had 50-plus wins, made the Finals and I learned from it,'' he said. ''I was unhappy, though, and wasn't myself. I'd rather enjoy the game than all that.''

Say what you will about Ben Wallace, whose contract essentially was swapped for Hughes' contract, but at least the big guy cared about winning. At least he was proud of his championship ring. In Hughes, the Bulls have a $12 million-a-year player who couldn't care less about winning. In fact, winning made Hughes unhappy. We can only assume he is deliriously happy now, having joined a Bulls team that might not even win 30 games, is unlikely to glimpse the postseason this year and at its current rebuilding pace will not make it back to the NBA Finals in Hughes' lifetime.

Not leadership material
I wish we could write this off to Hughes misspeaking. But we can't because he expressed similar sentiments when he was traded to the Bulls last month. This time he was more specific.

How ironic that Bulls general manager John Paxson had been methodically building a team that was the opposite of the me-first mentality Hughes has espoused. The Bulls were winning with hard work. The Bulls were winning with teamwork. The Bulls were winning without a star player. That's all irrelevant. That team mysteriously changed its personality, and Paxson had no choice but to begin its dismantling. So it was bye-bye, Ben; hello, Hughes.

The worst thing about Hughes' proclamation is that he is the Bulls' best player. You don't want your best player talking like that -- or thinking like that. True, he's the best player on a lousy team. He's a streaky shooter. He's injury-prone. But he is a proven scorer and can play defense when he feels like it. Too bad he's not a winner. It's a shame he couldn't handle playing on the same team with LeBron James, one of the top five players in the game. It's too bad he couldn't appreciate being an extremely highly paid player on a very good team.

I guess he's found his level. Blowing a big lead to the Wizards at home? Not being able to finish? Unable to hit a clutch shot or make a key defensive stop? The Bulls' roster is filled with guys who lack a killer instinct and inner fire. Welcome to your new home, Larry Hughes. Looks like you'll fit in just fine here.

Hughes told reporters the Bulls' system suits him because ''there is more movement and draw-and-kicks.'' The fact that the Bulls are battling the Bucks for last place in the division? I guess that only adds to his fun.

Not much better
Paxson was cheered for finding a taker for Wallace at the trade deadline. The thinking was that no team would want Wallace's big contract, aging legs and coach-killing attitude. But in the end, the Bulls still are saddled with a big contract and a puzzling player. What's the difference?

It's not that I have a problem with Hughes wanting the ball more. I've often wished that Luol Deng wanted the ball more. And nobody wants the ball more than Kobe Bryant, the best player in the game.

But what separates Bryant from everyone else is his competitiveness. As he proved again during the Lakers' overtime win Sunday, Bryant doesn't want to lose. He won't let his team lose. Winning motivates Bryant.

Hughes, who is owed $26.4 million over the next two seasons, clearly is not motivated by winning. Which means that when Paxson, who has stockpiled more mediocre combo guards than any general manager in the league, kicks the Bulls' umpteenth rebuilding program into high gear this summer, he might have trouble finding a taker for Hughes. If that's the case, then Hughes will be sticking around. And the best fans can do is hope his attitude isn't contagious.
[/url]

[JeremyB0001]

We might be able to succeed with a player like this on the team but you can't just hand the keys over to him. You have to keep some reigns on him.

[NLK]

Hughes will respond with: "COME AFTER ME! I'M A MAN, I'M 29! I AM A HIGH SHOT VOLUME GUY!"

[kyrv]

Carol is not the sharpest tool in the shed but she appeears to have hit her mark this time.

New t-shirt idea:

Hughes your daddy

[ATRAIN53]

an interesting read -
way to call him out. let's see if he responds.

(and love the shirt idea)

[musiqsoulchild]

A team winning should not come at the expense of someones happiness (however a person choses to define it).

Would we really be upset if Tyrus decides to not sign wth us if he says " We were a 50 win team and we made the second round, still Skiles/Paxson/Boylan did not play me consistently". Yeah its for the teams good, but doesnt mean that the player doesnt have a right to be pissed.

Larry Hughes is hardly in tthe same mold as Jamal Crawford, Tim Thomas, Eddy Curry, etc.

He plays defense. This for me is the best indicator of the limits a player sets for himself. And yes, he hass a low fg%, but its better than having Duhon and Wallace on the court at the same time with Nocioni and Gordon gunning away.

[DASMACKDOWN]

Why does it even matter? Firstly A N Y T H I N G was better than having Ben Wallace on the team. Anything. I would have taken back Stephan Marbury, Antoine Walker and Darius Miles for Ben Wallace.

All the articles are totally irrelevent to me because at the end of the day, its still better than having Ben Wallace.

My priority list was

1. Get Rid of Ben Wallace.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2. Caring about who we got in return.

[kyrv]

I agree Smack but this is another example of Paxson, yet again, saying it's time for the young bigs to play.

It was a wonderful trade, I agree. The only way though to make the trade less fantastic is to once again derail the development, which is what they are trying to dol

This should not surprise me. When will I learn?

Oh no *this* time, (time number 348343) Paxson is serious about developing Tyrus. No, this time we really mean it. Sure, who do I make the check out to?

[djecak]

As much as I am glad we got rid of Ben Wallace I wouldn't mind being rid of Hughes and his contract also. I don't hate the guy but I don't like him either especially after comments like that. Pax and Boylan needs to play Sefolosha

[JeremyB0001]

Why does it even matter? Firstly A N Y T H I N G was better than having Ben Wallace on the team. Anything. I would have taken back Stephan Marbury, Antoine Walker and Darius Miles for Ben Wallace.

I think some of us might have favored that type of deal because someone like Marbury almost certainly wouldn't have taken up minutes.

[TB#1]

Its surprising for a hatchet piece to come out so soon after the trade, but Larry really has been dropping some amazingly careless press fodder quotes since he arrived.

[jax98]

As much as I hate his shot-selection, I cannot state how glad I am we did this trade. SmackDown is right on the money!

[ptpablo]

Agree 100% with Smack and Mort. This team has pieces to improve in the near future. Hughes and Gooden>>>>>>>> Wallace and Smith.

[AirP.]

I agree Smack but this is another example of Paxson, yet again, saying it's time for the young bigs to play.

It was a wonderful trade, I agree. The only way though to make the trade less fantastic is to once again derail the development, which is what they are trying to dol

This should not surprise me. When will I learn?

Oh no *this* time, (time number 348343) Paxson is serious about developing Tyrus. No, this time we really mean it. Sure, who do I make the check out to?

Paxson wants the young guys to play, but if he mandates his coach to start or play them x amount of minutes, it's going to be hard to get a quality coach next season knowing that the GM can and has told the coach what to do.

On Larry Hughes... he was signed to a big contract which led one to believe that he would be a major player, but surprise, surprise, what they wanted was something different then what Hughes did and asked him to change his game complement Lebron instead of pairing with Lebron.

You can look at it 2 ways.
1. A high paid player refusing to do whatever it takes to make the team better or
2. A high paid player doing a job(which changed on him) he no longer enjoys because he and management don't see eye to eye.

Sometimes in life you have to decide if money is the #1 thing in your life or your happiness is. I can tell you this, I'd rather make less money and be happy at work then make more money and hate my work and in my career field I've seen both and would rather make much less money and be happy.

I don't know what Hughes was told by Cleveland on how he'd be used if he signed with them.

[/u]

[BULLHITTER]

i'll admit my eyebrow raised when i read his comments, but allow me to play devil's advocate.

here's a guy who's been with 3 organizations, to the good or bad. point being, he's seen how cold the business aspect of things is. he's gotten his payday (maybe his one and only), and even seen the pomp and circumstance of an nba final. is he jaded? maybe; but, the reality is how many players actually have ANY say so about whether a team is actually set up to win? cleveland bringing him in to be a spot up shooter reeks of misinformation or lack of homework in obtaining the right player to play with lebron; quite similar to the bulls not recognizing wallace's shortcomings and how they'd affect the bulls. hughes and wallace shared the bond of bearing the brunt of the fans enmity when the organizations that brought them on board were remiss in their background checking of flawed though pedigreed talents.

i'd guess that philly, when hughes and iverson were together MAY have believed that, but hughes was moved due to an incompatibility with hughes (many others were too, but that's beside the point); hughes was moved out of GS, who hasn't sniffed as much as the WCF since longer than i can remember. washington seemed to be moving in the championship direction, but when hughes wanted to get paid, they deemed him expendable. it's noteworthy that washington has suffered since his departure.

i guess the bottom line for me though is, hughes has come to the realization that no matter what he does, he's got zero control over how a team goes about winning, that's just the reality of it. therefore, it's become an important facet of the remainder of his pro career that he be happy playing in a situation that allows him to be who he believes himself to be as a player (good or bad), and attempt to succeed (read;win) with that as his staple. is that selfish? i suppose, but i think most players want to play the game to win, that almost goes without saying for anybody who's played the game at any level.

said philosophy being, hell, i may lose, and i may get the blame, but if that's the case why not do it the way i like to do it?

johnny P's going to have his work cut out for him this summer.

[richard]

he is only openly stating what most nba players feel anyway. people are motivated by money, and environment, more than winning. everybody has different motivations for their jobs, there is nothing wrong with that.

[bullzman23]

March 4, 2008
BY CAROL SLEZAK Sun-Times Columnist

It seems that not even a trip to the NBA Finals last season could put a smile on Hughes' face.

Carol is really twisting things here. He said he was unhappy mainly because of his role. He never said that he was unhappy that they made it so far.

''We had 50-plus wins, made the Finals and I learned from it,'' he said. ''I was unhappy, though, and wasn't myself. I'd rather enjoy the game than all that.''

In this sports culture, winning is the only thing that matters. In reality, from the individual standpoint, I would think happiness is the most important thing. If you have a high paying job that you hate are you really successful? If you're unhappy, then no I don't think you are.

Say what you will about Ben Wallace, whose contract essentially was swapped for Hughes' contract, but at least the big guy cared about winning.

Cared is the key word. Past-tense. He used to care. He doesn't anymore...at least it seemed that way with his play.

In fact, winning made Hughes unhappy.

He never said that.

Not leadership material

Who is asking him to be one?

You don't want your best player talking like that -- or thinking like that

.

The bigger problem is that you don't want your best player to be Larry Hughes.

Too bad he's not a winner.

How many players are though? Duncan. Shaq. Kobe. Horry. Hughes has played the most playoff games for our roster though.

It's too bad he couldn't appreciate being an extremely highly paid player on a very good team.

He's a talented guy in his prime who has worked hard to be where he's at. He's not at a point in his career where he should just be thankful for being on a team.

[kyrv]

Bullzman great post.

I guess I was too eager to give Carol credit. One day, I'm sure she'll get one though. I can feel it.

[TheOUTLAW]

he is only openly stating what most nba players feel anyway. people are motivated by money, and environment, more than winning. everybody has different motivations for their jobs, there is nothing wrong with that.

You are only casual about this because you don't realize that if you get to 47 wins Hughes gets a 2 million dollar bonus.

I actually liked him as a Cavalier because he played defense and the fact that he wasn't terrible at the point allowed us to play Sasha at the 2. He really didn't help the team win often, but we minimized the negative impact that he had except when he went on his shooting fits. I was however one of the few that didn't just want him gone. To be honest, it's kinda frustrating to read this when you know that the team carried him and yet he received a bonus for it.

[DASMACKDOWN]

I agree Smack but this is another example of Paxson, yet again, saying it's time for the young bigs to play.

It was a wonderful trade, I agree. The only way though to make the trade less fantastic is to once again derail the development, which is what they are trying to dol

This should not surprise me. When will I learn?

Oh no *this* time, (time number 348343) Paxson is serious about developing Tyrus. No, this time we really mean it. Sure, who do I make the check out to?

Well you already know how I feel about the youth movement. But I get the serious feeling that Paxson really wants his young guys to play and play plenty. And I feel he really does believe in Tyrus. But he basically doesnt have the grapefruits to say to the coaches 'Look dammit, play Tyrus and Noah 25-30 mins every night or else'

Paxson basically eludes to this when he said that those guys NEED time and he has cleared off 2 front court spots to make that happen. But if Boylan were to play Tyrus/Noah 10 mins a game in favor of a Gooden/Noah lineup, he wouldnt do a thing about it.

Gooden over Tyrus, in my opinion is a Tim Thomas vs Luol Deng thing all over again but in reverse. At the time, Tim Thomas was probably only slightly better overall than Deng, but since Deng was the future and ultimately could be much better than Tim Thomas, they sent Tim Thomas home. But in this case, they are electing to play Gooden more than Tyrus.

I guess I wouldnt gripe too much if Gooden plays 30 and Tyrus 25 every night. But Boylan hasnt shown me enough to really trust him at all.