Nowhere does the article mention a buyout. How rare is it nowadays that someone of Brown's caliber simply gets FIRED?
As for this mess? Oh my, and Jeff is always telling US to write intelligent opinions? I'm glad this is one of the VERY rare times I have actually read the articles...
InsideHoops.com Editor Says:
Well, thanks to the local New York media, everyone knew this was going to happen, but no one really wanted to believe it. (Too many commas and clauses) -5
The quick crash-and-burn of Larry Brown's time with the Knicks is shocking. (How does time "crash-and-burn" pray tell? And I just got through reading how everyone knew this was going to happen thanks to the local New York media. Now it's shocking?) -7
It was expected that Brown and Stephon Marbury might clash, and perhaps have problems, but no one thought the relationship between the coach and most of the players, plus upper management, would be such a disaster. (Oh my. Where does one begin? OK "It was expected"...Passive voice is a no-no in writing. The word "might" pretty much cancels out the "expected" part now doesn't it? Think about it. In order to properly complete that part of the sentence, one should say, "It was expected that Brown and Stephon Marbury *might or might not* clash. Duhhh. Then the editor's note goes on to say, "and perhaps have problems." PERHAPS??? So does that mean that it is possible that Brown and Steph *might* have been expected to clash, but perhaps not have problems as well? Larry Brown confirms, "Yeah we clashed, but we didn't have any problems." Also there are too many commas and clauses in this part.) -9
Now Isiah gets to coach. The funny thing is, if he just runs a steady rotation, and runs basic plays, the Knicks will win more games this season than they did after Brown. Which is going to result in unrealistic people making ridiculous claims that Isiah is somehow a better coach than Brown.
(I'm glad to see that at least one of the distinct ideas was separated with a period this time. However, the fact that it is basically a clause and not a sentence is disappointing in itself. Still, there are too many clauses and phrases in this part. ) -5
The fact is, Brown for his career, almost everywhere he went, was better than almost anyone. (Are you serious? "The fact is, TB since its discovery, almost everywhere it is found, infects almost anyone it comes in contact with. Now THERE's a fact that can survive the scrutiny of science! "Just lower the expectations of your fact with the use of the word "almost" and that fact can NEVER BE DEFEATED!" -Bahgdad Bob. Still too many commas and clauses.) -5
But for whatever reason, he seemingly did as much as possible to trash the team last season. (This charge begs for an explanation or a theory at the least. The reader outside of New York is left to ponder something like this, "Larry Brown sabotaged the team. He must have been upset that Isiah forced him to play certain players and then became facetious with the rotation to spite him!" Writer, please explain this. Oh, and never begin a sentence with a preposition.) -2
So, I predict Isiah will actually do a pretty nice job as coach, possibly winning 5-10 more games than the team did last season. But the problem is the roster (and the contracts), not the coach. (Same old run-on sentence/prepositional clause problem.) -2
Although there's talent at almost every position, the roster is still seriously flawed, and the team as it currently stands has no upside aside from maybe next season, or the season after, winning enough games to make the playoffs, but never getting past the first round. (THIS IS A BLATANT RUN-ON SENTENCE. STOP IT!! You're killing me, Chief! Although there's talent at almost every position, the roster is still seriously flawed. < --STOP THERE. Now, if the team has upside next season and the season after that, then it is not possible that the team has NO upside is it? NEXT. The team will (prediction form) win enough games to make the playoffs for the near future, but it will not make it past the first round with this flawed roster. OK, now to the substance...If the roster is talented at almost every position, then what does that mean? Does it mean that 4 out of the 5 positions are filled with talented players? It can't be 3 out of 5 because that probably wouldn't qualify as "almost every position." This needs an explanation. WHICH position out of the 4 is NOT talented? How does this one non-talented position/player make the team seriously flawed?) -5
A championship is impossible, which is a real shame for the great fans of New York. (I take a point off just for the amazingly unrealistic expectations of New Yorkers.) -1
TOTAL: -41 F