Superstar talent + bad attitude

[Guest Redhawk]

ESPN recently did a list of the NBA's Biggest Cancers, where it listed guys like Dennis Rodman, Latrell Sprewell, and Isaiah "JR" Rider as players with All-Star talent but bad attitudes.

 

In the NFL, you're always hearing about guys like Terrell Owens, Randy Moss, and Keyshawn Johnson (why is it always wide receivers?) who bicker with the coaches, alienate some teammates, yet can put up the numbers on Sundays.

 

So are athletes with bad attitudes, but superstar talent, worth keeping?

 

I've always thought that as long as a guy brings it on game day, it shouldn't matter if he was late to practice or if his end zone celebrations drew criticism every week. I mean, at least he's getting into the end zone, right?

 

Still, I hear fans—even in the cities where these "bad apples" play—often say that the guy needs to be traded. But how does an NBA team benefit from getting rid of a guy who can score 20 points (Rider, Spree) or grab 15 rebounds (Rodman) per game? How would the Minnesota Vikings be a better team if they lost their No. 1 player and only deep threat?

 

Is there really such a thing as addition by subtraction in pro sports?

[Guest Leena]

This is a touchy subject. Team chemistry is often underrated. Even with my college tennis team, which is basically still singles play... a "bad apple" in the group can destroy your will to fight your hardest for the victory of your teammates. It's probably 100x more important in a sport like football.

 

In Terrell Owens' case... the other 49ers never seem to talk down about him... where as with Randy Moss, they have visibly shown they are tired of his antics. It's difficult going only by what the players say to the media... but if they're not causing a disruption in the locker room, then so be it.

 

Would Minnesota be a better team without Moss? They might. When they stopped with that stupid "Randy Ratio", the Vikings were moving better on offense.

 

Spree is a different case, because he should be in jail.

[Guest Kahran Ramsus]

It depends on the situation.

 

Terell Owens, yes. He is a jerk, but he is both extremely talented and extremely competitive. He likes to win, and he will always show up to play.

 

Randy Moss, no, because he won't show up to play. What is the point of having a superstar player, if he doesn't put forth any effort? Moss is also tearing the lockeroom apart, Owen is not. The Vikings will never win with Moss there, so he has to go.

 

Keyshaun Johnson is a little difference, in that he has the attitude of Owens, but not the talent. Johnson is SLOW. He should be nothing more than a number two WR in the NFL.

 

Guys that are too big of a problem to keep are few and far between (Moss, Sprewell, Rocker, etc.). Far more they are of the Owens or Johnson type.

[Guest Kingpk]

Is there really such a thing as addition by subtraction in pro sports?

Two words:

 

Carl Everett, but he blew, so it was easier to dump him.

 

But it is a tough call sometimes. I guess as long as he backs up his talk regularly and isn't TOO much of a nuisance, things should work out.

 

It really depends on how the team is doing. Moss is getting heat becuase the Vikings suck, but Keyshawn isn't getting much flak since his team is on top of their division.

[Guest razazteca]

it all depends on the coach, only certain people like Phil Jackson with his Zen can make these trouble makers efficient. As in the case with Dennis Rodman, Jackson made him fit into the scheme of the system then sent him to Texas to cause havoc on the MidWest teams. As a Spur, Dennis Rodman was completly worthless, as he was the complete opposite of the demenor of the team. Coach Popavich had no idea what to do with Dennis as the 2 team leaders (David Robinson & Avery Johnson) were Southern Gentlemen, who really did not like the work ethic of Dennis. Spurs needed a Heel on the team but Rodman was more than they could handle. As a Maverick Dennis Rodman, was a successful experiment for 1 season. The only reason he was signed by the Dallas team was to get media attention. The media circus came in to see the Heel Rodman throw elbows and cause trouble but were also exposed to the greatness of Don Nelson's GM genius. People came in to see Rodman and were exposed to local stars of Nash, Finlay, Nowinski.

[Guest gthureson]

I can only comment as it regards to hockey, but here are few examples:

 

Alexei Yashin: Isles fans may disagree, but despite all the talent he has, he doesn't add that much to the mixture of your team. He puts up points during the season, but they always seem to be hollow points. He isn't there when it counts, he's not the guy who is going be your clutch player. He wore out his welcome in Ottawa but demanding renegotiations on every contract he signed, and when he left town, the only roster player Ottawa got was Zdeno Chara. Ottawa didn't miss a beat, and even advanced past the first round despite losing their 'superstar' player.

 

Eric Lindros: The guy has talent. But the atmosphere surrounding him in Philly was poisonous. Again, the Flyers didn't get much in the way of roster players for him, and the guy they replaced him with (Jeremy Roenick) saw his best years about half a decade ago, but they were a better team, at least during the season, not having the Lindros cloud over their head all the time.

 

Jeremy Roenick/Keith Tkachuk: I will never say that these two guys don't have talent. However, if I was a GM, I don't want either of them in my locker room. Phoenix had both of them, and want to know what their biggest problem was? They couldn't score. Two supposed great offensive players, and the teams problem is that they can't put the puck in the net. They let both of them go, and they have a better season and make the playoffs, which they didn't do when had both of these guys. Tkachuk continued his scoring in the regular season for St. Louis, then didn't do much in the playoffs, while Roenick made it known that Philly wasn't his first choice, they just offered the most money, and didn't do anything in the playoffs either. Phoenix is hitting a bit a bump right now, but they are a better team without both of them, and positioned far better for the future.

 

Pavel Bure: There is a reason he has been dealt twice now. Pavel only looks out for one guy, Pavel. And he doesn't always put in the effort when the team isn't the strongest. Florida looks much better without the guy, and the Rangers don't look that much better with him. He's fun to watch, but Vancouver got better after they dealt him, Florida is looking better without him, and the Rangers are treading water with him.

 

Thats just a few examples. One guy can disrupt the entire chemistry of the team if everybody else can't stand him, and if that happens, deal the 'superstar', and your team will get better.

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

I'm in the group saying it depends on the situation, although I'd rather have a better locker room than a better player in one position...

[Guest dreamer420]

If the players actions don't effect the performances of the other players on the team then they should stay. If the player is the cause of constant trouble between players then he should be shit canned because they don't belong in organized sports.

[Guest Choken One]

Jerks that are good enough to get away with being a jerk because of talent...

 

Barry Bonds

T.O

Tony Stewart

Pavel Bure

Rodman

[Guest Redhawk]

What exactly is the deal with Barry Bonds? I know he's not Mr. Nice Guy with the media, but does he also have problems with the team? I know him and Jeff Kent don't like each other, but to me it seems like Kent is the prick in that little feud. Any Giants fans care to enlighten me?

[Guest bravesfan]

Bah.

 

Kent is a lying prick who would be average without Bonds in the line-up. Bonds is a just a prick, but with immense talent.

 

Bonds only had a problem with Kent, as far as I can remember, just because of their respective egos. Bonds and Kent are both mentors to the younger hitters on the team (Feliz, Torrealba, etc.), so the chemistry factor is nothing to worry about. Just worry about Bonds/Kent and how their relationship will play out.

[Guest Leena]

Isn't Kent going to be out of SF anyway?

[Guest DrTom]

I'm just wondering why people cite Dennis Rodman as some uber-talented player. I guess he was good, but he wasn't to basketball what someone like Terrell Owens is to football. All Rodman could do was rebound, and his inane antics and general jackassery were distractions.

 

As for the original question... it depends, really. Something like that has to be looked at case-by-case. If a player is a jerk, but he always shows up to play and his teammates would take a bullet for him, then it's no big thing. If a player is a jerk, half-asses it sometimes on the field, and doesn't have the full support of his team, that's something else again.

 

And I agree that Sprewell is irrelevant, since he should have been banned for life from the NBA and jailed for attempted murder.

[Guest Redhawk]

And I agree that Sprewell is irrelevant, since he should have been banned for life from the NBA and jailed for attempted murder.

First of all, I really doubt he was trying to kill Carlesimo. And why should he be banned from the NBA for a crime? You can't be prevented from partaking in a certain profession because of a criminal case, unless it's like a teacher who molested a kid or something. He didn't go to jail, so what's the problem?

[Guest alkeiper]

I'm just wondering why people cite Dennis Rodman as some uber-talented player. I guess he was good, but he wasn't to basketball what someone like Terrell Owens is to football. All Rodman could do was rebound, and his inane antics and general jackassery were distractions.

 

Rodman was probably the best rebounder ever. Unfortunately, his personality overshadows that.

 

As for the original question... it depends, really. Something like that has to be looked at case-by-case. If a player is a jerk, but he always shows up to play and his teammates would take a bullet for him, then it's no big thing. If a player is a jerk, half-asses it sometimes on the field, and doesn't have the full support of his team, that's something else again.

 

A point I was about to take. On one hand, you have a Dennis Rodman or Randy Moss, who seem like they couldn't care less about the game/sport. Then you have Barry Bonds, who may or may or not be a jerk, depending on the writer, but works hard and cares about the game.

[Guest Leena]

And I agree that Sprewell is irrelevant, since he should have been banned for life from the NBA and jailed for attempted murder.

First of all, I really doubt he was trying to kill Carlesimo. And why should he be banned from the NBA for a crime? You can't be prevented from partaking in a certain profession because of a criminal case, unless it's like a teacher who molested a kid or something. He didn't go to jail, so what's the problem?

Choking your boss should stop you from partaking in your profession. Who's to say he wouldn't have killed Carlesimo? He had scars on his neck after that, so it wasn't just some playful grabbing.

[Guest DrTom]

First of all, I really doubt he was trying to kill Carlesimo.

Then why did he choke him, stop, then choke him some more, stop, then go outside and COME BACK into the building with a 2x4? He tried to kill the man for telling him to pass the ball better, which should mean a lifetime ban from the sport, even if you ignore the criminal charges he should have faced. Pete Rose didn't try to kill anyone.

 

He didn't go to jail, so what's the problem?

The problem is, he's a punk and a thug, in a league where thuggery seems to be a growing concern. Kicking him out of the league and prosecuting him would have sent a good precendent that athletes are as responsible for their actions as anyone else, and they won't be mollycoddled where serious criminal matters are concerned.

[Guest Choken One]

Of course they weren't going to Ban him...Who is more important to the NBA? P.J Carlismo or Spreewell? Spreewell of course, Gotta have your Charismatic trouble makers.

[Guest alkeiper]

Doesn't being sent to the Knicks qualify as punishment these days?

[Guest Redhawk]

Choking your boss should stop you from partaking in your profession.

 

If you were an accountant and you choked your boss, you should be fired from your company. But you should be able to be an accountant again, don't you think?

 

Should Sprewell have been prosecuted? Yes. If that had happened anywhere but an NBA practice or game, he would have been arrested (unless PJ didn't report it or something).

 

However, I still don't see why he should be banned from the NBA. I can see why the Warriors wouldn't want him any more, and I can see why he got suspended, but banned for life? Blackballed, maybe, but an official NBA-approved ban is too much.

[Guest Choken One]

Blackball wouldn't work because a fragile team would eventfully go after Spree just to bring a presence to the team and media...He would wound up in Denver or Vancouver.

[Guest Redhawk]

What would be wrong with that? You'd never have to worry about seeing him on any kind of national stage again. If he wasn't charged and/or convicted of a crime, he should be allowed to still be a professional basketball player.

[Guest Choken One]

But you're really not punishing him for choking his own coach. You're letting him play. Golden State wasn't exactly Xanadu in NBA ya know.

[Guest Redhawk]

He was punished. He was suspended for a really long time (I think it was half a year, but don't quote me on that) and lost a lot of income from that.

[Guest DrTom]

The NBA tried to suspend him for a year, which is a slap on the wrist considering he tried to KILL HIS COACH. Sprewell promptly sued, and since no legal action can go against an athlete in America, his suspension was reduced in arbitration.

 

He's a worthless thug, a complete piece of shit as a person, and should have been banned for life. If GAMBLING gets a lifetime ban in the sports arena, I certainly think the attempted murder of one's coach should merit the same punishment.

[Guest ant_7000]

Come on now Tom, Spree didn't try to kill his coach. I felt he redeem himself when he carried the Knicks to the finals and was a model player up until now with the organization, I think its more the organization fault than his with the lastest situation.

[Guest Redhawk]

Gambling effects the on-field/court product, and therefore is a crime within the game and should have a stiff punishment. Guys who are gambling on the games are potentially throwing them and/or shaving points. However, Sprewell choking PJ didn't efffect anything outside of their personal relationship. And I can't recall any basketball gambling bans, so I assume you're referring to Pete Rose and Joe Jackson. Well, baseball and basketball are run by two separate rulebooks, so just because one sport bans you for life for something doesn't mean another sport has to use the same scale.

[Guest DrTom]

Come on now Tom, Spree didn't try to kill his coach.

Haven't we already had this discussion?

 

Strangling the man on two separate occasions, then leaving the building to return with a weapon sounds like attempted murder to me. At the very least, it's aggravated assault, and inflicted against a coach, should earn a ban from the sport.

[Guest DrTom]

Gambling effects the on-field/court product, and therefore is a crime within the game and should have a stiff punishment.

Trying to kill someone is a crime outside the game. Should it have a lesser punishment because of that?

 

And I can't recall any basketball gambling bans, so I assume you're referring to Pete Rose and Joe Jackson. Well, baseball and basketball are run by two separate rulebooks, so just because one sport bans you for life for something doesn't mean another sport has to use the same scale.

No, but the precedent is established for the governing body of a sport to ban someone for gambling on his own team. Basketball could easily hold someone to the same standard if that situation happened, whether or not the rulebook specifically governs that scenario. Considering that attempted murder is a more serious crime than indiscriminate wagering, I think it would certainly merit a lifetime ban.

[Guest Redhawk]

Gambling effects the on-field/court product, and therefore is a crime within the game and should have a stiff punishment.

Trying to kill someone is a crime outside the game. Should it have a lesser punishment because of that?

It should have a lesser punishment within the league/association. Of course it should have a more severe punishment in the criminal justice system. That's why Stephon Marbury got suspended for two games for getting a DWI, but Rick Fox got suspended for six games for starting a fight on the court.