Chill Will Be On 8:20am

[DrReality]

there are two sides to every story, but the fact remains we had a lottery pick and got nothing for him.

makes ASG have egg on their face.

[Dexmethylphenidate]

he doesn't have to be bettter than Manu. Manu's won 3 rings and should have been MVP.

He just has to be better than Marvin.. and on a game by game basis, he is.

Sorry, but you have to accept that Marvin is the better scorer and rebounder. He's also the better defensive player. Look up the stats of the two.

[Diesel]

But you understand the point, it's never the boss' job to cater to the employee. If Josh Childress was so upset that he never got to meet with Sund then he should have been proactive and done something about it. Do you disagree?

:thumbsdownsmileyanim:

That's why you have strikes and unhappy workforces.

However, when the bosses do treat the employees with respect, you have a very happy work environment.

[gesso]

This whole "he wouldn't meet with me" BS is getting tiring. Name me ONE profession where it's the CEO's (or related position in the company) job to come and find the employee to meet with them. Childress could have gone AT ANY TIME to Sund's office and met with him, unless you believe that Sund would have said no you cannot come in. Childress could have been at the meeting in Washington and if he wasn't there then it's nobodies fault but his own, unless again you believe that Sund said he couldn't be there.

Well if you are going to compare to a CEO

If you are hiring a VP, or a director, or a key component of a company not in management ( lets say a star engineer ), you better believe that CEO would want speak with them, convince them while they are a great part of the team etc. At least a decent CEO would. You've got to sell your vision about company, that is management's job. Of course a CEO of a 10k company will not meet with most hires, but those that are critical to the company's performance they certainly do and will meet with.

To an organization who's job is to field a basketball team, who is more important than the players? Even if you don't personally "like" a player, why would you do anything other than praise them, be gracious, convince them to be a part of you. A NBA player is not some peon being hired at Target.

Back tot he corporate comparison, have you ever heard a decent CEO saying something about a departing exec like, "he/she was limited", or "he/she wanted too much money", etc. No they thank that person for their services and wish them well in the endeavors ( even if they don't mean it). It is public graciousness, and it pays because how people perceive the company, in this case how players perceive the organization.

Companies ( at least the ones I work for ), succeed when they can sell their employees on more than dollars.

Pardon, far more words than I intended. Good luck

Edited August 1, 2008 by gesso

[Admin]

Well if you are going to compare to a CEO

If you are hiring a VP, or a director, or a key component of a company not in management ( lets say a star engineer ), you better believe that CEO would want speak with them, convince them while they are a great part of the team etc. At least a decent CEO would. You've got to sell your vision about company, that is management's job. Of course a CEO of a 10k company will not meet with most hires, but those that are critical to the company's performance they certainly do and will meet with.

To an organization who's job is to field a basketball team, who is more important than the players? Even if you don't personally "like" a player, why would you do anything other than praise them, be gracious, convince them to be a part of you. A NBA player is not some peon being hired at Target.

Back tot he corporate comparison, have you ever heard a decent CEO saying something about a departing exec like, "he/she was limited", or "he/she wanted too much money", etc. No they thank that person for their services and wish them well in the endeavors ( even if they don't mean it). It is public graciousness, and it pays because how people perceive the company, in this case how players perceive the organization.

Companies ( at least the ones I work for ), succeed when they can sell their employees on more than dollars.

Pardon, far more words than I intended. Good luck

I don't dispute that the CEO would want to meet with an important part of their organization, but the whole point I am making is that they won't go out of their way to find that person. That's just not reality and Childress had every opportunity to meet with Sund in Washington or at his office, he just never took advantage of it. Maybe he wasn't complaining about not getting to meet with Sund, but if he was then I consider that to be pretty silly considering that he's equally, if not more, guilty of not making an effort to meet.

As far as saying things about someone exiting the company as being limited or whatever, I don't think that really applies since in the real world they would rarely talk to the media about it.

[gesso]

That's just not reality and Childress had every opportunity to meet with Sund in Washington or at his office, he just never took advantage of it. Maybe he wasn't complaining about not getting to meet with Sund, but if he was then I consider that to be pretty silly considering that he's equally, if not more, guilty of not making an effort to meet..

More or less I agree that he shouldn't "have to", but the look at the result.

Chill felt they didn't really care or put much effort into it. You know if they decided not to sign Chill over a certain amount, that is fine, but he should feel that they really wanted him and only didn't do so because of their cost constraints. If I was dealing with job offers from such a company, I would probably pass on the offer unless the money was really outstanding.

From an outsiders view with limited knowledge ( I am not a Hawks fan per say, but this is a pleasant board most of the times), it seems like the Hawks organization was being lazy.

Edited August 1, 2008 by gesso

[beenthere]

One thing to keep in mind when a player has an agent, the agent usually insists that there be no communication between the player and the club. The agent feels that he will loose control of the communication if all of a sudden it is acceptable for the team to talk directly to the player.