Pop testified at Larry Brown's hearing

[Kori Ellis]

I know it's been mentioned in a couple other threads, but here is more details ...



Two close associates of Brown also testified — Gregg Popovich, the San Antonio Spurs’ coach, and Dave Hanners, who was part of Brown’s staff with the Knicks, the Detroit Pistons and the Philadelphia 76ers. The Spurs came through New York on Thursday on their way to Lyon, France, where they are holding training camp. Popovich had to stay behind an extra day to attend the hearing.

It was not clear whether he was summoned by Brown or by the Knicks. Team officials have accused Brown of trying to broker trades last season, and it is possible that Popovich — a longtime friend — was involved in one of those discussions.

Rest of the story (http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/30/sports/basketball/30knicks.html&OQ=_rQ3D1Q26refQ3Dsports&OP=399352c4Q2FQ25Q7BRSQ259BnQ7EeBBXvQ25v00ZQ2503Q2 5Q230Q25Q7E!BeXQ7EQ25SPQ7EgRXSPYYQ25Q230gwbngQ7EC-XxY) ...

[FromWayDowntown]

So Pop is pretty much saying that Larry didnt try to broker trades? How the fuck would Pop know?

I'm not sure I follow you on either point. First, the blurb says that "It was not clear whether he was summoned by Brown or by the Knicks." You assume that Pop's testimony was beneficial to Brown, but it may not have been. I'd be surprised if that were true, but the truth is that we don't seem to know. Even if you were right that Pop testified to put Brown in the best light, the second point makes no sense if Pop was among the executives that Brown approached trying to broker deals. In other words, Pop would most certainly know that Brown was trying to broker trades if LB approached him and tried to broker a trade.

[RC's Boss]

Don't snitch Pop!

[Phenomanul]

Jackie Butler....


Dun.... dun...... dun........


Although I know he was a restricted free agent the Knicks didn't match....

[Mr.Bottomtooth]

What does it mean to broker trades? I'm not familiar with those terms..

[timvp]

I'm not sure I follow you on either point. First, the blurb says that "It was not clear whether he was summoned by Brown or by the Knicks." You assume that Pop's testimony was beneficial to Brown, but it may not have been. I'd be surprised if that were true, but the truth is that we don't seem to know. Even if you were right that Pop testified to put Brown in the best light, the second point makes no sense if Pop was among the executives that Brown approached trying to broker deals. In other words, Pop would most certainly know that Brown was trying to broker trades if LB approached him and tried to broker a trade.

Pop would take his own life before he would testify against LB.

[ChumpDumper]

Yeah, I can see him crunching a cyanide capsule in a false tooth while on the stand.

[iceman44]

Pop would do anything to help is old buddy Larry Brown.

[E20]

If LB asked Pop would sacrifice his 1st born.

[photoguy]

http://i.a.cnn.net/si/2005/writers/jack_mccallum/06/09/finals.reasons/t1_brown.pop.jpg

[slayermin]

http://i.a.cnn.net/si/2005/writers/jack_mccallum/06/09/finals.reasons/t1_brown.pop.jpg

That is pure man-love right there.

[ata]

What does it mean to broker trades? I'm not familiar with those terms..

Me neither. Would somebody be so kind?

[angel_luv]

Me neither. Would somebody be so kind?

I really don't know either. I thought it something to do with individuals having business discussions and/or making deals without proper representation.

[FromWayDowntown]

Pop would take his own life before he would testify against LB.

I thought my post was clear that I thought it was unlikely that Pop would testify against Brown:


You assume that Pop's testimony was beneficial to Brown, but it may not have been. I'd be surprised if that were true, but the truth is that we don't seem to know.

My bigger point in responding to GIG's post was to say that I suspect Pop would have direct knowledge about whether LB was trying to broker trades or he wasn't.

As for the question of what brokering trades is, if "broker" is used in the normal sense, it suggests that Brown may have been acting as an intermediary between parties who were trying to make deals. I'm not sure what that would encompass -- did he call friends in one front office to suggest that Team A consider dealing a player to Team B, neither of which was the Knicks? -- or why it would be necessary or desirable. Perhaps it occurs more than we think. I'd think that if it was a frequent occurrence, though, it wouldn't be a subject of testimony in the arbitration. The Knicks, it seems, are trying to suggest that Brown did things that are out of the ordinary and detrimental to their franchise, and trade brokering might be that sort of a thing.