(07-06-2021, 04:52 PM)Scott41theMavs Wrote: Do I think Luka should have player GM-ing power a la Kyrie? No. Do I think they should ask him about KP? No.I think this view is headed in the right direction. The main point is that any discussions like this have to be conducted with great sensitivity to avoid introducing new problems and not necessarily solving the one you might have. I don't know if they have it in them. I also don't know that they don't, of course.
However, if he has expressed to them of his own volition that he does not want to play with KP and has asked for KP to be traded (you know, a respectfully private version of the Kidd-Jackson thing), they would be abject fools to disrespect that. What, is Luka supposed to just bend over to their disrespect because he's a Euro? Nah. It's not about him being immature, whether that plays into it or not. A 22-year-old knows whom he can mesh with on and off the court and who he can't. If that doesn't matter, then neither does keeping your franchise player, evidently.
If Luka wants KP gone, we should be done here (short of simply finding the best deal). Of course, if Luka wants Bob gone, he should have been fired already. At a certain point, when you have the best generational talent since Lebron (as others have noted), you have a choice between respecting him, and losing him. I pray they choose the former. Finally, I recognize that there's a huge difference between Luka saying "I don't like KP" vs. "Trade KP or else." There's plenty of wiggle room with the former. Not with the latter. We don't know what Luka has said. The NMBT does, and they should therefore know what their options are.
I think my addition to the view would mainly be that the above scenario is not really how stuff like this takes place. Suppose Employee A has a serious complaint about Employee B. Employee A does not have supervisory responsibilities over B. (If he did, it would be his job to evaluate B and report up the chain, if necessary.)
Employee A almost never comes in and says, "Fire B. Let me know when it's done." A presents specific complaints about B, and it is up to the organization to decide what, if any response the organization should make. If the management sides with A, in many cases they just take whatever action they take and usually do not get back with A about any disciplinary action taken against B.
I know of one system where, in situations where the organization sided with B occurred, a supervisory employee would sit down with A and say, "Ideally, we would prefer that there were no animosities between employees. But at the end of the day, we really don't care, as long as everyone conducts themselves professionally and it doesn't affect the work. But there is something you should know. B is more important to us than you are. So, if it's you or B, it's B." B was never informed about the conversation, but A either adjusted his attitude or left the company.
Of course, if it's a matter that A is reporting sexual harassment, embezzlement, drunkenness on the job, or other scandalous/illegal matters, you can't just decide on the basis of which employee would be more problematic to let go.
Rarely, a case occurs where A comes in, reports the complaints, and says, "It's him or me." Usually, that is a case where A does not have the authority to fire B, but knows that he has the upper hand as the more important employee. In that case, the organization may let B go.
But the overall point is that, if the organization has not already decided to let B go, they need to be very careful about the optics of appearing to stir up trouble if they are seen as encouraging employees to carry tales and undercut their co-workers. And indeed, if they allow A to dictate the firing of B, or even go on a firing spree at A's request, when that is not the normal authority of a guy in A's position, that creates its own can of worms, which may be worse than the original problem.
tl;dr This situation needs to be addressed with a scalpel, not a sledgehammer. It would be best to shield Luka from direct involvement, to the extent possible. (May not be possible.) Does the front office have what it takes to navigate this situation delicately? Possibly.