Given the changes in the music industry, Hal Blaine’s streak of playing on SIX CONSECUTIVE Record of the Year Grammy winners from 1966-71 will never come close to being broken.
Some real bangers in that elevator music mix
www.mlive.com
I guess I’m having a failure of imagination here. Seems like he was pissed at not getting a salary bump when OA (and maybe GA?) did so how is it not better to just cut ties? If someone is angry/indignant enough to think not working for a year with pay is justified, how does that make sense? They’re not really on your side anymore and will likely undermine you when it’s time to move on. If he was going back to his private enterprise then I guess having a connection is valuable (debatable) but if the plan was always to go elsewhere, this just doesn’t make sense to me.
I think you are oversimplifying this a ton. I am not an insider at all, but It seems like this was a mutual decision to cut ties in the way it happened (so that we could still "promote" another assistant last season). Insiders have pointed to a breakdown internally (various reasons I am not privy to), but it makes no sense to air out this dirty laundry in public. Unless there was a "for cause" termination, the Illini were still going to have to pay his salary/buyout anyway for the season (not like Brad was going to want a disgruntled assistant working the whole season). This was likely the best way of handling the situation, even though this was far from optimal (unfortunately became sunk costs).
The guy had a contract. You can't just decide you want to "cut ties." And the timing was such that he couldn't just jump into another AC job. So you're on the hook for his salary. You can fire him and invite a potential lawsuit. You can retain him and hope he's not a toxic presence. Or you can do what they did and come to a compromise.
If he decides he’s not going to coach and honor his side of the contract that’s with cause. We really could have used him last year.
If he’s so disgruntled that he acts insubordinate that’s also with cause. But fair enough, if the calculus was that it was going to do more damage than good for the program overall I think I understand now. I just have no respect at all for TA if that’s the energy he was giving off and was unwilling to honor his side of the contract. It really sounded at the time that we were wanting to give him an increase and we just needed another year to get there.
I know nothing, but I assume his relationship with a certain power forward was part of the reason they all decided to play nice in the public eye throughout the season.
and didn't that pay off well in the end...
Making him honor his contract was option 2. I don't think it was a good option. It would have negatively impacted the team. And no, being a grumpy, negative presence is generally not grounds for a firing for cause.
If you read my other post I agree it sounds like that’s where the school was at but I never suggested anything as dumb as firing someone for being grumpy.
nypost.com
Think there could be some movement coming shortly.
