ADVERTISEMENT

St. John’s, ex-coach Mike Anderson settle financial dispute after firing


By Zach Braziller

St. John’s and former coach Mike Anderson have come to an agreement to settle their financial dispute, according to a statement released by both sides.

“The parties have amicably resolved their dispute,” the statement read. “They wish each other nothing but the best in their future endeavors.”

Anderson was fired after four seasons without an NCAA Tournament bid in March of 2023, and replaced by Rick Pitino.

The school initially terminated him “with cause,” which would have allowed it not to pay him the money left on his contract.

St. John’s said in Anderson’s termination letter that the then-63-year-old failed “to create and support an environment that strongly encourages student-athletes who are in the men’s basketball program to meet all university academic requirements.”

The school also said it was firing Anderson for “failure to perform your duties and responsibilities in a manner that reflected positively on St. John’s University … in actions [that] brought serious discredit” to the university, along with a “failure to appropriately supervise and communicate with your assistant coaches.”

Anderson’s attorney, John Singer of Singer Deutsch, filed a “notice of arbitration” seeking the $11.4 million remaining on his contract, plus $34.2 million in “punitive” damages.

Anderson claimed in the suit that St. John’s was already having serious talks with Pitino when he was fired.

But now both parties have come to an agreement and have decided to move on.

The exact financial details are unknown at the moment.

Singer declined any further comment when reached by The Post.

Asked if Anderson received the $11.4 million he was owed by St. John’s, Singer said the agreement was confidential.

Sandro postgame

Jeremy Sochan has a fractured thumb and will be out indefinitely. He is scheduled for surgery later this week. That will give Sandro the opportunity for rotation minutes.

Despite the nice stat line, his minus-12 sticks out like a sore thumb. The Spurs lost ground (in a game that was never really close) during both of his stints in the game. That's certainly not all his fault but it's something the coaching staff will use in its evaluation of his performance.
Did you see the game? Was he exploited on defense?

Sandro postgame

Another good line for Mamu tonight.

MINFG3PTFTOREBDREBREBASTSTLBLKTOPF+/-PTS
154-52-30-034710220-1210

Good numbers for Mamu last night especially his 7 rebounds leading the team in his 15 minutes .
Jeremy Sochan has a fractured thumb and will be out indefinitely. He is scheduled for surgery later this week. That will give Sandro the opportunity for rotation minutes.

Despite the nice stat line, his minus-12 sticks out like a sore thumb. The Spurs lost ground (in a game that was never really close) during both of his stints in the game. That's certainly not all his fault but it's something the coaching staff will use in its evaluation of his performance.
  • Like
Reactions: chickenbox

So no one here has voted for or is going to vote for the treasonous coup-attempting felon rapist guy, right?

I think it's because Democrats voters weren't particularly motivated to vote for Harris. Biden was popular among Democrats from his time as Obama's VP so there were a lot of people who actually wanted him to be president instead of just "not Trump." Those people weren't nearly as excited about Harris so a lot of them just didn't vote.

Effectively Biden got 2 groups of voters - the pro-Biden crowd and the anti-Trump crowd. Harris failed to convince the pro-Biden crowd so she only won the anti-Trump vote.
What did the Obama voter do?

So no one here has voted for or is going to vote for the treasonous coup-attempting felon rapist guy, right?

Wes Moore should be the face of the democrats moving forward with a Very moderate VP pick. Would need to be an experienced DC senator/congressman similar to the profile of a Joe Manchin (if the is exists moving forward- obviously not Joe as he’s retired)

Outside of that with a successful Trump term- Mayor Pete or Newsome won’t move the needle against a Vance/Desantis lineup
I feel a shapiro or beshear would

So no one here has voted for or is going to vote for the treasonous coup-attempting felon rapist guy, right?

I think the short answer is from paid the price for the pandemic in 2020. If that never happened, he would’ve won a second term
It is not that a pandemic happened it is that he handled it with no empathy. How he handled it dissuaded fickle voters. I actually agree he most likely would have been elected again and had he handled it kinder he would have.

So no one here has voted for or is going to vote for the treasonous coup-attempting felon rapist guy, right?

Maybe DEI, but I tend to think they overestimated the country's dislike of Trump and thought they'd be able to sneak in a more liberal candidate than they would've otherwise gone for. For example in 16 and 20 they knew Bernie was too liberal to win. They got greedy this time. And it didn't help that even many of their own party weren't thrilled with the later half of the Biden/Harris administration so she wasn't overwhelmingly popular either.
VP candidates typically don’t matter, and in 2020 the optics of Harris probably helped a bit. IF he followed through on his promise to be a transitional President then Harris never would have made it through a primary…problem solved. The minute he decided to run the second term the risk became a potential reality. They were boxed in after his dementia meltdown and were left with a replacement that was unqualified.

So no one here has voted for or is going to vote for the treasonous coup-attempting felon rapist guy, right?

Wes Moore should be the face of the democrats moving forward with a Very moderate VP pick. Would need to be an experienced DC senator/congressman similar to the profile of a Joe Manchin (if the is exists moving forward- obviously not Joe as he’s retired)

Outside of that with a successful Trump term- Mayor Pete or Newsome won’t move the needle against a Vance/Desantis lineup

So no one here has voted for or is going to vote for the treasonous coup-attempting felon rapist guy, right?

I think it's because Democrats voters weren't particularly motivated to vote for Harris. Biden was popular among Democrats from his time as Obama's VP so there were a lot of people who actually wanted him to be president instead of just "not Trump." Those people weren't nearly as excited about Harris so a lot of them just didn't vote.

Effectively Biden got 2 groups of voters - the pro-Biden crowd and the anti-Trump crowd. Harris failed to convince the pro-Biden crowd so she only won the anti-Trump vote.
Oh, and I missed one piece. They picked a candidate that was too liberal for independents and Republicans who dislike Trump to vote for. A more centrist Democrat would've had a very good chance to win, IMO.
  • Like
Reactions: batts

So no one here has voted for or is going to vote for the treasonous coup-attempting felon rapist guy, right?

Harris was a horrible VP choice so the thought that she would be anything but the same as a Presidential candidate is laughable. The MSM gave her a wide open runway and did their best to get her launched (and she had record money to spend). A DEI candidate…period.
Maybe DEI, but I tend to think they overestimated the country's dislike of Trump and thought they'd be able to sneak in a more liberal candidate than they would've otherwise gone for. For example in 16 and 20 they knew Bernie was too liberal to win. They got greedy this time. And it didn't help that even many of their own party weren't thrilled with the later half of the Biden/Harris administration so she wasn't overwhelmingly popular either.

So no one here has voted for or is going to vote for the treasonous coup-attempting felon rapist guy, right?

I find it just sad we lost 10 million voters no matter who they would have voted for.
I don't disagree, but I also get it. Even personally, it was very easy to look at the 2 options (let's be realistic, there's only 2) and think neither of these clowns deserve my vote. I kept joking that I'd rather write in Gritty than vote for either of them and what would my 1 vote matter if I really did - until 10 million more people think similarly.

So no one here has voted for or is going to vote for the treasonous coup-attempting felon rapist guy, right?

Yes but I think the context varied a bit. In 2016 I think the Hillary campaign was just arrogant and didn't consider Trump a legitimate threat until it was clear on election night that she wasn't going to win. In 2020 the country was in turmoil from covid, democrats were deeply unhappy with Trump and his covid response in particular, and Biden was very popular from his time as Obama's VP. In 2024, they just assumed that continued dissatisfaction with Trump would be enough. I think there were some democrats that would've had a chance to beat him, but Harris was never realistically going to be one of them.
Harris was a horrible VP choice so the thought that she would be anything but the same as a Presidential candidate is laughable. The MSM gave her a wide open runway and did their best to get her launched (and she had record money to spend). A DEI candidate…period.
  • Like
Reactions: shu09 and SPK145

So no one here has voted for or is going to vote for the treasonous coup-attempting felon rapist guy, right?

Which essentially was the same playbook for Dems in 2016, 2020 and 2024. Agree that HRC and Harris were terrible candidates. Biden was mediocre. Either get better candidates or have a better strategy.
Yes but I think the context varied a bit. In 2016 I think the Hillary campaign was just arrogant and didn't consider Trump a legitimate threat until it was clear on election night that she wasn't going to win. In 2020 the country was in turmoil from covid, democrats were deeply unhappy with Trump and his covid response in particular, and Biden was very popular from his time as Obama's VP. In 2024, they just assumed that continued dissatisfaction with Trump would be enough. I think there were some democrats that would've had a chance to beat him, but Harris was never realistically going to be one of them.

So no one here has voted for or is going to vote for the treasonous coup-attempting felon rapist guy, right?

I think it's because Democrats voters weren't particularly motivated to vote for Harris. Biden was popular among Democrats from his time as Obama's VP so there were a lot of people who actually wanted him to be president instead of just "not Trump." Those people weren't nearly as excited about Harris so a lot of them just didn't vote.

Effectively Biden got 2 groups of voters - the pro-Biden crowd and the anti-Trump crowd. Harris failed to convince the pro-Biden crowd so she only won the anti-Trump vote.
I find it just sad we lost 10 million voters no matter who they would have voted for.

So no one here has voted for or is going to vote for the treasonous coup-attempting felon rapist guy, right?

What I want to know more than anything is how that when it's all said and done the democrats will probably end up losing 10 million votes from 2020 to 2024. Trump's total numbers are virtually the same as 2020. Democratic votes that showed up in 2020 just didn't show up in 2024. Why? Trump will tell us because they rigged it in 2020, but what's the real answer?
I think it's because Democrats voters weren't particularly motivated to vote for Harris. Biden was popular among Democrats from his time as Obama's VP so there were a lot of people who actually wanted him to be president instead of just "not Trump." Those people weren't nearly as excited about Harris so a lot of them just didn't vote.

Effectively Biden got 2 groups of voters - the pro-Biden crowd and the anti-Trump crowd. Harris failed to convince the pro-Biden crowd so she only won the anti-Trump vote.
  • Like
Reactions: SPK145 and batts

Nova in trouble

There is mention of the transfer issue with Nova and how it isn’t different from other programs, but I think it is different.

They have the coffers to pay for kids they want to keep. And I can see donors paying to retain kids for 3 years if they create a winning program again with a coach that’s successful and wants to stay. Similar to how Creighton retains their players and how McDermott has turned down other gigs to stay in Omaha.

There are still a number of schools that can’t retain players. Cough, cough like Seton Hall.
  • Like
Reactions: Piratz
ADVERTISEMENT

Filter

ADVERTISEMENT