sturt

Missed this on first scan. I'll be brief. To be clear, I've only been commenting on the era since Nicky entered the picture. I believe TS as a rule was much more assertive with Ressler, and/but that ultimately is what led to his being asked to leave.

"Alone?" Nah. I've made that clear twice already but what the hey... The GM has agency. The HC has agency. But the GM especially has reason to be dramatically affected by his perceptions of his direct boss' trust and confidence in him. (And being fair to your point in one respect, yes, the HC probably has too much clout to be nearly as significantly conscious.) It's the GM's responsibility. But the GM is compromised by virtue of how his boss has set up the ecology of the operation--all the aspects we've covered. Given that, we can't really assess the GM as-if we're getting the full understanding of what he'd be capable of if granted a less constrictive, more normal leash. Thus, while you can recognize that the GM has the capacity to make decisions, to fail to recognize his boss' encroachment and his boss' methods is to fail to assign a substantial hunk of accountability to the right person. Of course, that goes both ways... if this team somehow ends up defying all conventional wisdom and establishing a dynasty in the coming seasons, it will serve as evidence that Tony Ressler (or maybe Nicky) was a budding basketball genius, and I've not fully appreciated his smarter way of running things. I'm done. All bases covered as far as I can discern, twice over.

Yes, I did. Glad you admire that. Now that I've admitted that in a court of law where beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard, you'd be right... Your turn now... can you admit what is routinely the standard by which we make judgments in sports conversations generally and on this board specifically... preponderance of the evidence... that the conclusion is stout? Or no? Not sure why that would be so hard. (Well, nah. That's not true. I do know why. But you can't ding me for having granted a benefit of a doubt.) Of course you will. Observation. Dismissiveness isn't ordinarily a theme of your posts in my experience. It is in this thread, though.

Tipping point word #1... "authority." Authority isn't the issue. They have the authority. Read closer. I've straight up said... The question you seemingly don't want to acknowledge, my friend, is the degree to which that authority is influenced by the decision-maker's perception of the plausible consequences of his decision... "do I perceive this builds my boss' confidence or corrodes my boss' confidence?" Thus, the other tipping point word is... "meaningful." You are right and we agree that some decisions do not register as all that salient. But more decisions than probably should, in that ecology, register as salient simply because there is always that consideration right in front of a young GM's face. I'll grant you that. Sure. But are we in a criminal courtroom here or are we in a civil courtroom? "Beyond a reasonable doubt?" Yes. If that's the courtroom where we're debating this... you win, the accused is acquitted and we all can go home, some to celebrate. But "the preponderance of the evidence?" Strongly tilts to the prosecutor's side... the accusations are found to be merited, and no one gets to celebrate... no one wins. (Due respect, sorry to short arm your response if there's more there that you'd have liked me to address, but that's all the time I have right now.)

Nonsense. Absolute nonsense. We... not just me... have Ressler's history. We... not just me... have Ressler's February 2023 come-to-Jesus interview with Schultz. And we... not just me... have the John Collins deal. Some of us... maybe just me but I figure some of this community have been employed long enough to have run into such a thing... also have some practical life experience having served under some top dogs whose organizational management paradigms match up pretty closely with Ressler's tangibly apparent paradigm. No. My answer is more nuanced that "none." But you'd have to read for comprehension instead of scanning to get that, I'd think.

That's slightly overstating it, to my mind, JTB. Assuming "Ressler opens up the wallet" at this point, first, would not be consistent at all with what his actions nor words have ever said he will do. Unless he said something this season that slipped my notice, no one should expect Ressler to open up the wallet until the team is again tangibly on an upwards trajectory. His vision, he's said, is more like "show me we unquestionably have a championship caliber team, and then I'll see what booster rocket I can afford to add to that and put us over the top." (In other words, again, let me make sure I'm seeing reason to expect revenue that will allow for that booster rocket's purchase... and thus, see likelihood of further revenue on the other side of that expense having won a NBA Finals.) But let's say for the sake of argument he does open up the wallet now. I could be wrong, but I get no strong indication that Ressler has outright lied when he's said in answer to the question, "Could Trae Young be on the market this off season?," that those are questions he leaves to his front office to decide. No really, I could be wrong. The man has admitted to outright lying before, and that could have been another lie. But I don't think that's his MO because again he likes to think he's able to successfully hide that he's controlling, and it is important to him to be able say he's not. This may be strange to hear from me, but it shouldn't be... I think Ressler has too much integrity for that. His lie about Schlenk, I feel, was probably partially driven to allow Schlenk some cover, and not be considered in the media as being "fired." Rather, the process is more subtle. It's a kind of Darwin-esque random selection... he's not going to tell Fields what to do, but he is going to challenge Fields (his own verb). By definition, then, that says that Fields is expected to pass things by him, otherwise there would never be any opportunity for challenge in the first place. Right? Right. And how do you think those "challenges" go? Do you think Ressler might challenge some things more sternly than others, according to what he himself would consider the best path? Add to that, do you think that the mole might be giving some nudges on occasion to what he or his dad feel might be best... and that that's interpreted by the GM and others as the smarter way to go, given the source? And that that "smarter way" sometimes is a basketball smarter way and sometimes is a job security, trust-building-with-the-boss smarter way? The other analogy I would use is how I would walk my dog... yes, I let him take the lead, but I'm always there behind him with the leash, and if he turns in some way I don't prefer, he feels that and reacts accordingly.

From the beginning, the perspective here was and is that the "cheap owner" is also the "controlling owner"... worse, the "controlling owner" who designs org charts and promotes org culture around the idea that he can hide that fact. The "newbie FO" is a natural outcome of a controlling owner... ie, one who designs org charts and promotes org culture around the idea that he can hide that fact. The one thing that this owner has consistently done in 4 attempts in 8 years? Not my fault. Not a consequence of some supposed implied personal rage I have against the owner. It's just what happened. Every time. He put into place a newbie GM. Add to that, the one time that he ended up with a newbie GM whose longevity and resume' allowed him to begin to "feel his oats" as the old saying goes (... where did that ever come from?... ) and make more autocratic decisions... that guy wasn't welcome any more, and how do we know that there was a direct correlation between cause and effect?... Schultz asked the right questions, and confession was made after awhile under those lights. The newbie FO is a function of the controlling owner who imagines himself as successfully hiding that from view. And the shaky legs of that GM leading the FO? Conventional wisdom says that the GM is highly conscious of the controlling owner's history. And conscious of his mole. When you go to work every day... that is, once the honeymoon period has subsided, of course... and you feel like you are in a constant fight to maintain your boss' trust... that's gonna have an effect. Yes, again, technically the leader of the FO has agency. But it's like he's been given a rope that he can't help but notice is just long enough to hang himself. He is timid, for reason. He cannot feel decisive, for reason. Every day is a new day to wonder what Nicky is saying about you. For reason. So, my dear old friend AHF can talk all day about my not having the intimate knowledge of the details of this season... all valid... but pardon the observation... that's a deflection... the details are irrelevant to the logic presented. These smaller office dramas are nothing new... I bet I'm not the only one here who can tell stories that resonate with this situation... though the presence of a biological mole makes it especially heinous, of course. I do get it. It's very very hard for a person to engage, let alone accept, and so sometimes the easiest way to cope is to put it all in a box and place it in the attic, away from every day life. I sympathize. And at the same time, it feels important to reassure those on the fence that the grass truly is greener on the side where transparency and authenticity of mind are paramount.

Indeed. I am out of the loop on the details of a specific case. Which is accurate. I am not out of the loop on the logic, based on my experiences. What I just laid out to you cannot be dismissed if the priority is on objectivity and on testing the logic. Argue with that logic, AHF. Or don't, and leave the impression you fear the logic has implications you'd prefer to avoid confronting. "Dislike him so much" is just close enough to accuracy that most here probably will gloss by that statement and accept it. But it is inaccurate at worst and misleading at best. What I dislike is not the man... I dislike what the man has revealed, somewhat unwittingly apparently, about his priorities through word and deed. I dislike the man's priority on his spreadsheet. But. It's his money. He gets to make the call. But. It's my fandom, and I get to make my own call. I am allowed to want him to prioritize winning. And I'd strongly prefer even if he keeps the priority on his spreadsheet, that he be authentic enough to quit the whole #TrueToAtlanta charade... a marketing gimmick to pretend his priority is what it is not. The worst thing about that assertion though is that you suggest that my fandom is on hiatus out of some personal angst... as-if he ran over my dog, or he had an affair with my best friend's wife... no... that's false, and reasonably perhaps it's stated in that way to avoid acknowledging the man's relevant words and behaviors as it pertains to the team's operations and the team's future are the cause of my hiatus. I only blast him for what I am convinced is attributable to him. We're even. Yes. For me that's pretty much everything... why so, sturt?... well, AHF, I just explained why so but you felt the better way to engage was no engagement at all... just dismiss the logic presented, and maybe that's enough to make it all go away. I'm talking real life, here, my friend. This isn't some federal government bureaucracy. This is a relatively small number of people in a relatively few number of offices within a relatively confined space. Worse, you know and I know (I would hope) how these things go even without the top dog's kid involved in every meeting of significance. With that mole right there, though, with no way to even pretend it has no effect?!? C'mon, man. Don't be so defensive. It's glaring because it's not what I would expect coming from you. They have agency, yes. What they do not have is agency without undo and highly compelling influence (... but you knew all that if you already read the post above). Oh. Look. Jay liked your post. How bout that... hehe... who knew. Well, she's to be excused... it must be hell for her to think she's written things that I agree with... .

Again again... going back to Jay's original point... the direction of the team is going to have effect on the product put on the floor. Desire to win versus desire to develop players is a fundamental point in dictating direction, and then, will have ultimate effect in some ways on what decisions are made about who plays. Ressler cares about it all. Most of us, I think, had accepted that as fact. And. That'd been considered a good thing. A passionate owner, involved with his team, dissatisfied with losing. Until it wasn't a good thing anymore. APR will weigh into whatever decision the underlings seem to leave room for him to weigh into, and even if they don't, he has a pipeline from his suite on Mt. Sinai through which he is able to convey his preferences. To your comment, the top dog does not have to dictate explicitly how many minutes he believes DJM should play in order to have his desired effect as your comment seems to suggest... rather, he merely has to let it be known that he expects the team to make the playoffs, and that he feels there should be every possible effort made to get there... and it should surprise no one in that event to see DJM play "dangerously large minutes." "Well, sure, but how then do you explain a rotation player being left off the playoff roster, then?" First, I could be mistaken (???), but it had been my understanding that you can re-set your roster from series to series. Soooo... I can't say, but I can... admittedly ignorantly because I'm out of the loop... suggest. 1. Is it known that the player was healthy is my first thought. 2. If the player was healthy, is there some reason one would think the head coach felt the two other teams the #10 seed might possibly face in the Play-In were more strategically well-suited to face the Hawks with Vit than with the alternative? 3. Failing either of those, is it conceivable there could have been some other disciplinary issue that no one had incentive to make public? It's a worthy inquiry to make... I'm just confident that Tony let it be known in verbals and probably non-verbals as well how he hoped to see the season end, and that Landry and Quin both would know what had been expressed.

Based on what Ressler revealed to Schultz over a year ago now, an easy conclusion is that Ressler began to feel that Schlenk had become increasingly autocratic in his decision-making... and for an owner like Ressler, he's not gonna like that. And later, when the owner is feeling compelled to explain himself following reports of his mole son having significant influence, naturally he's going to talk all about Schlenk having been allergic to underlings' perspectives... perspectives that the helicopter owner/dad sometimes endorsed over his GMs... which, in turn, angered him to varying degrees. Fields is in a place, then, where he cannot not be in a constant day-to-day state of measuring how much his boss continues to trust him, among the youngest GMs in the league (if not still "the" youngest?). His player experience and his apparent intelligence (Stanford product) are positives that no doubt helped him ascend the ladder as quickly as he did. LF's youth and limited executive experience likely were just as appealing... ie, positives to an owner who desires strong but covert influence. Where Schlenk could always claim to be the most legitimated expert in any Hawks meeting room having to do with personnel, there's no such irrefutable authoritative voice there now... and for a meddling owner whose priority is black ink... cue KC and the Sunshine Band...

So. You believe Tony Ressler is that hands-off? I don't think you do. We've talked a lot about this. Really, you don't think that Landry Fields spends a lot of his time trying to decipher what's going to please or displease his boss, and keep himself from being the next in the series of GMs that Ressler gives up on, claiming frustration b/c of reason X, Y or Z? You don't think that when Nicky says something in a meeting that it's not taken as-if Moses relaying what he heard on Mount Sinai... and thus, words of wisdom for the "decision makers," quote/unquote? The dysfunction, my friend, is innate in the way that the owner has set up the org chart and culture. I've experienced this kind of situation more than once (unfortunately). You cannot not have dysfunction. Because it's designed that way because the top dog has his/her priorities. It's arguably even a little worse than when you have explicit and transparent owner meddling, because in addition to the owner's meddling, you add this layer where there's a perceived need to hide the open secret.

@AHF, I understand, but that's not as congruent with the above original comment you complimented as is my assertion. And yes, the sh!t flows downhill. It cannot be a surprise when, given the fundamental goal of the big kahuna is a healthy spreadsheet, that you have trickle-down effect on month to month, week to week, day to day goals.

Answering my own questions... A (APR reinvent himself?) = 1 8 years is a long time to get to know someone in sports years. And as people get older, in general, they tend to be so much less interested in self-assessment and to make dramatic changes. It's something close to 1%, imo. B (LF somehow drafts or acquires a Godsend talent?) = 1 if we're just looking at this off-season... but with time, and thus more opportunity, I'd say that grows by maybe 1-2% every year for maybe 5 years, until cresting and then declining because it becomes less likely he has a GM job at all. Even where I grew up, they taught me that 1 + 1 = 2.

Yes, he did have to go... Although we didn't know it at the time last June, the status of that Schroedinger's cat was that our owner fit the latter of the two options... That's why he had to go.

You had a player who seemed overpaid by almost anyone's analysis, and who, by keeping him and extending DJM, would have forced the owner to pay some tax (... as I recall... I haven't looked at it since last summer so feel free to double-check my memory, but I think that's correct). You had a player coming off a hand injury that at first had seemed to have had career-altering implications. You also had a player whose shooting stats began to trend significantly better after the 2022-23 ASG break, making it altogether plausible that that trend might continue (... and it did... his TS% and EFG% both rebounded from career lows to practically the same as his career averages in those stats, and he went from posting 29.2% in 3P% last season to his 3rd best, 37.1%) You also had a player going into his late 20s--generally considered the prime years of any given legit NBA player's career. You also had a player who was widely considered the team's most consistent good attitude and voice of positivity. You also had a player who the new head coach had seemed to go out of his way at times last season in post-game interviews to recognize for his key plays at key times... iow, not at all someone the head coach would have seemed to have preferred to see cut from his cache of weapons. You also had a player who seemed to be asked to do two different things by two different head coaches in 2022-23 You also had a player at a position where the 2023-24 team's depth chart last off-season was already looking to be thinner than anywhere else on the court, and thus, it would be really important to replace him to some degree if you really believed in this team's taking a step forward in 2023-24 over the previous season. (Which didn't happen, of course.) Teams that are prepared for hamster status (aka, Owner's ATM status)... they get rid of players like John Collins. They are willing to take two steps backward on the court, if it means one step forward on the spreadsheet. Teams that are trying to really and truly and God-honestly compete and put themselves in a better position for success come playoff time... they don't do that. They are willing to take two steps backward on the spreadsheet, if it means one step forward on the court. That's the jumping off point to this second conclusion............... As we ended the 2022-23 season, looking at how that roster played the conference's best team in those 6 playoff games... this team's best chance to take one step forward on the court was plausibly to mature in terms of running the new widely-respected head coach's offense and defense, and in that same vein, to mature in terms of chemistry, to see some of the youth mature in their capacity to affect games, Jalen chief among them to enjoy as-good-or-better health, and in that same vein, to avoid losing any of the talent inventory you'd enjoyed for 22-23. (Not as important but icing on that cake, if somehow the owner would spring for another solid candidate for playing time or if the GM could luck out with a rookie contributor out of the draft.) This franchise will someday get to an NBA Final, and someday will win an NBA Final. There are only two reasons why that would happen during the Tony Ressler era if it ever happens. Either, (a) a lead owner very different from the one we've come to know these 8 years emerges. Or, (b) Landry (or his successor) will prove to have obtained a future Hall of Famer whose impact on the team will be of Larry Bird/Magic Johnson/Michael Jordan proportions. What percent do you put the likelihood of "a" at? What percent do you put the likelihood of "b" at? Add those two numbers. That exercise will make some feel better, having at least quantified now their reason for expectations and hope on the horizon. To the rest, fwiw, maybe nothing... I'd just encourage you to consider the kids on your street or otherwise somewhere within your orbit who could really use an adult of your stature and character in their lives to make a difference. Plug in through B&G Clubs, or the Y, or Scouts, or your church's youth group or whatever. Or if kids aren't your thing, what else are you passionate about that could make the world a slightly better place someway somehow. Reallocate your time and attention, as well as money, to those kinds of things that tend to make a person feel fulfilled.

By "Hawks," you mean "owner?" There's an epicenter to it all, no?

Propose that there is, at least, plausibility that your GM is capable and the jury is just waiting (as it is for most other teams whose GMs have had no high level success) of that evidence to emerge over time. But your GM's capabilities are so much harder to ascertain when he is handicapped by an owner who designed the FO room so that he constantly has a mole present to monitor the work... and yes, handicapped by an owner whose priority is profitability over on court success.

Yes. Maybe it bothers you, RE, but we agree. So, effectively then, the most fundamental question is not CAN the owner change how he chooses to operate his business, it's rather WILL he... and with that, then, from a fan's point of view, what conclusion does the preponderance of the evidence point to, after 8 years? There's no question, after all that the team can become good again. The question is, "What happens then?"

.

While I remain uncertain why anyone regards Glen Willis as holding any more compelling opinion than Joe or Jane Hawksquawker... assuming anyone does, since I'm sincerely unaware either way, having not done the poll... This can't be all that satisfying, can it? So, yay... they made the obvious trade for Bey, thanks Golden State for that phone call... and... now comes that "hard work" of figuring out how you're going to capitalize on that trade or let it go to waste... And? What? I'm aware of nothing they did with the Collins TPE. And. Drafted a player in the middle of the pack who, like most players drafted in that range, might have a ceiling as a rotation player. And. I don't know. What? What's so impressive that Glen seems to suggest there's reason for enthusiasm since Feb 2023... dunno.

She's not wrong. And I know Jay cringes every time she discovers she and I agree, but this is pretty much what my attitude was last off-season. You're going to come to this place in the road in the journey sometime after you left Tankville... what are you going to do once you get there? So. Still. Brutal truth that no one wants to talk about... we know what Ressler is going to do once you get there... So what's the point? Hawks fans' options are as follows: (a) hiatus... not acceptable to anyone here except muah, as far as I would know... (b) collect rabbits feet, or otherwise do whatever it is you do to appeal to the random Luck gods to smile on your team... or (c) learn to enjoy hamster life. Or, yeah, (d), tank... and postpone circling back to this same place in a few years, prepared to do b and/or c again. That's it. Those are your options. Choose whichever gives you greatest satisfaction.

To which Antony Peter, I'm told from well-placed sources (ie, pretty much, his own mouth, speaking to Schultz last year), would respond... "But you don't get it. Everyone in the office loves Nicky... just ask them. They'll back me up. "Schlenk was just too controlling. He didn't play well with others. "And coaches? Huh? "Didn't I get rid of LP when you said I should get rid of LP? "Didn't I get rid of Nate when you said I should get rid of Nate? "What do you want from me?!? How is any of this my fault?!?"

While I could quibble with the words "cut and run"... one doesn't have to run, only cut, and going on hiatus (or sabbatical or whatever term one prefers) can be the most appealing option when rationality and emotional peace are held as paramount... I'm left curious how sentence A presents "reason" to "not"... and that, not to seek an argument, rather just trying to listen and gain understanding... particularly in light of the next words... So... yeah. Again. To what end? Who's kidding whom?

Yep. And. Still...

I do not disagree with this. But I would have disagreed with it, AHF, if you'd have chosen to use the words "championship caliber" instead of "good." For example, SAS will be championship caliber sooner than ATL will be, imo... but ATL might conceivably be good sooner than will SAS. If I were to embrace Soth's assertion, I would point to OKC's pending plausible championship run as the obvious model to pursue. (Now, I say that ignorantly because I don't have any real knowledge of what OKC seems capable of doing--I'm only looking at the standings and seeing they broke through this season.) But OKC has had a GM who is generally well-regarded in league circles, and an ownership group that has similarly been enthusiastic in words, but about to prove whether or not they're up to taking the next step, ie, in deeds. What does ATL have. I don't even bother putting a question mark on that, as-if to ask. It's a statement.