Finally a GM candidate rumor that I can believe: Trajan Langdon

[sturt]

http://www.yardbarker.com/nba/articles/trajan_langdon_a_candidate_for_hawks_gm_job/s1_127_23974987

Former Duke star Trajan Langdon is emerging as a candidate for the Atlanta Hawks GM job, according to a report.

WSB TV’s Zach Klein reports that the Hawks would like to speak with Langdon, who is an assistant GM for the Brooklyn Nets. Langdon has only been with the Nets’ front office for a year, but he was a scout with the Spurs for a handful of seasons before that.

One thing that could help Langdon’s bid is that he went to Duke, just like Hawks co-owner Grant Hill.

Former Pistons GM Joe Dumars and current Cavs GM David Griffin were initially mentioned as candidates for the job. Chauncey Billups and Brent Barry have also been linked to the position.

It seems that Atlanta will run a wide-ranging search.

 

Degrees in math and history from Duke, so he's no doubt a sharp mind. And he checks all the boxes, having spent some time around the San Antonio family. I think we can even argue that his relative youth would be seen as a plus.

http://web.yesnetwork.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20160308&content_id=166613212&vkey=news_milb

[Guest]

I remember him he was from Alaska right? I don't love him.

[DBac]

I remember Zach Lowe talking about him. Interesting guy.

[sturt]

23 minutes ago, Spud2Nique said:

I remember him he was from Alaska right? I don't love him.

Are you saying he's got a little Alaskan in him... and therefore you don't love him?

(hehe... sorry, couldn't resist)

 

More seriously, I really can see this happening. He wasn't at Cleveland when Wilcox was there, and he wasn't at SA when Bud was there, and he wasn't at Duke when Hill was there, but that all three of those seemingly would have professional friendships with others who know Landon well, and assuming good impressions all around there, then you add to that that Marks in Brooklyn saw him as a strong up-and-comer with exceptional familiarity with Europe (having payed there most of his pro career)...

Like I said, he checks all the external boxes... the big one, though, is the internal box, ie, the degree to which Ressler would feel comfortable with him.

[frosgrim]

He certainly would be a fresh face to the scene. I still worry that this is the Ressler show, and that the GM will be his mouth piece. Hopefully, Ressler will eventually learn owners tend to make very bad GMs. This also has the nasty taste of Gearon's influence. 

This sort of feels like we are watching Jaws II:  Just when you thought it was safe to route for the Hawks again...

 

[sturt]

Pardon the copy and paste, but here's my take on that, @frosgrim...

 

On 5/17/2017 at 9:14 AM, sturt said:

Preface: Five years ago, I would not have said what I'm about to say.

 

KB, you're right, and related to that, I feel like this is why you so desperately need/want a competent owner...

 

Ultimately, you don't want someone who is so hands-off that it shows no palpable interest in winning and/or don't want someone who is so overly trusting so as to suggest the wealth is more attributable to luck than to competence.

 

You also don't want someone who is so meddlesome, though, that he makes the team his toy and primary source of ego gratification, fashioning himself as some great guru of the game.

 

So, if he's a competent person who's made his money by surrounding himself with exceptional sources of information, and based on that, proved himself a wise decision-maker... I not only affirm his right to make final decisions, I actually WANT him to be making the final decisions.

 

But... making the final decisions, having surrounded himself with exceptional sources of information. That's key, in my opinion.

 

That said, maybe just me but I personally think an ideal structure, all other things being equal, is for there to be a negotiator/contracts guy, a manager of the current team, and a scouting master mind. and for major decisions to be made by unanimous vote of those... but if/when they cannot come to agreement, that the owner is invited to weigh-in... and again, that assumes an owner who himself brings a proven track record of making competent decisions in whatever way he's made himself wealthy.

[Thomas]

9 hours ago, sturt said:

Are you saying he's got a little Alaskan in him... and therefore you don't love him?

Believe it was directed more to the fact as a player he was out of the league after three years. Played limited minutes for a Cavs team that averaged about thirty wins a season yet he still managed to wash out though a good and clutch shooting Dukie in college. His pedigree was tarnished.

[Guest]

Meh ...

Doesn't tickle my fancy.  I have no idea why you're so high on him moreso than the Weaver guy, @sturt

The Duke connection is a negative IMHO.

[sturt]

18 minutes ago, kg01 said:

Meh ...

Doesn't tickle my fancy.  I have no idea why you're so high on him moreso than the Weaver guy, @sturt

The Duke connection is a negative IMHO.

It's less that I'm high on any one person in particular because I just have a general inclination to watch myself to not pretend I know things I can't possibly know... and, beyond those who have actually been GMs, I can't possibly know one good candidate from a bad one without knowing more than just the job titles and franchises associated with the name. For all I know, the Weaver guy is top-notch, just being honest.

 

But, rather, all I'm asserting here is that if you're trying to discern who seems most likely to get a job offer, I start from the premise that a person has advantage when he has some roots that are familiar to the persons involved in the hiring process from the company's perspective.

 

So, that's all I'm getting at when I say this is the first one that appears to be a candidate rumor I can take seriously... ie, that he comes into the discussion with some of those common roots to any appreciable degree.

[sturt]

12 minutes ago, Thomas said:

Believe it was directed more to the fact as a player he was out of the league after three years. Played limited minutes for a Cavs team that averaged about thirty wins a season yet he still managed to wash out though a good and clutch shooting Dukie in college. His pedigree was tarnished.

If we're looking for playing pedigree...

I hear that Larry Bird guy is available.

:D

[AHF]

He checks the good old boy boxes.  Has he done anything of note professionally or just had lunch with familiar faces?

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, AHF said:

He checks the good old boy boxes.  Has he done anything of note professionally or just had lunch with familiar faces?

Also checks the glad-handin' and back-slappin' boxes.

[sturt]

16 minutes ago, AHF said:

He checks the good old boy boxes.  Has he done anything of note professionally or just had lunch with familiar faces?

Yes, that's the key question... and yet, unfortunately, not one that I think we'll ever know an answer to unless/until he's hired, when he... or whoever gets the job... will get acclaimed for this, that  and the other. Which is more or less my point in response to kg01 above.

 

 

 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, sturt said:

Pardon the copy and paste, but here's my take on that, @frosgrim...

 

 

That said, maybe just me but I personally think an ideal structure, all other things being equal, is for there to be a negotiator/contracts guy, a manager of the current team, and a scouting master mind. and for major decisions to be made by unanimous vote of those... but if/when they cannot come to agreement, that the owner is invited to weigh-in... and again, that assumes an owner who himself brings a proven track record of making competent decisions in whatever way he's made himself wealthy.

This I agree with @sturt.  As Ressler indicated, the 'toss up' between Bud and Wes regarding the 'To trade or not trade Millsap' never came before him.  They 'worked' it out between them without having to send it to Ressler.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, sturt said:

If we're looking for playing pedigree...

I hear that Larry Bird guy is available.

:D

I'd take Bird before anybody.

[sturt]

51 minutes ago, JayBirdHawk said:

This I agree with @sturt.  As Ressler indicated, the 'toss up' between Bud and Wes regarding the 'To trade or not trade Millsap' never came before him.  They 'worked' it out between them without having to send it to Ressler.

I have to wonder if one or the other was less than satisfied with the ultimate decision... likely Wilcox since as I'd understood it anyway, Bud ultimately had higher authority.

 

And I am inclined to think that, as things turned out, Wilcox' position probably was better validated, and Bud is just man enough to look at things objectively and say, "This was a situation where we really could have used a 3rd person in the mix to help reach a decision, and that the whole thing certainly put me in a precarious and awkward situation being the person who goes to work every day and has to interact with the player."

 

Further, I think there almost certainly were things said in the exit interviews that affirmed that line of thought.

[Guest]

30 minutes ago, Spud2Nique said:

I'd take Bird before anybody.

Thanks 

[sturt]

Heeeeeyyyyyy.... that gives me an idea... maybe we can/should nominate one of our own, and send his/her resume to Ressler with all of our endorsement. What do you think?

[KB21]

8 hours ago, frosgrim said:

He certainly would be a fresh face to the scene. I still worry that this is the Ressler show, and that the GM will be his mouth piece. Hopefully, Ressler will eventually learn owners tend to make very bad GMs. This also has the nasty taste of Gearon's influence. 

This sort of feels like we are watching Jaws II:  Just when you thought it was safe to route for the Hawks again...

 

Of course, there is no evidence that Ressler has acted like the GM.  There is only spin because he sided with Bud over Wilcox when there was an internal disagreement.  Some of you apparently think owners have no say whatsoever in what happens with the team they own.

As an aside, I think Langdon would be my preferred candidate.  

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, KB21 said:

Of course, there is no evidence that Ressler has acted like the GM.  There is only spin because he sided with Bud over Wilcox when there was an internal disagreement.  Some of you apparently think owners have no say whatsoever in what happens with the team they own.

As an aside, I think Langdon would be my preferred candidate.  

That's just it, he didn't side with Bud over Wes since it was never brought before him.

He did say he wasn't a fan of trading Millsap and would have said no though, but this is after the fact. Bearing in mind that Millsap is still a Hawk and a free agent why would Ressler say he would side with Wes during that interview.  Timing is everything.

It would be stupid to say, yeah I would have traded him even if he is not interested in resigning Millsap.