Would the franchise be better served if Schlenk just goes ahead and hires his own guy to coach?

[hazer]

Lots of IFs and assumptions and reaching going on here . The girl accepted the invitation to go out on a date. Go out on the date and don't sit here destroying it before it even happens paranoid about all the things that could go wrong. " If ifs and buts were candies and nuts we'd all have a merry Christmas". Here's a great scene from a great movie, kind of hits the nail on the head with what's happening here. Pardon the sappy crap toward the end, I'm sure I'll get roasted for it. Meh, anyway:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vza5Io4AKf8

 

 

Edited June 5, 2017 by hazer

[sturt]

12 minutes ago, hazer said:

I keep saying them because they ARE relevant. You keep saying the same things over and over as well...

 

 

I didn't just say they're irrelevant. I went on to explain why/how they're irrelevant.

Counterpoint something in the explanations given, and it gives us a chance to advance the discussion.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, macdaddy said:

All I know is we should hope that Bud and the Colonel form a dynamic duo.   Bud is really a great coach and I firmly believe that if we were unfortunate enough to lose him he wouldn't be out of work long.   This is a well run team.   

I think if we stupidly jettisoned Budz, there'd be multiple teams firing their coaches for a chance to bring him in.

For all the drek we've had "coaching" the Hawks in the past, you'd think folks here would appreciate what we have.  I get it, he has his warts.  Heyul, there's no coach who doesn't.  Give me his warts over just about every other guy out there.

What?  You want ol' over-bearing Stan Van Gundy or ol' shocked-face lookin' Ty Lue out there?  You want ol' over-rated arse Glenn Rivers who never won anything with Garnett controlling his lockerroom for him?

I mean, what?    I beseech you!  Who's available who's better than Budz?

[sturt]

8 minutes ago, macdaddy said:

All I know is we should hope that Bud and the Colonel form a dynamic duo.   Bud is really a great coach and I firmly believe that if we were unfortunate enough to lose him he wouldn't be out of work long.   This is a well run team.   

All in on that.

Hate to see us go backwards. If we can somehow eliminate that from happening, I think a whole other picture begins to develop that we'll all feel good about.

[hazer]

1 minute ago, sturt said:

I didn't just say they're irrelevant. I went on to explain why/how they're irrelevant.

Counterpoint something in the explanations given, and it gives us a chance to advance the discussion.

And I'd already previously explained how they ARE relevant. It's painfully obvious there's no advancing this discussion. I'm out ;)

[sturt]

So, you're saying you counterpointed my "why/how" counterpoints before I even thought to write my why/how counterpoints?

 

Damn. You're good. ;)

[AHF]

3 hours ago, sturt said:

And I think that is silly. We know things change over the course of a year. We know it. It's the nature of human experience and existence. And we know that people routinely act out of self-interest. And we know... historically know... that new GMs have given their retained coaches votes of confidence, only to decide a change was necessary at that point that the began to feel things slipping instead of advancing. And then.... then.... beyond all of that... how much more things can change IN THE ENVIRONMENT where we have solid reason to believe that there are Issues (your words)... either by virtue of issues held by the coach or the owner or both.

I've also said over and over again... and over again... that I'm not advocating that's what he will do, and certainly not that he should do... RATHER... please get this, if you didn't already... I'm wondering aloud in this post/thread, IF we might see all of that go down next summer, then IF we might regret that Schlenk didn't just go ahead and find another coach he felt good about.

THEN... to be clear... forgive me if I missed someone but I don't believe anyone actually got past the premise in order to address that actual question... I've answered my own question, in essence, saying we might initially regret it if that happened, but the reality is, we really needed to see IF these guys could work through it and be successful... worth the risk because of how some of us value Bud's ability to coach (notably, though, not @Dolfan23 it seems).

 

I thought the question is whether the franchise would be better served if Schlenk were to go ahead and fire Bud.

If you assume the milk goes sour between them, then of course we can regret Schlenk not bringing in his own guy from the beginning as stuff heads south.  BUT it is an unknown whether things will go south.  Simply because we have seen new GMs fire holdover coaches in the past does not mean that it will happen next offseason.  When you have a good coach like Bud whose approach to the game meshes with the new GM, as long as the new GM likes the coach and the owner still supports the coach (as a coach) then I see zero reason to push Bud out the door before we know whether everything goes bad or whether it goes just fine.  

It has worked out just fine in the past.  The Steelers won championships after new GM d*ck Haley decided to keep coach Chuck Noll and new GM Kevin Colbert kept coach Bill Cower.  Both of those coaches also won COY awards after being kept.  

When you have a good coach, you play it out rather than assuming failure and cutting the cord.  Think we are on the same page on this one.  Unless Schlenk or Ressler is ready to quit on Bud, they need to keep him and try this out.

[RandomFan]

And then we get the video of Schlenk saying he's extremely fortunate to have a great coach in place already, he doesn't have to go try and solve that, we've got that here already. That should put the kibosh on this discussion...

Starting around the 55 second mark:

 

[Lurker]

AJC would be delighted if this was the case. It'd mean to them that their beloved Howard would get to be a first option offensively.

[hazer]

57 minutes ago, RandomFan said:

And then we get the video of Schlenk saying he's extremely fortunate to have a great coach in place already, he doesn't have to go try and solve that, we've got that here already. That should put the kibosh on this discussion...

Starting around the 55 second mark:

 

"Aaand they PULL me back in!" I already pointed that out to Sturt at least twice. You're wasting your time...

Edited June 5, 2017 by hazer

[hazer]

40 minutes ago, Lurker said:

AJC would be delighted if this was the case. It'd mean to them that their beloved Howard would get to be a first option offensively.

Hahaaaaaaaaaa, OMG! I had been thinking to myself "Now there's no way, no WAY, @Lurker will be able to pivot to Dwight on this topic." I stand corrected. Well played, Lurk. Well played.....

[sturt]

3 hours ago, AHF said:

I thought the question is whether the franchise would be better served if Schlenk were to go ahead and fire Bud.

If you assume the milk goes sour between them, then of course we can regret Schlenk not bringing in his own guy from the beginning as stuff heads south.  BUT it is an unknown whether things will go south.  Simply because we have seen new GMs fire holdover coaches in the past does not mean that it will happen next offseason.  When you have a good coach like Bud whose approach to the game meshes with the new GM, as long as the new GM likes the coach and the owner still supports the coach (as a coach) then I see zero reason to push Bud out the door before we know whether everything goes bad or whether it goes just fine.  

It has worked out just fine in the past.  The Steelers won championships after new GM d*ck Haley decided to keep coach Chuck Noll and new GM Kevin Colbert kept coach Bill Cower.  Both of those coaches also won COY awards after being kept.  

When you have a good coach, you play it out rather than assuming failure and cutting the cord.  Think we are on the same page on this one.  Unless Schlenk or Ressler is ready to quit on Bud, they need to keep him and try this out.

Yeah, as I re-read my first few posts at the start (see below), I admittedly might've been a little confusing, As they poured out of my brain, I felt they all said the same thing, but I now can see where there is some nuance between them. So, sorry  if I confounded things.

And indeed, I agree with all of you've said here.

On 6/2/2017 at 5:30 PM, sturt said:

Should Schlenk just save himself and Bud and all of us fans some unnecessary time going down that road, and just seek a buy-out of whatever contract Bud has left?

I'm asking, not advocating. 24 hours ago, it wasn't even a reasonable question to put out there, but now it seems it most certainly is.

 

On 6/3/2017 at 11:42 AM, sturt said:

Presume that this team doesn't even do next season what they did this season. First, is that such a grandiose assumption? And second, just your first inclination... in that ecology, won't the new-ish GM feel altogether compelled to make a switch at that point in 2018 instead of waiting?

That's all I'm getting at... it's one of those where I hate what I think I see at the other end of the railroad tracks, but if I see what I think I see, it seems wiser to opt to switch tracks now, as jolting as it might be, and avoid the trainwreck and the start-over on the other end of this thing.

Key phrase, "if I see what I think I see." Not 100% sure. Not even 51% sure, really. But it's just cloudy/clear enough that it merits a conversation.

On 6/4/2017 at 0:58 PM, sturt said:

Answering my own question... the real one, that is, as opposed to how the question seems to have been misinterpreted in a variety of ways...

Yes, we might be able to look back on June 2017 and say, "would have been a year ahead if Schlenk had just went ahead and made a clean break, and hired his own guy, minus the baggage of supervising the guy who used to supervise the GM and who now has seen a disappointing 2017-18."

 

 

 

 

[sturt]

To the kibosh comment, @RandomFan and @hazer, I'd already put the kibosh on the notion that there is ANY concern--explicit or implicit--that Schlenk is anything but committed to Bud today in 2017.

Once...

Twice...

 

Thrice...

 

Fourthly...

 

Fifthly...

 

Sixthly...

 

Seventhly...

 

And, eighthly...

 

 

Just was never a premise of the line of reasoning presented, but to the contrary, the very opposite was asserted time and time and time again.

If you thought it was, perhaps I just suck at conveying my thoughts with very much precision and clarity. Or, if not that, then I guess it's been something else causing the miscommunication.

[AHF]

I think you raising the specter of Schlenk souring on Bud over and over and asking people to presume that #$#* would hit the fan next offseason for the sake of argument while arguing that Bud's absence at the press conference could be a sign of strained relationships had people reading your posts as if you thought there was some reason for things to go sideways.  When you start with the premise that season will be crap and how will Schlenk feel about the team then, it seems like you are suggesting that this is likely to play out.  Otherwise, why assume the Hawks will underachieve and piss people off when Bud has a record of overachieving relative to the talent on the roster?

Either way, I think there is more common ground here at this stage in the thread than the back and forth would suggest.

[KB21]

The way I see this is that Bud is a big reason Travis took his job.  He doesn't have to go searching in a weak pool of coaches for a head coach.  I also think the timing of the press conference was to make it about Travis and not Bud.  If Bud is there, the media would have focused oh him rather than Travis.  

[sturt]

22 minutes ago, AHF said:

I think you raising the specter of Schlenk souring on Bud over and over and asking people to presume that #$#* would hit the fan next offseason for the sake of argument while arguing that Bud's absence at the press conference could be a sign of strained relationships had people reading your posts as if you thought there was some reason for things to go sideways.

Um.

1. Is it at least plausible, if not likely, that the 2017-18 team will disappoint even beyond what this season's team did?

If you say, "yes," we agree.

2. Is it at least plausible, if not likely, that Bud--now in a not-so-central role and not asked to serve on the interview committee--at this point has some raw feelings about what's transpired?

If you say "yes," we agree.

3. Is it at least plausible, if not likely, that the decision to purposely schedule the presser so that Bud wouldn't have to answer any questions is a either a symptom of those raw feelings and, so, scheduled at such a time at Bud's own request... or, alternatively, a symptom of Ressler wanting to optically assert that Bud is no longer central to the team's decision-making structure... or, alternatively a symptom of Ressler feeling antsy about exactly what Bud might say or how he might say it or how the non-verbals would translate... or, a little bit of some or all?

If you say, "yes," we agree.

There absolutely is reason to believe things could go sideways, in my opinion.

But.

In the end, Bud is too good of a coach not to see if it will work out anyhow.

The take-home to me is, I'm all the more anxious to see if we can kill #1 by simply somehow improving on 2017-18.

 

[sturt]

41 minutes ago, KB21 said:

I also think the timing of the press conference was to make it about Travis and not Bud.  If Bud is there, the media would have focused oh him rather than Travis.  

Hold up.

To that, I say, bring it on media.... assuming, that is... that Bud is nothing but positive about Schlenk and what's evolved with the Hawks.

To the contrary, IF Bud's positive, then imagine having him sitting there responding positively... it TAKES AWAY PRACTICALLY COMPLETELY any conjecture about his current attitude, and that UNIFIED FRONT is EXACTLY what both fans and players want to see... oh, and... what prospective free agents would be impressed to see. Only thought of that just now... but it might be the most potent reason scheduling it when he'd have to be absent was a missed scoring opportunity and a net negative. No doubt, other teams looking for an edge in negotiations will be more than happy to raise the question, "how long do you think Budenholzer is going to stay with Atlanta?"

 

[BigDog90]

On 6/2/2017 at 6:30 PM, sturt said:

I ask b/c we all pretty much knew when Ferry came in that Larry Drew's days were numbered, though he denied that at the time. Sooner than later, Ferry was going to want his time to be judged by how the team performed once he had someone he himself wanted for the job, and not just a nice guy who he inherited.

So, given that it appears we've come full circle back to the traditional GM approach, and that by his absence it's difficult to surmise that Bud is still regarded as one of the inner circle and is fundamental to the team's future success (at least where the owner is concerned)...

Should Schlenk just save himself and Bud and all of us fans some unnecessary time going down that road, and just seek a buy-out of whatever contract Bud has left?

I'm asking, not advocating. 24 hours ago, it wasn't even a reasonable question to put out there, but now it seems it most certainly is.

I'd just give Bud one more year. Just to see that him being GM was the reason why the team regressed the past 2 seasons. 

His coaching style is similar to GS's. He just need the right pieces. I believe if he was to get canned, Mike Brown would be the new head coach and his success right now is a credit to GS's talent level. We've seen how well he does when he doesn't have a stacked team.

[BigDog90]

On 6/4/2017 at 1:24 AM, hazer said:

Schlenk said Bud is a top 10 coach in the league. Schlenk said players already want to come to Atlanta because they know Bud makes them better players. Schlenk said Bud develops players and his plan is to develop our young players and draft picks. How does that change from '17 to '18? Who does he bring in to match that in '18? Bud has been a head coach all of 4 years and already has a COTY and All-Star gig under his belt. Stop, just stop...

A newly hired GM isn't going to say Bud is on the hot seat. His actions are going to speak louder than his words.

[Guest]

11 hours ago, hazer said:

Lots of IFs and assumptions and reaching going on here . The girl accepted the invitation to go out on a date. Go out on the date and don't sit here destroying it before it even happens paranoid about all the things that could go wrong. " If ifs and buts were candies and nuts we'd all have a merry Christmas". Here's a great scene from a great movie, kind of hits the nail on the head with what's happening here. Pardon the sappy crap toward the end, I'm sure I'll get roasted for it. Meh, anyway:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vza5Io4AKf8

 

 

You're gonna put it on a T...what I'm not gonna come swinging? Coffee drinking at night is frowned upon by Georgie! Haha.