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

[sturt]

2 hours ago, AHF said:

I don't find that disturbing.  I expect a coach to be geared toward "win-now" which is why it is rarely a good idea to have the coach as the most important voice in roster management.  There should be that dynamic with any well managed team.  I think last year we saw the concerning, unhealthy dynamic of doing things like grossly overpaying Bazemore because we "needed that wing to win now."

You should have the tension between coach looking shortterm and a strong GM looking long-term.  To me, that isn't challenging, it is healthy.

If you disregard all of the context here, I absolutely can agree. All other things being equal, that's rational.

But, there's context here that, added to the recipe, puts a whole different flavor to the analysis cake. I don't need to run through it all. You know what I'm talking about, and I'm tired of writing things I know everyone already knows.

And add this newest decision to plan the presser around an excuse for Bud to not be there? 

Surely you get this.

I'm not a Bradley fan, but his column from yesterday raised similar valid questions. I'm not comfortable sitting here on this island with someone whose livelihood depends on how provocative he can be, but at least I know I have some company.

[sturt]

2 hours ago, macdaddy said:

Look at it from Bud's perspective.   Hired by Ferry, off to a great start, ownership implodes, takes 2 years to sort it out, Ferry canned, Bud promoted to sort of co-GM with wilcox, now force to resign president title and have a new boss.   We have no idea what's going through his head.   The hawks should be trying to keep him around but all I know is that at some point Pop will get tired and want to order his grand kids around.    I think the rest of Bud's family is still in TX.   If Becky Hammon doesn't get the job i'd think it's Bud's to turn down.  

Or, Ressler's.

Or... what's going on in any given person's head this time next year... yours, mine, @hazer, @Spud2Nique, @AHF, et al... or Travis Schlenk's.

 

[macdaddy]

1 minute ago, sturt said:

Or, Ressler's.

Or... what's going on in any given person's head this time next year... yours, mine, @hazer, @Spud2Nique, @AHF, et al... or Travis Schlenk's.

 

Not true.  Here's what's going on Spud's head:

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, macdaddy said:

Not true.  Here's what's going on Spud's head:

 

[AHF]

33 minutes ago, sturt said:

If you disregard all of the context here, I absolutely can agree. All other things being equal, that's rational.

But, there's context here that, added to the recipe, puts a whole different flavor to the analysis cake. I don't need to run through it all. You know what I'm talking about, and I'm tired of writing things I know everyone already knows.

And add this newest decision to plan the presser around an excuse for Bud to not be there? 

Surely you get this.

I'm not a Bradley fan, but his column from yesterday raised similar valid questions. I'm not comfortable sitting here on this island with someone whose livelihood depends on how provocative he can be, but at least I know I have some company.

It isn't out of the realm of possibility that Bud was excluded because there are issues there.  I think it is more likely that they wanted to introduce Schlenk without the focus of the presser shifting to why Bud and Wilcox were demoted.  I think we'll see Schlenk and Bud together the next time out.  I don't rule out the possibility of there being an issue but I don't see enough to assume it.  I see Bud and Schlenk looking for the same style of ball and am hopeful they will work well together.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, AHF said:

It isn't out of the realm of possibility that Bud was excluded because there are issues there.  I think it is more likely that they wanted to introduce Schlenk without the focus of the presser shifting to why Bud and Wilcox were demoted.  I think we'll see Schlenk and Bud together the next time out.  I don't rule out the possibility of there being an issue but I don't see enough to assume it.  I see Bud and Schlenk looking for the same style of ball and am hopeful they will work well together.

That's puttin the law degree to use!

[Guest]

 

 

[sturt]

1 hour ago, Spud2Nique said:

 

Hey... you should take this and be happy with it, brother... it occurs to me that a certain other poster might've put a very different picture in that thought bubble.... hehe...

[hazer]

I, and most of us, understand where you're coming from, @sturt. And Ressler opened the door for that sort of suspicion. I'm not dancing on this one, nor being perpetually optimistic, I just think you're reading way too much into it. Why do I think that? Presser was the day after he started working for us. Bud was attending a once in a lifetime event. Schlenk said it took a very special circumstance to lure him away from GSW, specifically citing Bud's coaching as part of that special circumstance. Those factors put my suspicions to rest. Me just trying to make peace? How, by disagreeing? Seems if that was the case I'd just agree with you ;)

[hazer]

3 hours ago, Diesel said:

You know Becky is going to be handed the Spurs gig right??  Popp is going to hand it to her personally.

 

 

You know Becky might already have a GM gig by that point right?? She might not be around anymore for Popp to hand it to:

 

http://www.thesportsblaze.com/report-milwaukee-bucks-looking-at-becky-hammon-for-vacant-gm-position/23810

 

[sturt]

1 hour ago, AHF said:

It isn't out of the realm of possibility that Bud was excluded because there are issues there.  I think it is more likely that they wanted to introduce Schlenk without the focus of the presser shifting to why Bud and Wilcox were demoted.  I think we'll see Schlenk and Bud together the next time out.  I don't rule out the possibility of there being an issue but I don't see enough to assume it.  I see Bud and Schlenk looking for the same style of ball and am hopeful they will work well together.

I'm not seeing any difference between sentences 1 and 2, my friend... yes, there are issues there evidently, and yes, it is likely that they were intent to preempt any of those issues becoming more illuminated by what might be asked or what might be said or what might be perceived merely based on non-verbals we could all observe and that the media could grab hold-of and run with.

So, yes... it's not only plausible, but a preponderance of the evidence (daring to put on my Peoples Court... hehe... vocabulary) says it only makes sense to assume it... a stretch not to.

And pleeeeeeeeze for the umpteenth time... I too see Bud and Schlenk right now being (Bradley's word) simpatico. Their personalities seemingly should mesh well, never mind the awkward shot that Schlenk took in suggesting that the staff might not have known how to take his easy nature because the previous environment was so uptight. There has always been strong similarities between the GSW way and the SAS way. All of that... we agree (!!!).

The premise is... again.... that things tend to change in a big way over the course of a year... more specifically, over the course of a year when a team failed to meet expectations.

Can you not envision a scenario where the Hawks miss the playoffs? Can you not then imagine the new GM perceiving that, as good at his job as the employee might be, just by nature of some other context poisoning the situation, he is wiser to make a change, then? I mean, everyone respected Danny Ferry for instance, but there were externals and implications to those externals that made it more difficult to forge ahead. Right? This isn't some LSD-induced hallucination... this kind of thing where it wasn't merely a matter of the person's ability to do his job well but that other factors figured in and forced decision-makers to make changes... that has happened right in front of our eyes.

 

 

2 minutes ago, hazer said:

You know Becky might already have a GM gig by that point right?? She might not be around anymore for Popp to hand it to:

 

http://www.thesportsblaze.com/report-milwaukee-bucks-looking-at-becky-hammon-for-vacant-gm-position/23810

 

Yep.

[sturt]

26 minutes ago, hazer said:

Presser was the day after he started working for us.

You keep saying this, but it's irrelevant. It's irrelevant because he signed a contract and an announcement was made. At that point, he started working for us. I don't care when the payroll people put him in the system. Contract signed a week before. Announcement made shortly after that by virtue of it being posted on the (official) Hawks website.

it is hard to successfully argue that there was no other option but to schedule the press conference for that day and that time when Bud couldn't be there. .

26 minutes ago, hazer said:

Bud was attending a once in a lifetime event.

You keep saying this, but it's also irrelevant... that is, specifically, where the point you seem to be wanting to make is concerned. That is, yes, so it was a once in a lifetime event... who's arguing it isn't?.. and to the point where you seemingly want to take it, who's arguing that Bud shouldn't have been there to see his kid graduate??? Of course he should. Total agreement on that.

It is relevant to my point however... ie, in the fact that common sense tells us that Bud already knew that that would be a day for which he had a ready-made excuse for not attending. So, it gave him cover and/or Ressler cover. That's the substantive implication.

26 minutes ago, hazer said:

Me just trying to make peace?

No, I should have explained better... I meant you are attempting to advance a narrative that all is well (what's so funny about peace love and understanding... cue Elvis Costello)... when all does not appear to be well, and even though you basically acknowledged that in the same post to which I was responding (hence my "which is it?" question).

[AHF]

11 minutes ago, sturt said:

I'm not seeing any difference between sentences 1 and 2, my friend...

There is a huge difference.  In one scenario, the two are eager to go to work together and only time will tell if it works out.  In that case, the franchise is better served exploring that relationship and seeing if it works.  The exclusion of Bud in that scenario is innocent and not indicative of anything negative.  

In the second scenario, Bud is bitter about control being taken away and Ressler excluded him in order to keep the friction out of the room.  In that scenario, there is reason for concern about Bud not being at the presser and the franchise may be better served by just moving on.

Quote

And pleeeeeeeeze for the umpteenth time... I too see Bud and Schlenk right now being (Bradley's word) simpatico. Their personalities seemingly should mesh well, never mind the awkward shot that Schlenk took in suggesting that the staff might not have known how to take his easy nature because the previous environment was so uptight. There has always been strong similarities between the GSW way and the SAS way. All of that... we agree (!!!).The premise is... again.... that things tend to change in a big way over the course of a year... more specifically, over the course of a year when a team failed to meet expectations.

I think that is silly.  If you assume they are simpatico from the start, the franchise is in no way better served by getting rid of a top 10 coach.  How will things change over the course of the year?  We are better served finding that out than getting rid of a coach because expectations might get set too high and he might not meet them and that might breed problems for the coach and front office.  It also might be the case that expectations aren't set too high.  Or that Bud meets them.  Or that whatever the public perception, the management team remains simpatico and a good base for the future.

Quote

Can you not envision a scenario where the Hawks miss the playoffs? Can you not then imagine the new GM perceiving that, as good at his job as the employee might be, just by nature of some other context poisoning the situation, he is wiser to make a change, then? I mean, everyone respected Danny Ferry for instance, but there were externals and implications to those externals that made it more difficult to forge ahead. Right? This isn't some LSD-induced hallucination... this kind of thing where it wasn't merely a matter of the person's ability to do his job well but that other factors figured in and forced decision-makers to make changes... that has happened right in front of our eyes.

 

 

Yep.

You could use this same line of reasoning for getting rid of anyone.  Might we not be better served getting rid of Schlenk now?  Can you not envision a scenario where he makes bad choices in the draft and then in free agency?  Can you not then imagine the owner perceiving that as good as he might look on paper that he has chosen the wrong person as architect for the team and it is better to stop the bleeding sooner than later?  Has this scenario not played out with other management employees in the NBA and other sports?  Of course it has.  So let's cut him now right?

 

No.  The only scenario where getting rid of Bud before they have a chance to work together and see if they can be a successful team is if Ressler or Schlenk are already inclined to get rid of Bud and he is just being kept out of respect.  In that case, they may well bail on him at the first sign of trouble and so you might as well get rid of him now.  But since you say above that you don't think this is the case and aren't assuming it is, then there is no reason to cut him out now, IMO.

[sturt]

2 minutes ago, AHF said:

There is a huge difference.  In one scenario, the two are eager to go to work together and only time will tell if it works out.  In that case, the franchise is better served exploring that relationship and seeing if it works.  The exclusion of Bud in that scenario is innocent and not indicative of anything negative.  

In the second scenario, Bud is bitter about control being taken away and Ressler excluded him in order to keep the friction out of the room.  In that scenario, there is reason for concern about Bud not being at the presser and the franchise may be better served by just moving on.

I don't get that you can go from "there are issues there" to "not indicative of anything negative," though here's where I agree... can't ascertain whether it's Bud who is innocent... maybe so... or Ressler who is innocent... maybe... or if both are guilty. But you don't talk about having issues ordinarily unless there is SOMETHING negative, and by implication, SOMEONE responsible for that negativity.

 

[AHF]

2 minutes ago, sturt said:

I don't get that you can go from "there are issues there" to "not indicative of anything negative," though here's where I agree... can't ascertain whether it's Bud who is innocent... maybe so... or Ressler who is innocent... maybe... or if both are guilty. But you don't talk about having issues ordinarily unless there is SOMETHING negative, and by implication, SOMEONE responsible for that negativity.

 

The issue I was referencing was the reorganization of the front office.  Bud has said he publicly brought that to Ressler as a need.  Nevertheless, the media may want to get into the details on it and that might be an issue Ressler wanted to leave for a day other than Schlenk's introductory press conference.  

If the media wants to explore the issue of the front office reorg that doesn't speak to whether we are better served preemptively firing Bud.  If there are issues internally where Bud is not happy, where Ressler is doubting Bud, where Schlenk is eyeing a buddy to come in and coach, that is an entirely different story.

[sturt]

6 minutes ago, AHF said:

I think that is silly.  If you assume they are simpatico from the start, the franchise is in no way better served by getting rid of a top 10 coach.  How will things change over the course of the year?

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).

 

[hazer]

12 minutes ago, sturt said:

You keep saying this, but it's irrelevant...

it is hard to successfully argue that there was no other option but to schedule the press conference for that day and that time when Bud couldn't be there. .

You keep saying this, but it's also irrelevant...

 

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

No one is saying there were no other options with the schedule...

I love that song by the way, especially when The Murr outdid The 'Stello. Lost in Translation is kinda relevant here too:

 

[sturt]

6 minutes ago, AHF said:

The issue I was referencing was the reorganization of the front office.  Bud has said he publicly brought that to Ressler as a need.  Nevertheless, the media may want to get into the details on it and that might be an issue Ressler wanted to leave for a day other than Schlenk's introductory press conference.  

Um. I thought we were talking about "issues" specifically as that would help explain the decision to avoid Bud being present. You've lost me here... you seem to be saying that Ressler didn't want Bud to talk about what front office reorg concerns he'd had, but I mean, is that really all that complicated to just turn any question in that direction to a positive like, "Well, I can tell you that any concerns I'd had are behind us with this hiring of this extremely bright, competent young executive who I couldn't be more thrilled is here." C'mon.

No, if the "issues" weren't about Bud himself, why be so concerned to provide cover for him to not be there, and thus, for him not to be there. Doesn't make sense otherwise, at least from where I sit.

[sturt]

22 minutes ago, AHF said:

You could use this same line of reasoning for getting rid of anyone.  Might we not be better served getting rid of Schlenk now?  Can you not envision a scenario where he makes bad choices in the draft and then in free agency?  Can you not then imagine the owner perceiving that as good as he might look on paper that he has chosen the wrong person as architect for the team and it is better to stop the bleeding sooner than later?

I think you're missing a critical piece.

If you have a new owner?

Yes, s/he might give the current GM some leash for a short time to see, but it's altogether plausible... more plausible than this random scenario you're presenting... that with some degree of going backwards, the GM could be let go early one.

If you have a new GM?

Damn. Now c'mon. We've seen this happen before, and not just once. It happens in the NBA, and it happens in other pro sports as well. Heck, it happens when a new AD arrives at a university, and gets nervous about the current head coach in one of his two main revenue producing sports.

 

 

[macdaddy]

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.