It's Quin Snyder Media Day

[sturt]

12 minutes ago, Diesel said:

Here's the other thing Sturt.

You lack TRUST.

I'm allowed. I'm not in the room anyhow.... hehe.

 

12 minutes ago, Diesel said:

If Landry says that all the decisions will be made with collaboratively.. why do you think Snyder needs a Title?

The only reason he would need the title is that he didn't trust Landry to be collaborative. 

Okay. So if we carry your assertion to its logical conclusion, we should just drop all titles... since it's titles that make people not trust each other, and that keep people from being collaborative. No GM, no Assistant GM, no POBO, no nothin.

 

And/but I didn't actually say Snyder needs a title. I just offered one way it could be approached, and there's no title involved at all (see above). It would, though, comfort me. And, as a rule, I think titles do actually help collaboration rather than hinder it because it removes the ambiguity of where the boundaries are... it actually helps reduce any pretense as-if we're all equals around this table, and now we get to word-wrestle with each other for power. You're not talking to someone with extraordinary intelligence (as if I needed to say that, right), but you are talking to someone whose career has mostly revolved around getting the right people around the table to develop strategies, and to facilitate them doing so. In other words, I don't bring much to very many conversations, but I do bring something to this specific one... at least, in that way. I speak from experience.

[Diesel]

2 minutes ago, sturt said:

Small sample size.

So there's that.

 

Look, the reason is undebunkable.... you have, as Hollinger attested, a room full of people whose basketball IQ is a fraction of what Snyder brings to the table.

But you want that person to have to have his ideas/objectives pass muster with a guy who is barely 3 years into his post-playing career?

That's foolishness. No, I mean by the dictionary definition.

 

THIS is the EXACT kind of scenario where you implement something SAS-like. As Pops said... he needs RC for the legwork... "R.C. is the guy that implements everything and gets it all done."

 

 

 

At the same time, Pop respects and values RC's opinion. 

That's the flaw in your undebunkable theory.   If Snyder feels like he knows way more than the FO, then who reigns him in when he's totally wrong?  He's not going to value their opinions if he feels like he know way more.   That's the thing about a coach... a coach likes to believe that he's always right. 

Now, let's get rid of some bias...  Would you be chirping the same song if it were Doc RIvers instead of Quin Snyder?

Now Let's bottomline this:

As I said before.. You lack trust.   Why does Snyder need the title if Landry said it will be done cooperatively?  The arrangement that they have allows Landry to do the legwork but also allows Snyder to have somebody who can reign him in if he goes off the deep end. 

 

[sturt]

1 minute ago, Diesel said:

At the same time, Pop respects and values RC's opinion. 

That's the flaw in your undebunkable theory.

Where did you read anyone saying that Snyder shouldn't respect and value others' opinions (including Fields, of course)?

You're making things up, now.

 

2 minutes ago, Diesel said:

If Snyder feels like he knows way more than the FO, then who reigns him in when he's totally wrong?  He's not going to value their opinions if he feels like he know way more. 

Again, do you never test what you write by applying it to both sides of the equation before writing it???

Can say the exact  same thing about Fields, yet it's okay for him for some reason to be totally wrong, yet have the authority to make the final decision. Huh?

 

And "if he feels like he knows way more"... ??? But he does irrefutably know way more. It just is how it is. Snyder's been doing this for so much longer and with obvious success. That's not a bad thing. That's a good thing. And you want to take advantage of good things, not tamp those down.

[Diesel]

1 minute ago, sturt said:

I'm allowed. I'm not in the room anyhow.... hehe.

 

Okay. So if we carry your assertion to its logical conclusion, we should just drop all titles... since it's titles that make people not trust each other, and that keep people from being collaborative. No GM, no Assistant GM, no POBO, no nothin.

 

And/but I didn't actually say Snyder needs a title. I just offered one way it could be approached, and there's no title involved at all (see above). It would, though, comfort me. And, as a rule, I think titles do actually help collaboration rather than hinder it because it removes the ambiguity of where the boundaries are... it actually helps reduce any pretense as-if we're all equals around this table, and now we get to word-wrestle with each other for power. You're not talking to someone with extraordinary intelligence (as if I needed to say that, right), but you are talking to someone whose career has mostly revolved around getting the right people around the table to develop strategies, and to facilitate them doing so. In other words, I don't bring much to very many conversations, but I do bring something to this specific one... at least, in that way.

All titles do is add accountability and deniability.  We can remove the FO titles.  As long as everybody knows that decisions will be done collaboratively.. cool.   But when a final decision is needed, that falls to Landry because it's part of his job duties. 

It's like a restaurant. 

If you know your duties, do you need the title.  Do I have to constantly tell the dude up front that he's the "Front of the House" if he knows that his duties are to greet, seat, and please people and run the staff.   Do I have to tell the chef that he's the chef if he knows that he's cooking and expediting the food?  Do I have to tell the Su Chef his title if he knows that he's responsible for one aspect of the meal?  Do I have to tell the waitstaff that they are wait staff?  So yes, you can run without titles.. if you like.. as long as everybody knows what they are supposed to do. 

 

[sturt]

I've said what I've said, and am satisfied.

G'nite. Have a 6:45 meeting so I gotta hit it.

[Diesel]

1 minute ago, sturt said:

Where did you read anyone saying that Snyder shouldn't respect and value others' opinions (including Fields, of course)?

You're making things up, now.

No... it's the likely conclusion. 

If Snyder knows that he knows far more basketball than everybody in the FO, he's not going to allow them to tell him what to do if he has the final say.  They can voice their opinion, but if he feels that he knows best, then those voiced opinions will fall right out of the sky and land like a pancake where they said them. 

 

Simple Litmus on this.. 

When was the last time that you allowed somebody who knew less than you did tell you what to do ?

 

Spoiler

It was your boss or somebody in authority right?  (that includes your wife).

Q.E.D. 

 

[TheNorthCydeRises]

1 hour ago, sturt said:

 

 

 

I think it's kind of getting old to not give Landry Fields his props for his tenure so far in this organization.  Everybody around Fields gets credit, but him.

He's the GM. And despite his age, I don't think he's just a figurehead type of GM.  The dude is obviously intelligent and might know what he is doing.

Yes, I'm glad that a level-headed guy like Korver is alongside him.  But I'm not giving Korver sole credit with landing Snyder.

Also, despite most Hawks fans not liking the way that Schlenk was basically forced out by the new regime, Landry as a GM has not made a mistake with the team in his decisions.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

2 minutes ago, TheNorthCydeRises said:

 

I think it's kind of getting old to not give Landry Fields his props for his tenure so far in this organization.  Everybody around Fields gets credit, but him.

He's the GM. And despite his age, I don't think he's just a figurehead type of GM.  The dude is obviously intelligent and might know what he is doing.

Yes, I'm glad that a level-headed guy like Korver is alongside him.  But I'm not giving Korver sole credit with landing Snyder.

Also, despite most Hawks fans not liking the way that Schlenk was basically forced out by the new regime, Landry as a GM has not made a mistake with the team in his decisions.

 

My post response was to this:

 

[JayBirdHawk]

1 hour ago, Diesel said:

The thing about Pop was that Pop was the GM before he was the coach.  He knew and understood the business. 

Not only the GM but also POBO before he stepped in as Coach. Then he relinquished the GM only role to RC but remained POBO and Coach.

They have a very unique and symbiotic relationship that works for them.

[JayBirdHawk]

I am actually good with Quin not having final say on roster mmoves. Let him Focus on assessing the current roster, implementing his system and culture, fill in his laundry list of players he wants to keep/get, let the GM and AGM go shopping.

 

 

 

[JayBirdHawk]

7 hours ago, TheNorthCydeRises said:

 

I think it's kind of getting old to not give Landry Fields his props for his tenure so far in this organization.  Everybody around Fields gets credit, but him.

He's the GM. And despite his age, I don't think he's just a figurehead type of GM.  The dude is obviously intelligent and might know what he is doing.

Yes, I'm glad that a level-headed guy like Korver is alongside him.  But I'm not giving Korver sole credit with landing Snyder.

Also, despite most Hawks fans not liking the way that Schlenk was basically forced out by the new regime, Landry as a GM has not made a mistake with the team in his decisions.

Gotta agree.
From December 21st with Schlenk 'reassigned' to Nate's eventual firing on February 21st, we've had 2 months of really rough sailing.
It seems the storms have suddenly settled with the new GM, AGM and Coach with a shared vision.
Now it Begins!

[sturt]

7 hours ago, TheNorthCydeRises said:

 

I think it's kind of getting old to not give Landry Fields his props for his tenure so far in this organization.  Everybody around Fields gets credit, but him.

He's the GM. And despite his age, I don't think he's just a figurehead type of GM.  The dude is obviously intelligent and might know what he is doing.

Yes, I'm glad that a level-headed guy like Korver is alongside him.  But I'm not giving Korver sole credit with landing Snyder.

Also, despite most Hawks fans not liking the way that Schlenk was basically forced out by the new regime, Landry as a GM has not made a mistake with the team in his decisions.

Where's this evidence that he's not a figurehead type of GM? I'm obviously missing something.

I do respect that he must have some IQ above my own, don't get wrong... Stanford wanted him, not me, after all.

(Well, to be honest, Stanford just didn't know that I was available, or I'm sure they would've pursued it. )

 

I know of nothing so far that is especially remarkable.

The Bey trade... let's be honest, it fell in his lap, and (to his credit) by his own admission. GSW called him.

The Snyder hire... let's be honest, it fell in his lap by virtue of the Kyle Korver relationship. That's rooted mainly in Snyder's reflection. Now, if you wanna say, "Well he didn't mess it up," that's fine, but at least admit what a low bar that is.

The Korver hire... I suppose. Okay. But even then, as I understood the story, it was a mutual thing where their kids played soccer together, and it just kinda came to mind after their social relationship blossomed to talk about a professional relationship.

(And btw, I don't believe Schlenk was forced out. I could be wrong. But the evidence as far as I ever saw anything always pointed to Schlenk's own frustration with Tony and his family medical situation whatever that was.)

 

I'll give him credit for not screwing anything up, though. Sure.

But I gotta tell ya, the defensiveness I heard verbally and saw in his nonverbals at that firing presser last week took me from (a) mainly "meh" about Landry and, optimistic soul I am, open to the possibility that he would grow into the role well to (b) skeptical that he's felt over his head and he needs to try to compensate by reacting publicly like that. That's just how people tend to act in my experience when that's the case.

 

By the way, my history is that I also didn't warm up to Schlenk early on... but arguably ended up being one of his most consistent defenders. Having been in decision-making seats similar to a GM in my own career and taking pot shots with some regularity, I have a natural empathy for anyone like Schlenk or Fields... or for that matter McMillan or Snyder. Big fan of the famous Teddy Roosevelt Man in the Arena quote.

But I'm not there yet on Fields. Quite possible, like Schlenk, he evolves into someone meriting regard.

And this is partially about him, and partially about my perception of Ressler... I am persuaded that Tony Ressler purposely has put Fields into this position to grant himself some justification for interloping as he pleases.

I say let's not get ahead of ourselves. Feel pretty safe in that position. And where it concerns this thread... let's not pretend that Landry Fields... nor anyone in our front office... is anywhere close to the basketball mind of the new head basketball coach. We've just hired one of the more widely admired basketball minds of this era. And we're going to waste that if he's not given the latitude merited. I believe that.

[Diesel]

19 minutes ago, sturt said:

Where's this evidence that he's not a figurehead type of GM? I'm obviously missing something.

I do respect that he must have some IQ above my own, don't get wrong... Stanford wanted him, not me, after all.

(Well, to be honest, Stanford just didn't know that I was available, or I'm sure they would've pursued it. )

 

I know of nothing so far that is especially remarkable.

The Bey trade... let's be honest, it fell in his lap, and (to his credit) by his own admission. GSW called him.

The Snyder hire... let's be honest, it fell in his lap by virtue of the Kyle Korver relationship. That's rooted mainly in Snyder's reflection. Now, if you wanna say, "Well he didn't mess it up," that's fine, but at least admit what a low bar that is.

The Korver hire... I suppose. Okay. But even then, as I understood the story, it was a mutual thing where their kids played soccer together, and it just kinda came to mind after their social relationship blossomed to talk about a professional relationship.

(And btw, I don't believe Schlenk was forced out. I could be wrong. But the evidence as far as I ever saw anything always pointed to Schlenk's own frustration with Tony and his family medical situation whatever that was.)

 

I'll give him credit for not screwing anything up, though. Sure.

But I gotta tell ya, the defensiveness I heard verbally and saw in his nonverbals at that firing presser last week took me from (a) mainly "meh" about Landry and, optimistic soul I am, open to the possibility that he would grow into the role well to (b) skeptical that he's felt over his head and he needs to try to compensate by reacting publicly like that. That's just how people tend to act in my experience when that's the case.

 

By the way, my history is that I also didn't warm up to Schlenk early on... but arguably ended up being one of his most consistent defenders. Having been in decision-making seats similar to a GM in my own career and taking pot shots with some regularity, I have a natural empathy for anyone like Schlenk or Fields... or for that matter McMillan or Snyder. Big fan of the famous Teddy Roosevelt Man in the Arena quote.

But I'm not there yet on Fields. Quite possible, like Schlenk, he evolves into someone meriting regard.

And this is partially about him, and partially about my perception of Ressler... I am persuaded that Tony Ressler purposely has put Fields into this position to grant himself some justification for interloping as he pleases.

I say let's not get ahead of ourselves. Feel pretty safe in that position. And where it concerns this thread... let's not pretend that Landry Fields... nor anyone in our front office... is anywhere close to the basketball mind of the new head basketball coach. We've just hired one of the more widely admired basketball minds of this era. And we're going to waste that if he's not given the latitude merited. I believe that.

Damn Sturt...

All you see is Big dumb Jock??   I like to cut to the chase. 

Nonverbal cues and gut feels are meaningless.  He's the GM.   Until they show that there's somebody working thing from behind the scenes... give him his due. 

 

 

[sturt]

6 minutes ago, Diesel said:

Damn Sturt...

All you see is Big dumb Jock??   I like to cut to the chase. 

You've not cut to the chase at all with that. I've said he's a figurehead, not a big dumb jock. Big dumb jocks don't tend to be invited to play at Stanford in the first place.

 

So, no.

But given that response, I'm prompted to ask... all you see in me is a judgmental idiot?... hehe... I like to cut to the chase.

 

8 minutes ago, Diesel said:

Nonverbal cues

Nonverbals are observable. They are a way that communication occurs. It often is more telling than words, particularly when there is sober reason to be curious about the words being offered.

They also, to be fair to your point, are somewhat subjective in how they are interpreted. Somewhat.

But what will happen among jurors is they'll go back to the jury room, and they'll talk about how Murdaugh either seemed persusive when he testified or wasn't, and no, the judge will not have instructed them to disregard body language.

Why's that?

Because it's a legitimate thing to read a person's posture, gestures, facial expressions, etc.

Landry doesn't get a pass. And I'm not the only one here who remarked that he had that same takeaway last week. Sitting there and claiming "It was my decision" in the context of those non-verbals but also in the context of all we know about Tony Ressler... totally unconvincing, and the fact it was attempted is suggestive of someone feeling so insecure about his standing that he needs to portray himself as stronger than he could possibly be.

 

[sturt]

1 hour ago, JayBirdHawk said:

I am actually good with Quin not having final say on roster mmoves.

 

Jay, you're incredibly consistently predictable.... hehe. In. Cred. Ibly.

[JayBirdHawk]

Just now, sturt said:

 

Jay, you're incredibly consistently predictable.... hehe. In. Cred. Ibly.

I didn't stu(r)tter!

 

[Gray Mule]

Let's all agree that Sturt is 100% correct and that he knows stuff.  Then we can drop this entire discussion and get on to the remainder of the basketball season.

GO ATL HAWKS !!

[sturt]

1 hour ago, Gray Mule said:

Let's all agree that Sturt is 100% correct and that he knows stuff.  Then we can drop this entire discussion and get on to the remainder of the basketball season.

GO ATL HAWKS !!

 

I want to be right.

No, but, really. If I'm wrong, I want to be corrected.

Seriously. I love being made to recognize I was wrong. What's so wrong about wanting to know how you're wrong? Right?

[KB21]

NBA 40 Under 40: The executives, coaches and agents shaping the basketball world —and the future - The Athletic

Quote

Landry Fields, 33, Hawks assistant general manager

Fields could be a general manager soon. He was already under consideration for several jobs last offseason and is likely to garner more this upcoming one too. He’s had a glide path since the end of a five-year playing career for the Knicks and Raptors, when he made the transition to the front office with the Spurs and then came over to the Hawks in 2020. It took him just five years to go from the end of his days on the court, in 2015, to assistant GM.

“I think it’s important to relate with the players, establish solid relationships with the players, and with Landry, those are certainly his strengths,” Hawks president Travis Schlenk told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. “That was a big draw. I think he’s got a very bright future in this league.”

 

[sturt]

@KB21, that would be compelling if it actually said something that disagreed with something I've said.
Find that something. You can't. No one can.

I've even suggested in this very thread that it's entirely likely that... just as I was an early critic of Travis, but ended up being one of his limited number of defenders here, the same could prove true with Landry.

I just don't go along with the "let's all be impressed with the emperor because, well, because he's the emperor and we're feeling pretty good today as a result of something he was--by the admission of primary sources no less--tangential to. But we're just feeling so good!"

Damn I'm such a contrarian aint I?

 

EDIT: Okay, on second thought, "tangential" is not the right term. Let's go with "incidental." My working theory is that it would have been hard to screw up what Kyle's relationship with Quin brought to the table. Not impossible. But basically decent people with "General Manager" on their business card probably would not have gotten in the way of a hire occurring.