It's Quin Snyder Media Day

[Diesel]

2 hours ago, sturt said:

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.

 

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.

 

I think a lot of times in a lot of ways things are misinterpreted.   I don't think any of us have been around Landry enough to be able to recognize a non-verbal cue.   Because in order to truly recognize one, you have to establish a non-verbal baseline from hours of interaction with the person.  Modern Media has made it so that the public believe that you can make a "snap" judgement from a "non-verbal cue" of someone who we have never been around.   B.S.   We haven't done that work so whatever non-verbal cues we come up with are simply meaningless. 

@sturt I don't see you as a Judgmental idiot.   I do think you can be verbose but I'm glad you stopped using the small or colored fonts.     As far as Landry is concerned... He's the GM.  Point blank period.   The only assumption I make is that he's doing the work of the GM.  Do GMs take marching orders from the owner?  All the time.  However, that doesn't mean that they are less than the GM. Everybody has somebody to answer to. 

 

 

[KB21]

19 minutes ago, sturt said:

@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.

Yeah, you are reading things into this that just aren't there.  Fields came from the Spurs, so it isn't surprising that while Quin was the target from the beginning, every name mentioned in the search had ties to the Spurs or one of the assistants that came from the Spurs.  Quin was a no brainer move, because he would have been the top coach on the market if things had gone into the off season.  

[AHF]

If Fields is, in fact, a figurehead then I still would not want Snyder to be the personnel guy.  I would want to fire Fields and hire a real GM.  He should never have been hired if he isn't allowed to make decisions rather than have a coach with no front office experience making those decisions based on work he does in between trying to develop his players, install new schemes, game plan, etc.  I think Snyder already has a full-time job.  

But if Fields is going to be the GM, then he should be allowed to do his work.  Same goes for Snyder.  In an ideal world, Ressler shouldn't be telling either of them how to do their job.  I don't assume Fields is a mere figurehead and haven't seen any reason to believe that he didn't make his own decision about trading for Bey, firing Nate, or hiring Snyder.  

Snyder has been coaching in the NBA for the last 11 years, including 8 years as a head coach. 

Fields has 11 years NBA experience: 5 years of NBA playing experience, 3 years as a scout, and 3 years working in a front office in SA or ATL. 

Korver has 18 years of NBA experience:  7 years of NBA playing experience and this year working with the players and in the front office.

None of them are experienced GMs but I'll take the guy who has been working for the last 6.5 years working up the ladder to be a GM over a coach with no front office experience who isn't transitioning to a full-time role in the front office as my top personnel guy.  I just don't trust that a coach will have the bandwidth or perspective that I want to fill that role.  So for me it is a choice between firing Fields or giving Fields the green light more than one of whether I want my GM reporting to my coach (because outside of an exceptional circumstance like a former GM/POBO that becomes my coach I don't want that).

[sturt]

17 minutes ago, Diesel said:

I don't think any of us have been around Landry enough to be able to recognize a non-verbal cue. 

You're squirming to find a way to still scold the Murdaugh jurors for being so pretentious as to think they can read someone's verbal cues, and the judge for not having told them to not.

No. We learn nonverbals from the literally hundreds of thousands of people we encounter in millions of encounters in our lifetimes. We begin learning those even before we're able to speak, as babies.

 

19 minutes ago, Diesel said:

I do think you can be verbose

I think I can be verbose.

But I don't comment on other people being verbose even though they are... why?... because it is my opinion that going there is an indication that I'm looking for some way to deflect from the actual substance of what ever is being discussed.

And that's a worse offense to me. "Here, let me try this since I'm not seeming to be able to use substance to advance my conclusion... so I'll just take a jab at the person or something about the person who is opposing my conclusion... that achieves my purpose here just as well."

Nah.

If we're really trying to navigate a path toward what is righter/better/more reasonable, then that shows up in what we decide to write about. Complaining about style or word count or... that's a new one... word color... suggests it's not actually about navigating that path, but navigating a path that allows one person to feel superior. I'm never superior nor inferior. You're never superior nor inferior.

But conclusions can be, and often are.

Write to your heart's content, then. Or not. But I'd prefer if you did because at least the more/better you explain your thinking, the more likely that a productive conversation can happen since I have lesser excuse for not understanding your thinking.

 

29 minutes ago, Diesel said:

As far as Landry is concerned... He's the GM.  Point blank period.   The only assumption I make is that he's doing the work of the GM.  Do GMs take marching orders from the owner?  All the time.  However, that doesn't mean that they are less than the GM. Everybody has somebody to answer to. 

Is there some part of that that disagrees with something I wrote? Because I don't think there is.

Maybe you're insinuating that "everybody has somebody to answer to" annnnnd  "this is like it is in pretty much any other NBA relationship b/t the owner and the GM"...?

To that, I'll disagree.

Some are, but many if not most NBA owners do not impose themselves into basketball decisions the way that--according to public and Hawksquawk-insider reports--Antony Peter Ressler does. I've made the case that he effectively sets up his GMs for conflict by creating this ambiguity in the line of authority.

So yes, GMs take marching orders from the owner in the same way that architects take marching orders from the people paying them to build them a house... but GMs, like architects, are the experts whose insight needs to guide the planning and implementation of that house getting built.

Most teams seem to get that, as far as I can tell. Our owner's history is that he does not.

[sturt]

23 minutes ago, KB21 said:

Yeah, you are reading things into this that just aren't there.

Like?

If anyone in this thread has consistently leaned on empirical evidence, I would have to claim it's muah.

[JayBirdHawk]

On 1/15/2023 at 9:44 AM, JayBirdHawk said:

Like I said in the other thread, this will go one of two ways:

 

On 1/13/2023 at 2:03 PM, JayBirdHawk said:

This will either fail spectacularly or it's going to surprise us.

The trade deadline and the coaching hire will be front and center.

....I'll reserve full judgement until then.

I would surmise we did OK at the trade deadline and hit it out of the park with the coaching hire.

Now - Let the games begin!

[sturt]

9 minutes ago, AHF said:

If Fields is, in fact, a figurehead then I still would not want Snyder to be the personnel guy.  I would want to fire Fields and hire a real GM.

Right. Agreed. Absolutely.

But these are the cards we're dealt.

 

There are no publicly-knowable trophies on the Landry Fields mantel. He was a scout for 3 years, then became a G-league GM, then an assistant GM, and then a full fledged NBA GM. He has, indeed, climbed the ladder, and I have no doubt that he's deserved all of the praise he's been given as an up-and-comer. And I inserted a joke when I mentioned the Stanford thing, but I'm actually pretty serious... I take the fact that he went to Stanford to be a significant indication that he's very bright.

But he's, for now, not only "just another NBA GM," but he's just another NBA GM who is very young and, thus through no fault of his own, not likely to be as savvy as someone who has been around the proverbial block a time or two. (And I believe he's being used as a foil for the owner, but I feel like I've covered that aspect pretty clearly by now.)

And again, until he does have some trophies that are directly his, I won't apologize for healthy skepticism, and neither will I apologize (again covered pretty clearly by now) that the most proven and smartest basketball mind in the room in Atlanta for awhile will not be Landry Fields, but will be Quin Snyder.

And again, again, again... I'm only suggesting QS be relied upon for big picture direction, not for day-to-day execution. There's a difference between having overall authority for what is on the menu and quality control in the kitchen, versus having kitchen responsibilities.

(Where you and I left this conversation, AHF, as far as I knew anyway, I'd proposed that you at least consider that even if we agree on your rule, this situation calls for special exception. I don't know that you answered that... forgive me if I missed it.)

 

[Diesel]

2 minutes ago, sturt said:

No. We learn nonverbals from the literally hundreds of thousands of people we encounter in millions of encounters in our lifetimes. We begin learning those even before we're able to speak, as babies.

actually, we do learn non-verbals as babies from parents and caretakers who we spend lots of time with.   Doesn't chage the fact that Non-verbal communications can be miscommunicated... especially in a generation where some believe that you don't have to spend time with the particular person to understand their non-verbal cues.

IF a guy has a nervous tick.. does it mean that he's nervous at that moment?

Spoiler

Uhm  No.  Nervous ticks can go on autopilot... even when the person isn't nervous or tired or stressed....  

But put you on the juror and you would say... "She did it".   right??

@Sturt   we haven't even begun to talk about culture differences and misinterpretation of nonverbal communication. 

Where do you think the statement you can't judge a book by it's cover came from??

After you read that African journal of American Speech article.. then we can talk about this again. 

[sturt]

5 minutes ago, Diesel said:

Non-verbal communications can be miscommunicated

Right. But I said that.

I don't know why you think this is a tangent worth pushing against.

I've said what I've said, and in saying that, even agreed with you on the parts where agreement is merited.

And I've spoken about the totality of the context, not just this part. It signals insecurity when a person insists multiple times "I made this decision on my own," when we all know who his boss is. It all comes together and is indicative of a person who isn't quite there yet--though he might be eventually if not very soon--in the transparency/self-awareness/self-confidence department.

[bleachkit]

43 minutes ago, AHF said:

If Fields is, in fact, a figurehead then I still would not want Snyder to be the personnel guy.  I would want to fire Fields and hire a real GM.  He should never have been hired if he isn't allowed to make decisions rather than have a coach with no front office experience making those decisions based on work he does in between trying to develop his players, install new schemes, game plan, etc.  I think Snyder already has a full-time job.  

But if Fields is going to be the GM, then he should be allowed to do his work.  Same goes for Snyder.  In an ideal world, Ressler shouldn't be telling either of them how to do their job.  I don't assume Fields is a mere figurehead and haven't seen any reason to believe that he didn't make his own decision about trading for Bey, firing Nate, or hiring Snyder.  

Snyder has been coaching in the NBA for the last 11 years, including 8 years as a head coach. 

Fields has 11 years NBA experience: 5 years of NBA playing experience, 3 years as a scout, and 3 years working in a front office in SA or ATL. 

Korver has 18 years of NBA experience:  7 years of NBA playing experience and this year working with the players and in the front office.

None of them are experienced GMs but I'll take the guy who has been working for the last 6.5 years working up the ladder to be a GM over a coach with no front office experience who isn't transitioning to a full-time role in the front office as my top personnel guy.  I just don't trust that a coach will have the bandwidth or perspective that I want to fill that role.  So for me it is a choice between firing Fields or giving Fields the green light more than one of whether I want my GM reporting to my coach (because outside of an exceptional circumstance like a former GM/POBO that becomes my coach I don't want that).

When asked, Fields has been adamant that he has final say in personnel matters, so I expect that to be the case. Of course, if Snyder is absolutely pounding the table for something, it will probably happen. They have to work together, come to a consensus. What I don't want is for Tony or Nick to overrule decisions, that would be worst case scenario.

[macdaddy]

Seems to me that Fields, Korver, and Snyder come from similar schools of basketball thought so i could see them agreeing on personnel way more than disagreeing.  

[sturt]

30 minutes ago, bleachkit said:

What I don't want is for Tony or Nick to overrule decisions, that would be worst case scenario.

 

Good luck with that, if Hollinger is right....

 

Ressler creates this.

He creates this by hiring GMs (a) who bring no previously-earned regard as a GM, and (b) not putting into writing any formal, reliable words that establish how the line of authority is supposed to work.

Evaluating players is as much art as it is science, and that there will be conflicting assessments of draft and trade and free agent prospects just goes with the territory. It's going to happen. It's going to happen less early, but more as they have to actually work together. And. It actually is healthier for that to happen than to have everyone as yes-men because it goes with critical thought.

Leaving it this way, then, just seduces the guy who's not getting his way to see the owner's door is cracked, and to walk inside to plead his case... and if effective/persuasive, to see the owner rule in his favor, and if not, to see the owner not rule in his favor, but... either way ...to see the owner rule.

 

How's that Whataburger tag line go again?

In this case, just like Tony  likes it.

 

[Gray Mule]

Sturt is 100% correct.  Move on.

[AHF]

1 hour ago, sturt said:

 

(Where you and I left this conversation, AHF, as far as I knew anyway, I'd proposed that you at least consider that even if we agree on your rule, this situation calls for special exception. I don't know that you answered that... forgive me if I missed it.)

 

It doesn't meet my personal criteria for why I would make a special exception.  I assume that Snyder is bar the most experienced coach we have in Atlanta and best suited to make coaching decisions.  I don't assume he is the most experienced at managing the cap, making personnel decisions, etc. because he objectively isn't.  I don't assume he is the smartest guy in the room within the context of personnel management.  When Pops was a proven GM and POBO, it made sense to make the leap and give him ultimate authority by having the GM report to him.

Here if I were the owner of the Hawks, I would be facing a decision how to structure the hierarchy for the Hawks and whether to make that hierarchy like this: 

Owner

GM

Coach

or like this:

Owner

Coach

GM

Under these specific circumstances, I'll take the former over the latter.

I do feel here like the case you are making is based not on Snyder's qualifications to have ultimate personnel responsibility but based on the weakness of Fields.  That just isn't good enough for me to not want my GM to have that authority.  So I'm going with Fields supported by Korver having the final call over Snyder if I am structuring the organization. 

[sturt]

I can imagine there is going to be a player personnel decision to be made right off the bat, but we'll just have to see. Snyder loves Favors, and of course, we've had Favors on the roster for a 10-day so there's already some familiarity there.

I checked... Snyder's history is that he's routinely had 6 bigs at his disposal at any one time.

And there's no real consequence to replacing either Vit or Tyrese... even with DJ's almost-certain bonus, there's enough room under the tax line to add a vet min contract. (And probably can fit 2, for that matter, but that might make Tony more nervous every time CC hits a free throw, or DJ makes a steal. )

[KB21]

The thing with Favors is that he is about done as a player.  His style doesn't fit with the modern league.  I think there is a better chance that he is a player development coach for Quin in 2023-2024 than he is a player for the rest of this season.  

[AHF]

23 minutes ago, sturt said:

I can imagine there is going to be a player personnel decision to be made right off the bat, but we'll just have to see. Snyder loves Favors, and of course, we've had Favors on the roster for a 10-day so there's already some familiarity there.

I checked... Snyder's history is that he's routinely had 6 bigs at his disposal at any one time.

And there's no real consequence to replacing either Vit or Tyrese... even with DJ's almost-certain bonus, there's enough room under the tax line to add a vet min contract. (And probably can fit 2, for that matter, but that might make Tony more nervous every time CC hits a free throw, or DJ makes a steal. )

Here I agree with you.  As long as it has no meaningful cap consequences, if Snyder wants Favors over Vit or Tyrese then he should get exactly that.  This is a low stakes, short-term personnel issue and Fields must have liked Favors enough that he did sign Favors to a 10-day deal.

[sturt]

3 minutes ago, AHF said:

I don't assume he is the most experienced at managing the cap, making personnel decisions, etc. because he objectively isn't.

You keep doing this. Yes. These are legitimate responsibilities. Responsibilities.

I keep trying (unsuccessfully) to point out that there's a difference between having authority and having responsibilities.

I've used the homebuyer vs. architect vs. contractor analogy over and over. The architect and the contractor don't have to be the same person. (Truly, they shouldn't be.) I've also used the master chef analogy over and over.

Revisiting the point, I was suggesting an example of a good way to allow Snyder's wisdom to carry the day is to just let him be the one whose priorities are given top billing. After that, you let your basketball ops staff, GM heading that of course, deal with the actual homework to decide on options, and then, execution.

 

9 minutes ago, AHF said:

I don't assume he is the smartest guy in the room within the context of personnel management.

I don't know what you mean by "personnel management"... but how I think about it, that's the very essence of coaching... when you manage your personnel, you decide how to use your personnel best to get the job done most efficiently/effectively. Maybe you mean it from a whiteboard perspective, like how Spotrac lets fans "play GM" (?). But either way, it seems smartest to me to acquiesce to the smartest person in the room.

 

14 minutes ago, AHF said:

I do feel here like the case you are making is based not on Snyder's qualifications to have ultimate personnel responsibility but based on the weakness of Fields.

Forgive me for not making myself clear... it's not one, it's both. And for me to come to the conclusion I do, it probably has to be both. If it were one but that the other was just a "meh"... Snyder a "meh" coach, or Fields a "meh" GM... I'd align with a conventional hierarchy. But it is  both.

 

But. But. But. You still  didn't pick up on where the conversation left off last time.

Your contention was that you were mainly persuaded because of your conviction that coaches act in short-term interests. I appealed to the obvious discrepancy here, because at the very front end of Snyder's contract, he doesn't have that clouding his interests and decision-making.

I proposed in our theorietical world where you and I get to make the decision  that you allow Snyder this first off-season to have the latitude to give direction... to be the yay-or-nay basketball authority on the big picture decisions.

(What I didn't say that I should have added is that, over time, Fields would gain more and more latitude himself... the training wheels come off as he earns more regard.)

And I asked why that isn't a reasonable approach. I still don't know why that wouldn't be a reasonable approach. It does take into consideration your conviction.

 

[sturt]

1 minute ago, AHF said:

Here I agree with you.  As long as it has no meaningful cap consequences, if Snyder wants Favors over Vit or Tyrese then he should get exactly that.

Well, actually, I'm not so much advocating for it at this point as much as I'm suggesting that it may be that this is going to get tested almost immediately.

8 minutes ago, KB21 said:

The thing with Favors is that he is about done as a player.  His style doesn't fit with the modern league.

My post is not to advocate for what should happen, but to just suggest it's logical that a decision could be pending on that.

I would, however, remind that the Landry/Korver decision already was that they chose Favors over other options out there. And we're really only talking about having some added beef for the post-season... a credible vet you can put out there if CC or OO are in foul trouble.

[sturt]

In my quest to be corrected and persuaded where I'm wrong, I may have exhausted @Gray Mule.

Okay then. That's a line that shouldn't be crossed. Done here. Other posters feel free to respond, and I'll read, but pardon me that I'll decline to offer any further response.