It's Quin Snyder Media Day

[JayBirdHawk]

18 minutes ago, sturt said:

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.

 

 

[KB21]

[bird_dirt]

4 minutes ago, KB21 said:

I wanna see Coach Q dressed as the Green Goblin for Halloween. 

[AHF]

1 hour ago, sturt said:

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.

I want the person who is responsible for doing all the work to be responsible for the decisionmaking as well.  That is the core responsibility of the GM, imo.  They are the architect.  Snyder's priorities should absolutely inform the GM's actions - you don't hire a coach who is all about 3pt shooting and then give him a roster of subpar 3pt shooters - but managing the tradeoffs around cap implications, roster resources, talent evaluation, etc. should be the primary province of the GM in my view.

Quote

 But either way, it seems smartest to me to acquiesce to the smartest person in the room.

 

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.

I do not assume Snyder is the smartest person in the room.  He has the least experience in a front office environment  between himself, Fields and Korver and a comparable record in terms of total NBA years.  He is obviously the smartest person in the room on coaching based on his experience and track record in that area, but I don't assume that on the GM side of things anymore than I assume someone who is great as a operations director is the smartest person in the room on pension investment decisions.  I feel most coaches are not the smartest person in the room on those issues and see more examples of coaches with influence on personnel matters beyond what their front office experience would justify making poor decisions than good ones historically.

Quote

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.

I don't buy that Snyder or any coach will be content to lose in the short-term if that is the right decision for the long-term.  Coaches by their nature are designed to address issues right now rather than 3 years from now.  Coaches are fired with years left on their contracts all the time.  A coach would have to have supreme confidence or a lack of awareness to believe they can suffer through underwhelming performance and rely on the length of their contract to ensure they will be around for its duration.

On the merits of their qualifications, Fields has better GM qualifications (limited as they may be) than Snyder.  And whatever skills Snyder has in this area will not be dedicated to doing the work that leads to GM decision-making.  And being in the details on that work-up is important, imo.  Instead, Snyder will be focused on coaching.  So I don't want to give him ultimate authority on big picture personnel decisions. 

I also don't think that once given you can pull that authority back from Snyder so IMO you are making a long-term decision on the hierarchy of your organization by doing this and there is very little benefit to it.  From a practical perspective, Snyder has likely already given  his $.02 as to where he thinks the team needs to go or what he thinks needs to be evaluated in the short-term and his view is likely to carry the day this early into his tenure.  So why make a long-term unorthodox division of authority when it won't even make a practical difference in the short term?

I do not find your argument on this point persuasive and in the hypothetical reality where I am the owner I am going to designate a GM, give them authority to do their job, and not make them answerable to the head coach in the abstract or in this particular factual scenario when talking about Fields and Snyder. 

[sturt]

(But that's okay.)

[Spud2nique]

Snyder loves Korver loves Landry. In short, I have high expectations and I’m crazy giddy over this organization, this time from the top down…

Good things will happen now no matter what the roster moving forward. 
 

A culture sub-seeds everything. We now have that culture with Snyder like we did with Bud and his daily vitamins or whatever. @JayBirdHawk  I love it!