Has Our GM Exercised Any Real Authority Since Becoming GM?

[sturt]

2 hours ago, Diesel said:

That's the face of a guy who will be executive of the year one day!

 

Thank you, Landry, for picking up the phone when GSW called to say, "You want in on this deal, coz we really don't want Bey, and we have reason to believe you might."

 

Thank you, Landry, for accepting Kyle's suggestion that you two get together for coffee after he saw you across the soccer field... the genesis of having a head coach that is the only proven basketball mind of any reputation in the building.

 

Yes, yes, there's some more to those stories. Landry actually had to agree to give up 5 2nd rounders, and Landry actually had the idea, apparently, that a closer working relationship with Korver was worth considering. I do give him his props for doing something beyond answering a call and agreeing to coffee.

 

And, and... let's just keep it real, shall we?... in both cases, we know that if there was any disagreement in the basketball ops offices about either move, the decision yet again got kicked up to the Godfather who so cleverly has engineered things so that titles mean little-to-nothing and that the only real title that matters is... owner.

 

I wish the guy great success in all his decision-making b/c after all this is my team.

 

Landry, too. ( )

[TheNorthCydeRises]

7 hours ago, sturt said:

 

Thank you, Landry, for picking up the phone when GSW called to say, "You want in on this deal, coz we really don't want Bey, and we have reason to believe you might."

 

Thank you, Landry, for accepting Kyle's suggestion that you two get together for coffee after he saw you across the soccer field... the genesis of having a head coach that is the only proven basketball mind of any reputation in the building.

 

Yes, yes, there's some more to those stories. Landry actually had to agree to give up 5 2nd rounders, and Landry actually had the idea, apparently, that a closer working relationship with Korver was worth considering. I do give him his props for doing something beyond answering a call and agreeing to coffee.

 

And, and... let's just keep it real, shall we?... in both cases, we know that if there was any disagreement in the basketball ops offices about either move, the decision yet again got kicked up to the Godfather who so cleverly has engineered things so that titles mean little-to-nothing and that the only real title that matters is... owner.

 

I wish the guy great success in all his decision-making b/c after all this is my team.

 

Landry, too. ( )

 

Did Landry do something bad to one of your kids or something?

[sturt]

1 hour ago, TheNorthCydeRises said:

 

Did Landry do something bad to one of your kids or something?

Not at all.

What did I say that's wrong? (That's a real question, not a statement.)

The theme of my posts in this vein hasn't been about Landry, but about how Ressler sets this thing up so he can keep excusing himself for being a regular voice in basketball decisions.

 

And btw, that's coming from someone who is routinely among the last to ever give up granting the benefit of a doubt to owners as a rule.

Probably more offensive to me or anyone else who has personally experienced a situation where the lead decision-makers in an organization blatantly used that same strategy to be able to conveniently exert control as it suited them.

 

I would ask the same question, actually, in reverse... did I get left out of whatever bribe got sent by whoever sent it to hype the new GM as being the Doogie Howser of GMing?

Give Landry credit. He acknowledged the Bey trade fell in his lap. Give Landry credit. He accepted Kyle's coffee invite, and then had the fortunate sense to hire him to be his #2.

But give Landry credit for what he actually should get credit for. How is that wrong?

 

Look. If you want me to believe that Landry impressed Quin as someone he could work with, I'm with you. 100%. If you want me to believe that Landry decided he wanted Quin to be the head coach, I'm with you. 100%. If you want me to believe that it was Landry's good sense to hire Korver that, in turn, opened the door to Quin being a candidate, I'm with you. 100%.

But. If you want me to believe that it was Landry's idea to fire Nate, count me as a maybe.

I'm slightly more inclined to believe that it was Tony's but, of course, that's not the narrative anyone would want to be out there, now is it... and given Tony's admission that he's been purposely misleading at times when he wanted the narrative to be different than how things really were, how can anyone take issue with me on that? Indeed, there was a defensive posture in how Landry spoke at the firing presser that gives reason for heightened doubt.

But again. It's not about Landry. It could be Landry or practically anyone else being put in this position by Ressler. It is about Antony Peter Ressler.

[Diesel]

1 hour ago, sturt said:

What did I say that's wrong?

The overall theme of your post is that Landry is an idiot who just had good things to happen around him.   You basically said that his number 2 did all the work but he can take the credit for having coffee with KK.  Or if not KK than the owner.   A total discredit to Landry and whatever work he has done. 

Backhanded compliments all around Sturt. 

 

[sturt]

1 hour ago, Diesel said:

The overall theme of your post is that Landry is an idiot who just had good things to happen around him.

That's on you, not me.

Stop reading what you want to read into what I write, please... you and Jay both, candidly, seem to have accumulated this consistent pattern of assigning to my observations and conclusions some extreme nefarious mindset. (I bring Jay into it because she makes fairly clear her thinking by how she assigns "likes" to others' comments. And hell, Jay herself has been adamant in stating that she has learned to not believe what Ressler says, nor what Schlenk said, but suddenly she seems to take this position that the new guy is different from his boss or his predecessor... like, why?... where did that come from?)

 

Dies, I believe Landry is what he is.... young... inexperienced... unaccomplished... how is any of that wrong? (It's not. And it's not my fault that it's not.)

I believe what has happened for Landry so far has been good, but why stretch that as you appear to want to do to say, "Yeah, and he was the prime mover in all that."... ??? He himself told you he was not the one who engineered the Bey trade. And we have all that Korver and Snyder said that give us insight into the serendipity that allowed Snyder to land here... Landry's impression on Snyder being one of those things, sure. But the primary thing? No. Give Korver the credit he's due.

 

But, but, but... I'm on record more than once as stating clearly that Landry is almost certainly extremely intelligent... you don't get accepted to Stanford if you're...  your word... an idiot.

Have the integrity to resist putting words in someone's mouth. Don't tell me I said something I didn't say just because I'm not buying into the hyperbole of your OP, please.

 

1 hour ago, Diesel said:

 A total discredit to Landry and whatever work he has done. 

First, it's not a "total discredit" to say that what we know happened, happened. It's rather, an obligation to just honoring what we know, and acknowledging we don't know what we don't know.

Tell me I'm wrong on that, and, then, Mr. Omniscience... enlighten me/us.... what work has he done???

You don't know any more than any one else. You know the imagery you want to promote, and the conclusions you prefer to be assigned. But you have no substance to offer in support of any of it.

Even the firing of the previous head coach... for which Landry did credit himself... is altogether deserving of skepticism. Did he fire Nate? I'm sure he was the one who delivered the message, so if that's what he meant when he said he was the one who did the firing, that's not hard to swallow. That almost certainly happened. But Tony's told you straight-up in these recent interviews he did.... he will put push a narrative he wants out there. So, no, I have no confidence that the idea of relieving Nate was something that hadn't already been inserted into a conversation originating from Tony.

 

I'm not anti-Landry. I'm pro-intellectual honesty, and being content to acknowledge what we know, and not try to pretend we know more than we do.

That means, where this conversation is concerned, I'm anti-hyperbolic image of Landry.

Big reason for that?

It runs counter to what we know about the owner.

I look forward to Landry establishing himself and growing in the position, and I again hope to God (literally) that everyone has the good sense in that building to recognize that pretty much none of them would be coveted by another NBA team to fill the equivalent position in their organization chart.... with one exception. And my unsolicited advice... be smart enough, Tony... and humble enough, everyone else... to give highest regard to that one exception.

[Gray Mule]

STURT:   If I read you correctly, Hawks do not have a GM.  We have a figurehead filling the chair.  In reality, all the important decisions are made by the owner.  It's not that Landry is dumb.  He's just being used.  He has no power.  Anyone could do what he's doing.  All the NBA knows this and wouldn't even offer Landry a job if he was dismissed.  If this in not correct, what did I get wrong?

[sturt]

1 hour ago, Gray Mule said:

If this in not correct, what did I get wrong?

Thanks for asking, Gray. It's nice to be asked, really it is.

1 hour ago, Gray Mule said:

Hawks do not have a GM.  We have a figurehead filling the chair.

Hawks have a GM. It's not like the only part of the job is major decisions. There is a day-to-day agenda that someone with some intelligence has to be overseeing. I don't think I've used the term "figurehead," but if I did, that was overstating it by a bit.

Important to that facet of the conversation, Ressler has told you how he wants his GM to run basketball ops. He's told you that by the fact that he more or less said he didn't like that Schlenk was making decisions and not giving what Ressler perceived to be appropriate weight to the opinions of others.

Don't think Landry didn't learn from that that he's not to be the least bit autocratic in his decisions, then. And in other words, understand that Ressler expects Landry to have a more democratic approach (... which again, feeds into Ressler's devices for holding ultimate power himself... Schlenk, it would appear, wouldn't put up with it anymore).

1 hour ago, Gray Mule said:

It's not that Landry is dumb.  He's just being used. 

He is not dumb. He is intelligent. He is being used, but that's a decision he's made, just like Schlenk made the decision to refuse to be under the owner's thumb. It's worth it to Landry to be as young as he is, and yet already have that title on his business card. And he's probably smart to make that choice in the big picture interests of his career, though it may not be in the best interests of the Hawks.

1 hour ago, Gray Mule said:

He has no power. 

Landry's power is limited. His power is diffused. He is effectively the patrol leader among other scouts, and ultimately the scoutmaster will have the final say on anything all that important because the scoutmaster has demanded that there be such an ambiguity of authority in the basketball ops offices that, inherently, there is almost always going to be dueling opinions about doing x, or not doing y... Ressler has set it up by design to be asked to weigh-in and be the thumb on the scale.

1 hour ago, Gray Mule said:

Anyone could do what he's doing. 

That's an overstatement. But if a person with his resume' can do it, then a lot of basketball people can do it.

Again, I'm counting on his intelligence to set him apart in the long term.

1 hour ago, Gray Mule said:

All the NBA knows this and wouldn't even offer Landry a job if he was dismissed.

No. Landry would be offered jobs around the NBA. Let's be clear. He would.

He would not be offered a GM job. Ressler has once again hired someone who does not have such a strong resume' that Ressler would feel dumb for not letting the GM be the GM like most NBA GMs function. He's always installed people who are new to that level of control. It makes it easier for him to justify his preferred way of operating.

 

Hope that helps, and again, thanks for asking.

 

PS, why am I so sure of myself on this. It's a combination of two things.

First, as I've already demonstrated, I'm using the actual words spoken and actions taken by Ressler... and those of Landry.

Second, I've been around. I know this scthick that Tony does first-hand. It's not all that uncommon. I've even seen someone in his position put a crony (in his case, his son) into the decision-making apparatus and offices so that everyone knows they're being continuously monitored by his right hand.

From an organizational management perspective, this is effed-up on multiple levels.

Can it work anyway? Dunno. Guess we're about to find out. If it does, it probably can best be attributed to just what a high character person Landry is, and how hard he will have worked to get majority support for his preferences so that no one feels compelled to run to the Scoutmaster to complain that their voice isn't being heard, not the least of which, the Scoutmaster's son.

[Diesel]

16 hours ago, sturt said:

That's on you, not me.

Stop reading

This is what you would like for us to do.

But if you don't respect the guy.. It's OK.. you can say that.  Your posts read as if he's just some figurehead that has been posted up and given the title GM.. because even the guy he hired is better fit for the Job than he...

Quote

Dies, I believe Landry is what he is.... young... inexperienced... unaccomplished... how is any of that wrong? (It's not. And it's not my fault that it's not.)

Nobody has or would question that.   It's not even a part of the argument...honestly.   That's what we call a Red Herring or is it a Blue Herring.. it's one of those.  

Quote

I believe what has happened for Landry so far has been good, but why stretch that as you appear to want to do to say, "Yeah, and he was the prime mover in all that."... ???

Maybe because it's his job...  (BTW, I will be highlighting those terms that make your posts backhanded compliments and disrespectful).    Back to what I was saying.. 
It's His Job.   He still has to look over the deal.  He still has to count the cost.   He Still has to Say OK.. So no.. GS doesn't dictate that Atlanta Must take this deal.. .There you go Landry.  Saying that a deal fell in your lap is ultimately saying that while we wasn't seeking Bey, when the opportunity to get Bey became a possibility, I did what I needed to do to make sure that we got Bey.

But to hear you tell it.. You would think that GS wrapped Bey up with a Bow and Called Landry and said...  "We can get you Bey and what would be best for your team is to send us ..."..   I.e. We know you're an inexperienced idiot so let us do your job for you.     I promise you... It didn't go that way. 

Quote

nd we have all that Korver and Snyder said that give us insight into the serendipity that allowed Snyder to land here... Landry's impression on Snyder being one of those things, sure. But the primary thing? No. Give Korver the credit he's due.

I think Korver got his due.   He made the connection with Snyder.  Great.  Korver had two stints with Snyder.   I would hope that if you were familiar with a coach on our list, that you could vouch for him.  OH Yeah.. ON OUR LIST.  Did you forget that we were looking at Snyder before we even hired Korver??

Ref 1.

Ref 2. 

Ref 3.

When we fired Nate, Quin was already on the short list but he was on a short list back in Dec too.   But Korver gets his due.. for doing his job.

Quote

First, it's not a "total discredit" to say that what we know happened, happened. It's rather, an obligation to just honoring what we know, and acknowledging we don't know what we don't know.

Tell me I'm wrong on that, and, then, Mr. Omniscience... enlighten me/us.... what work has he done???

Until there is somebody else... doing the work, He gets credit for the work that is done.. He has the final say that his position requires. 

Was there this same attitude towards Travis?  Did you ever feel like some part of the job Travis should get credit for doing and some parts of the Job somebody should get credit?  You do know that when it fails, the whole fault goes to the GM's chair and not parts of it.   That's the thing about position, it's your position whether you accept it or not.  You are responsible for the victory and the failure. 

 

[sturt]

Not even seeing any merit to responding to any of that, Dies, at least where satisfying you would be concerned.

You don't read someone's follow-up for reason to find common ground; you read someone's follow-up, and then just dig-in and try to yell over top of them (... seemingly, out of desperation to save some face, I gotta tell ya).

Example? Sure. Here ya go.

 

Quote

 

But to hear you tell it.. You would think that GS wrapped Bey up with a Bow and Called Landry and said...  "We can get you Bey and what would be best for your team is to send us ..."..   I.e. We know you're an inexperienced idiot so let us do your job for you.     I promise you... It didn't go that way. 

 

 

No. To hear me tell it... is simply to use my actual words, not your re-interpretation of my actual words.

 

On 3/18/2023 at 11:19 AM, sturt said:

Thank you, Landry, for picking up the phone when GSW called to say, "You want in on this deal, coz we really don't want Bey, and we have reason to believe you might.".........

Yes, yes, there's some more to those stories. Landry actually had to agree to give up 5 2nd rounders

 

Didn't call him an idiot. Acknowledged he had to actually agree to the price... so, there was something involved there. Maybe they wanted 6, and Landry negotiated them down to 5. Maybe they wanted 5, and Landry negotiated with them for a lesser set of 5. Or, maybe Landry held out for 4, and eventually he went with 5 because the 5 was less painful than the 4 GSW had initially indicated.

Who the hell knows. I don't. You, as Mr. Omniscience, I suppose do, but since your only evidence is that you believe yourself to be Mr. Omniscience, I'm not sure many of us are gonna be persuaded you really do.

What we do know is that what I said... the actual words... were accurate. They called him. And Landry had to make the decision whether or not the negotiated price was okay.*

And again, that's different than your prosecutorial blabber, and that is all it is.

 

 

Welcome to whatever last word you want to have on the topic... I for one won't be bothering to read it, but not that that should matter since your point is seemingly at this point to double-down on doubling down, ie reassuring yourself that one way or another you can finagle some way to believe you're right after all.

 

*Footnote... that, of course, assumes that there wasn't some difference of opinion in the FO, and Nicky let the Scoutmaster know that such that the Scoutmaster felt license to be the final word.

[AHF]

Sturt - fwiw imo your posts read like you think that Fields did not have a meaningful role in trading for Bey or hiring Quinn.  If that isn’t your intent, then you might consider changing the tone of the posts going forward on Fields.

Personally, I am sure Bey got shopped around to the whole league and Fields won that bidding war.

Getting Kyle’s opinion on Quinn and involving him in recruitment is what I would expect from the absolute best and brightest young GM in NBA history.  (Not saying that is Quinn but that he couldn’t have done better on that front.)

I think time will tell how much authority Fields wields but he is off to a good start.

[sturt]

2 hours ago, AHF said:

Personally, I am sure Bey got shopped around to the whole league and Fields won that bidding war.

I don't mind that idea that there was some big auction going on. Quite possible.

All we know is that GSW called him.

If, to you, winning a bidding war when the other team inherently just (by view of the evidence) wanted draft picks... if that's impressive, I suppose we're just going to have to disagree on that specific point. That's something more like, GSW could see what was in the inventory on the lot of all the possible dealers, and it really just came down to whose inventory GSW considered most attractive.

Me, I give Landry props for not handing over a 1st... but then again, really? Does anyone really think that was anything anyone was willing to put on the table?

Then, to be fair to what we know, you can't be sure that GSW didn't just look at Landry's inventory, and call with a proposal that Landry found acceptable. You'd like to think it was more complicated to buttress your point. But "I am sure" isn't actually that sure. We only know what we know. But, but, but circling back, even accepting that it was "more complicated," let's get real... no one's going to be yelling anytime soon about having given up 5 instead of having given up 4. The decision where Hawks' interests were concerned practically made itself.

2 hours ago, AHF said:

Getting Kyle’s opinion on Quinn and involving him in recruitment is what I would expect from the absolute best and brightest young GM in NBA history.  (Not saying that is Quinn but that he couldn’t have done better on that front.)

Or, um... me. Or, um... you. Or, even Diesel. ( )

 

Again. Where's the impressive decison-making in telling Kyle, "Hey, I want you to take the lead in recruiting here." That's even if we assume... assume... that Kyle hadn't already been talking to his old friend on his own, and was, in fact, the one who approached Landry, "Hey, I think One-N-Quin ( ) might be open to coming here based on what he told me... should we talk about letting Nate go?"

 

Again. C'mon, AHF. A decision that makes itself. Who wasn't going to make that decision?

 

2 hours ago, AHF said:

I think time will tell how much authority Fields wields

(Hey, you rhymed!)

Um. But.

Tony has told you how much authority Fields wields.

He did that when he told you in the recent interviews with media that he lied in December, and what was actually the case was he thought Travis was being too autocratic.

Don't blow that off if you want to have an intellectually honest opinion on this.

Fields' authority is equivalent to how good he's going to prove to be in winning over the rest of his staff, and especially the Scoutmaster's kid.

But you're okay with that. Because it all aligns with your idea of how an organization best functions.

I'm with you on how an organization ordinarily best functions. But I'm only with you if that organization actually has an owner who, unless he brings his own expertise to the basketball ops part of the business, stays out of basketball ops. I'm only with you if that organization has an owner who has a history of letting his lead basketball ops person have final say.

That's not this owner. One cannot wiggle around that point.

  

2 hours ago, AHF said:

he is off to a good start

Yes.

But this feels like we're complimenting the high school senior that he knows his multiplication tables.... and, even better, hey, let's give him a trophy for it.

 

 

[Diesel]

17 hours ago, sturt said:

They called him. And Landry had to make the decision whether or not the negotiated price was okay.

Uhm???  How is this any different than any other GM on any other day?

GMs take calls every day... EVERY DAY STURT.  If they make a deal with the team that calls them... it doesn't mean that somebody made the deal for them.   To say it fell in our laps is just a quaint way of saying we didn't initiate the deal.   However, you make it seems like the GM does NO WORK or yeah.. he does do some negotiating.   THATS THE DAMN JOB.   When teams bring you a deal, you determine if it's something your team needs and then if it is, you negotiate.

 

THE PROBLEM IS.. you want to make the routine job sound like an outlier.   As if his inexperience means that he's doing less than any other GM does.   THIS IS WHAT GMs DO. 

 

[SalvorMallow]

1 hour ago, sturt said:

 

Tony has told you how much authority Fields wields.

He did that when he told you in the recent interviews with media that he lied in December, and what was actually the case was he thought Travis was being too autocratic.

Don't blow that off if you want to have an intellectually honest opinion on this.

Tony also specifically said that Fields has the final say, not him. He said he has never overridden the decision of his GM. You are conveniently ignoring that part.

[sturt]

12 hours ago, SalvorMallow said:

Tony also specifically said that Fields has the final say, not him.

Indeed, he said in reply to Schultz' question...

___________________________________________

___________________________________________

Tony has said a lot of stuff.

Surely we can agree on that much.

He is well-known to have said after Bud's departure (or maybe before?) that it was a myth that Bud made all the decisions.

Even in the same interview you're alluding to, he said,

___________________________________________

___________________________________________

So, who to believe? Tony or Tony?

Tony has commented on the Budcox era, paraphrasing if you'll allow me... that Bud and Wilcox disagreed, so what could he do... he just had  to weigh-in on decisions.

 

12 hours ago, SalvorMallow said:

He said he has never overridden the decision of his GM.

Do you believe that?

I'm agnostic. I really only trust Tony at this point to tell me what he wants me to think.

Maybe he hasn't.

But maybe he has, and he's trusting that Travis won't dispute that since Travis probably isn't in a position to be creating drama right now. And maybe he's trusting that Bud and Wilcox are too professional to weigh-in all these years since.

It's like, do I believe this?

___________________________________________

___________________________________________

Read that one part again, please: "And if you ask anyone who works here, they would tell you 'yes' (that Nick is an unbelievably positive and supportive voice)."

No. I believe Tony only says what he wants me to think, or in this case, what he wants to convince himself is true... which, in this case, is wildly self-deluded that a person of his austerity and reputation and wealth and power doesn't appear to have a clue that people know better than to tell the boss directly if they think involving his kid as he does is a bad idea.

And, do I believe that Tony did nothing to communicate he would take a dark view of paying the luxury tax this season? That was all on Schlenk? Because that's apparently what he wants me and you to believe.

And, do I believe that Tony will pay the luxury tax next season?

 

I have only one firm conclusion. Tony will tell you want Tony wants you to believe for Tony's purposes... and that might be different than what Tony wants you to believe for Tony's purposes tomorrrow.

That's pretty much irrefutable at this point.

(And if it disgusts some to agree with that point since sturt made it, maybe review some of Jay's posts... she came to that conclusion long before I did, and she's let me know it, too. )

 

And aligned with that, here's what I feel confident is true, because I don't think he'd have said this except he's felt his hand forced to admit it...

___________________________________________

___________________________________________

(Note to new Hawks fans... that's not  the reasoning that Tony laid out for Travis' departure in December. Last thing Tony wanted was for anyone to think he was firing his PoBO not very many months after having appointed him PoBO.)

Putting that together with his three times having hired someone who has no previous significant track record as a GM, I further feel confident, having seen it up-close in my own experience, that he's purposely put into that office someone who he considers to be weak enough to be influenced by himself and who will not demand to be allowed to operate the basketball ops offices the way he wants to operate them.

Travis eventually grew into a force where Travis apparently decided it was time to be assertive. Tony didn't like that. Tony wanted things ran the way Tony wanted things ran. (Conventional wisdom suggests that if Nick wasn't himself the one taking issue with Travis, then Nick was the one reporting to the Scoutmaster what was happening and creating drama.)

It's even evident in this new GM's language.

Tell me what's more likely... that the GM has embraced his boss' vocabulary or the owner has embraced his GM's when Ressler utters the phrase, "what it means to be a Hawk." Conventional wisdom, in my world, is that the underling figured out awhile back to parrot his boss' phrases.

Finally, some will say, "Well, Tony's just 'challenging' his GMs' decisions, which isn't the same as Tony making the decisions."

___________________________________________

___________________________________________

Critical point, don't miss it.

It's one thing for you to be the VP, and for the CEO to challenge your decisions when you've been in your VP position for several years and have earned wide regard for how good of a VP you are.

It's quite another thing to be the VP and have no substantial record of success, and to be sitting across from the CEO, hearing his/her words, reading his/her nonverbals. And. Another still to be the VP in whose department the CEO's son is employed.

Few of us are so devoid of insight that... when we think about that... we fail to understand the degree of control that the CEO has over the latter VP's area versus the degree of control that s/he has over the former. Few of us are devoid of insight that it's really because Schlenk had grown to have enough regard that he could stand up to that "challenging" without fear at this point, and could demand of the owner to back off and let him run things as he believed they needed to be run.

 

(Will be intriguing to see who steps up and actually contests any of that, versus who sticks their proverbial head in the sand and hopes someone else will contest it for them, versus who has the kahunas to acknowledge it's all sound reasoning. But/and we seem to already know how Diesel will respond... he eliminated himself from having an opinion meriting being read on this one. You can't put words in other posters' mouths, and otherwise reply to posts with nothing but strawmen, and still yet expect to be considered to have an opinion of any substance. Disappointed in my old friend. This is twice in the last few months that he should have apologized, but instead thought an attempt at face-saving the more valiant option. Never is.)

[TheNorthCydeRises]

On 3/18/2023 at 7:27 PM, sturt said:

Not at all.

What did I say that's wrong? (That's a real question, not a statement.)

It's not that you said anything wrong ( that can be proven wrong or right ) . . . it's just that . . .

. . . this is / was a thread about 3 point shooting.

 

Diesel lays out his case about the Hawks having enough 3 point shooters that we can give certain guys the green light, while others should use caution and have a flashing yellow light in their head anytime they want to shoot a 3.

But when he mentioned Landry at the end, and post a pic of the GM, it seems ( from my vantage point ), that you got triggered like Adam Sandler in the Waterboy, when people talked about him and he turned into the best linebacker in college history.

 

 

It's your opinion about Landry, so it's cool. 

It just seemed odd that a 3 point shooting thread triggered you like that.

 

[sturt]

8 minutes ago, TheNorthCydeRises said:

But when he mentioned Landry at the end, and post a pic of the GM, it seems ( from my vantage point ), that you got triggered like Adam Sandler in the Waterboy, when people talked about him and he turned into the best linebacker in college history.

 

And that is fair.

 

I petition the mods to make up for my trigger-happiness and carve out this discussion from the OP.

 

Trigger-happiness has everything to do with Ressler, less to do with Fields. (And. Yeah. Personal experience. More than once. I like the top dog that I thought  Ressler was and that he wants us all to still see in him. I loathe the top dog that isn't that.) I have high hopes for Fields. I just don't pretend that those high hopes are already being realized in any serious way.

[sturt]

Cliff's notes for those just arriving.

I have two positions that are pretty well-grounded by substance, though that would appear to be stressing some people out in view of their posts and likes.

 

1. Concerning Antony Peter Ressler:

 

2. Concerning Landry Addison Fields:

 

Don't hate me because I'm right. Not that my request will make any difference. But know that it's not actually that I'm right, but just that what's right is right regardless of me, and/but I happen to have been willing to argue with myself enough about the substance... and unmoved by the emotions of things... to embrace what's right.

Others go through life allergic to arguing with themselves, preferring foreclosed conclusions that permit them to feel warm fuzzies at times (Landry) and cold darts at others (Nate). Attracted to the popular. The fickle popular, that is. Old enough, me, to remember Nate's warm fuzzies... hehe... just sayin... just sayin.

(Landry, the cautionary tale for you? When they're all-in with the cold darts treatment awhile from now, don't be surprised if I'm still in your corner. It happens.)

 

[Diesel]

I was reading and said.. Ah Shit, the print got small.   Sturt is back at it again. 

[AHF]

I have to publicly apologize to @sturt and @Peoriabird.  I posted what I thought was a PM on the main board and did not ever intend to post that on the main board.  

In that comment, I expressed my frustration over my exchange yesterday with Peo let that frustration carryover to criticism of sturt's last post on this thread. In both cases, I did so in a way that was way more personal than I would ever want to do on here.  I am thoroughly embarrassed to have posted this on the board.  

I don't think it is a new idea to anyone but sturt and I read between the lines on whether Landry has responsibility or is just a "yes" man but that really is completely secondary. I would never intend to put someone on blast like that in a public forum.  sturt's response was actually very charitable in light of how I wrote that up.  On this and every other topic, we can talk through things, reach consensus or agree to disagree, etc. but I never intended to make those comments publicly and it was very uncharitable for me to frame the discussion like this probably at all but certainly in a thread on the Homecourt forum.

Again, I apologize to you sturt and Peoriabird for having mistakenly posted this publicly and been as careless as I was in venting in that post.  Of all the PMs I could have accidently posted on here that may have been the worst one to make this mistake about.

 

[Guest]

Takes a decent person to apologize publicly.  
I did something similar during a ZOOM call when I messaged one of the participants (but actually messaged the entire group) criticizing one of the other participants.  
It wasn't pretty but I did the same thing you're doing now.  
Hopefully Peo and Sturt will forgive, though likely not forget.