NBA ALLSTAR WEEKEND: Trae Young - 2024 Allstar

[Spud2nique]

33 minutes ago, AHF said:

Outstanding player but he has fewer All-Star appearances than Jeff Teague and Kyle Korver do. 

As much as I love those two, that’s pretty amazing to me. Coop was robbed a bit. I agree he wasn’t a star ️ or anything but he may have been one of the best 6th men in the league in the 80’s right up there with McHale, although McHale is probably one tier higher for me than Coop but those are the top 2 sixth men of the 80’s to me.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

22 hours ago, Final_quest said:

Ultimately this is Tony’s call, but I can believe Trae and Nick influenced dad to make certain decisions.  When I say culpability I mean that I believe Trae and Ray have a lot of influence with Nick and Tony.  

If you want court case evidence, we may never see/hear that.  The smoke suggests Trae’s camp was a factor in some of our moves.  

Should he have that level of influence?  Can anyone on this forum offer concrete proof of how much influence Trae has?

I guess I’m saying I believe he has a significant voice and further I believe it’s naive to believe he has zero influence.  

Put a percentage on the influence you think Trae has on GM decision making on players and coaches

• < 10%
• 10% - 20%
• 20% - 30%
• 30% - 40%
• 40% - 50%
• 50% - 60%
• 60% - 70%
• 70% - 80%
• 80% - 90%
• > 90%

[JayBirdHawk]

16 hours ago, Diesel said:

Doc just didn't feel like playing Trae?  He got like 3 minutes in the 2nd and about 10 minutes in the 4th.  Just broken up playing time.

Doc still salty....

 

 

[AHF]

2 hours ago, Spud2nique said:

As much as I love those two, that’s pretty amazing to me. Coop was robbed a bit. I agree he wasn’t a star ️ or anything but he may have been one of the best 6th men in the league in the 80’s right up there with McHale, although McHale is probably one tier higher for me than Coop but those are the top 2 sixth men of the 80’s to me.

But for that glorious January and a couple injuries Teague and Korver are never All-Stars either.  Cooper definitely wasn't robbed of an All-Star spot, though.  There wasn't a season where he played at that level.  He is more of a Robert Horry type of outstanding role player.

If either of those guys are one of the top 3 players on your team, you aren't going to win jack (well, maybe it works if you have an MVP level player like those Shaq/Kobe teams).  

[Spud2nique]

1 hour ago, AHF said:

If either of those guys are one of the top 3 players on your team, you aren't going to win jack (well, maybe it works if you have an MVP level player like those Shaq/Kobe teams).  

Obvious big 3 is Magic Kareem and Worthy but if sub in Coop for Worthy and prolly still get a ring, he would be my 3rd dude too.

[Final_quest]

12 hours ago, TheNorthCydeRises said:

Put a percentage on the influence you think Trae has on GM decision making on players and coaches

• < 10%
• 10% - 20%
• 20% - 30%
• 30% - 40%
• 40% - 50%
• 50% - 60%
• 60% - 70%
• 70% - 80%
• 80% - 90%
• > 90%

My original comment was we don’t understand or know the extent of Trae’s influence.  Especially because there could be extra influence from developing a friendship with Nick Ressler.  My guess is Trae was in favor of a few moves that didn’t turn out well.  But there’s no way I’m putting a number on anything.  

I will also never say Trae has no responsibility for his actions and efforts to influence decisions.  I don’t think what I’m saying is controversial because it’s a guiding life principle.  Whatever actions you take you are responsible for those actions.  

To summarize:

1. We don’t know the full extent of Trae and Ray’s influence.  (Most likely we never will.)

2. Trae is responsible for his actions.

To disagree with either point you have to believe that Trae and Ray have never tried to influence ownership or GM or that people are not responsible for their actions.  

[Final_quest]

19 hours ago, Diesel said:

I still believe had we won an NBA title or two, somebody else other than Trae would have been seen as a HOFer.. maybe not Gallo but somebody.   Look at the nominees for this year...

This includes, Chauncey Billups Vince Carter, Michael Cooper, Walter Davis Bo Ryan, and Charles Smith. 

Michael Cooper?   Charles Smith?

Coop's best year, he was 9, 6, and 3.  Coop has rode the Magic Bus to the HoF.  By that same token, somebody JC, CC, Kevor somebody would have made a HoF appearance if we had won a couple of titles.

But I agree with you.. the right strategy is not to keep everybody.  The right strategy is to figure out who to keep.  Who helps winning and what can we get to help winning.    Let's talk about how we really dropped the ball...

1.  JC negotiations.   JC was on the trade block for about 4 years... nonstop.  We managed to take his value from a guy who could be a good secondary player to a guy who you can get for a couple of second rounders.   Our Front office mismanagement the movement of JC by allowing leaks to persist.  They still don't recognize this.  If you continue to put it out there that you're trying to trade one of your top players and if it is out there that you didn't trade him.. his value plummets. 

2.  Cam and Dre Draft.   When we drafted Cam, we should have counted that if he were a headcase, we keep it quiet and showcase him for a good trade.  Knox and a protected first is not good compensation for what Cam could have been.   Secondly, what did we know about Cam and Dre really?

3.  Kev Trade.  Why did we have to move Kev if it wasn't to get under the LT?  The moment we moved Kev is the moment we started needing shooters.

These are problem moves.   It has led us, partly, to where we are.  Trying to keep the core together was a bit of the issue..but more an issue is not knowing what was necessary and not necessary. 

 

 

Champions are built on duos and trios of greatness. To me it was obvious after the ECF that we still needed to level up.  The franchise and fans didn’t realize that until after we handed out too much money.  

We move into the top ten highest payrolls if we bring Bey back.  I think everyone is still butt hurt over not paying the luxury tax that they don’t want to face the iceberg in front of us.  We could have a top 5 highest payroll next year if we also signed another role player to a four year deal last summer.  Got to “improve”.  

[AHF]

4 hours ago, Final_quest said:

My original comment was we don’t understand or know the extent of Trae’s influence.  Especially because there could be extra influence from developing a friendship with Nick Ressler.  My guess is Trae was in favor of a few moves that didn’t turn out well.  But there’s no way I’m putting a number on anything.  

I will also never say Trae has no responsibility for his actions and efforts to influence decisions.  I don’t think what I’m saying is controversial because it’s a guiding life principle.  Whatever actions you take you are responsible for those actions.  

To summarize:

1. We don’t know the full extent of Trae and Ray’s influence.  (Most likely we never will.)

2. Trae is responsible for his actions.

To disagree with either point you have to believe that Trae and Ray have never tried to influence ownership or GM or that people are not responsible for their actions.  

My view is that saying someone is culpable when you have no idea how much influence he has is not fair.  Culpable means “deserving blame.”  Culpable is a very loaded term.
 

Saying people are generically responsible for their actions is a truism.  Cam Reddish is responsible for whatever impact he had on these moves.  The more important part is that the owner and GM are responsible for making these decisions and they should listen to the interests of their biggest star but should do what is in the team’s best interest.  In the absence of threats and extreme pressure from a player (sign JC for $125M or I walk), the GM and owner are the only ones culpable for the contracts the team offers to players.  Reddish and Young should not ever be “culpable” for these moves because the responsibility for them lies with the GM and owner.  They own it and are the only ones deserving of blame if they make dumb moves.

[macdaddy]

16 hours ago, JayBirdHawk said:

Doc still salty....

 

 

or this

[Final_quest]

2 hours ago, AHF said:

My view is that saying someone is culpable when you have no idea how much influence he has is not fair.  Culpable means “deserving blame.”  Culpable is a very loaded term.
 

Saying people are generically responsible for their actions is a truism.  Cam Reddish is responsible for whatever impact he had on these moves.  The more important part is that the owner and GM are responsible for making these decisions and they should listen to the interests of their biggest star but should do what is in the team’s best interest.  In the absence of threats and extreme pressure from a player (sign JC for $125M or I walk), the GM and owner are the only ones culpable for the contracts the team offers to players.  Reddish and Young should not ever be “culpable” for these moves because the responsibility for them lies with the GM and owner.  They own it and are the only ones deserving of blame if they make dumb moves.

Can someone use influence without culpability?  I say no.  

I actually think the inverse is true as well.  If you have the ability to positively influence a decision as a coach or player and don’t use it there is also culpability in that.

While there is a buck stops with person X for a variety of things in life it’s largely symbolic.  Rarely is it actually appropriate to put 100% of the blame or victory with one person.  

Every organization depends on feedback and input from participants especially people in key roles.  You actually want your star players to influence the personnel decisions and recruit players.  

To place blame solely on one person is too distant from the actual truth. But I definitely reject the premise that one can use influence that leads to a negative outcome and have no culpability.  

[AHF]

1 hour ago, Final_quest said:

Can someone use influence without culpability?  I say no.  

I actually think the inverse is true as well.  If you have the ability to positively influence a decision as a coach or player and don’t use it there is also culpability in that.

While there is a buck stops with person X for a variety of things in life it’s largely symbolic.  Rarely is it actually appropriate to put 100% of the blame or victory with one person.  

Every organization depends on feedback and input from participants especially people in key roles.  You actually want your star players to influence the personnel decisions and recruit players.  

To place blame solely on one person is too distant from the actual truth. But I definitely reject the premise that one can use influence that leads to a negative outcome and have no culpability.  

My children are culpable for what I feed them because they told me they like to eat hamburgers.  So if I decide to feed them only hamburgers they are blameworthy for what I feed them.  That checks out.

Players who are under team control for the next 5 years have very little control over things like "how much money will a team offer my RFA teammate."  There is no meaningful culpability with your example of JC's extension.  

Culpability is about blame.  Blame involves the degree of control.  Ressler and Schlenk had 100% of control.  If they ceded it to a 22 year old with zero management experience they are deserving of the blame for what comes just like if I cede control of the decision for what my children will eat to them it is really my fault.

Trae told the team he wanted to see JC resigned.  That is not culpable conduct because it is not blameworthy.  The decision to not leverage JC's RFA status and to overpay him was a bad one and the blame for that rests in every meaningful way with Ressler and Schlenk.

[Final_quest]

1 hour ago, AHF said:

My children are culpable for what I feed them because they told me they like to eat hamburgers.  So if I decide to feed them only hamburgers they are blameworthy for what I feed them.  That checks out.

Players who are under team control for the next 5 years have very little control over things like "how much money will a team offer my RFA teammate."  There is no meaningful culpability with your example of JC's extension.  

Culpability is about blame.  Blame involves the degree of control.  Ressler and Schlenk had 100% of control.  If they ceded it to a 22 year old with zero management experience they are deserving of the blame for what comes just like if I cede control of the decision for what my children will eat to them it is really my fault.

Trae told the team he wanted to see JC resigned.  That is not culpable conduct because it is not blameworthy.  The decision to not leverage JC's RFA status and to overpay him was a bad one and the blame for that rests in every meaningful way with Ressler and Schlenk.

Great example.  Children.  Trae and his dad are not children.  Are you completely confident they have had zero influence in any personnel decision?  I’m not.

Media reports the franchise makes desperate efforts to appease him.  

Zero culpability means zero influence and zero responsibility.   That is not the case here.  

[AHF]

29 minutes ago, Final_quest said:

Great example.  Children.  Trae and his dad are not children.  Are you completely confident they have had zero influence in any personnel decision?  I’m not.

Media reports the franchise makes desperate efforts to appease him.  

Zero culpability means zero influence and zero responsibility.   That is not the case here.  

The analogy is apt because children have no authority and neither does Trae.  If Trae ends up with authority guess how that happens?  Ressler or Schlenk volunteered to give it up.  That is where the blame lies.  

But let's also look at how stupid this situation is.  We say Trae is culpable for overpaying JC without a shred of evidence that Trae insisted they overpay him  just with the likely reality that he let it be known he wanted to see JC get resigned.  And presumably it is Trae's fault this happened because they were trying to "appease" him because he so loved JC that they couldn't make the decision as to how to negotiate a contract with JC without lying on their backs and letting Trae call the shots.  

Then you post an article talkign about how the team tried to trade JC for "almost four years."  So overpaying JC was about appeasing Trae but then immediately shifting to trying to trade JC was....what?  A rejection of that and assertion of their own authority?  Did Trae threaten to leave the team if they didn't resign JC or if they traded JC?  

This is so dumb.  Trae is not the owner and is not the GM.  Saying he is blameworthy for the specific contract negotiations and details of JC's contract involves one of two things for which the blame lies with Ressler and Schlenk in either case:

(a) either Ressler and Schlenk ceded their authority to a 22 year with no experience running a team; or 

(b) they didn't cede that authority and they made the decision as to what amount to offer JC.

In either case, the blame rests with them not with Trae.

Trae saying that he wants to see JC resigned is not a blameworthy action.  It is not something you hold someone "culpable" for.  It is a very normal thing for a player to express support for a teammate in the NBA.  It is then up to the actual decisionmakers to do what is in the team's interest.

[macdaddy]

We can't put a lot of faith in all these rumors.  For years we heard Trae and JC didn't get along and had altercations.  Now we're hearing that Trae was responsible for the Hawks giving him big bucks.   The truth is in the middle as always. 

[JayBirdHawk]

9 minutes ago, macdaddy said:

We can't put a lot of faith in all these rumors.  For years we heard Trae and JC didn't get along and had altercations.  Now we're hearing that Trae was responsible for the Hawks giving him big bucks.   The truth is in the middle as always. 

I was just about to post this.

It went from Trae and JC not liking each other, to Trae wanting him back, and making them sign him to more than market value deal.  So did Trae then want him on the trade block immediately after signing the and for the next 4 TDLs and offseasons???

[Final_quest]

10 minutes ago, AHF said:

The analogy is apt because children have no authority and neither does Trae.  If Trae ends up with authority guess how that happens?  Ressler or Schlenk volunteered to give it up.  That is where the blame lies.  

But let's also look at how stupid this situation is.  We say Trae is culpable for overpaying JC without a shred of evidence that Trae insisted they overpay him  just with the likely reality that he let it be known he wanted to see JC get resigned.  And presumably it is Trae's fault this happened because they were trying to "appease" him because he so loved JC that they couldn't make the decision as to how to negotiate a contract with JC without lying on their backs and letting Trae call the shots.  

Then you post an article talkign about how the team tried to trade JC for "almost four years."  So overpaying JC was about appeasing Trae but then immediately shifting to trying to trade JC was....what?  A rejection of that and assertion of their own authority?  Did Trae threaten to leave the team if they didn't resign JC or if they traded JC?  

This is so dumb.  Trae is not the owner and is not the GM.  Saying he is blameworthy for the specific contract negotiations and details of JC's contract involves one of two things for which the blame lies with Ressler and Schlenk in either case:

(a) either Ressler and Schlenk ceded their authority to a 22 year with no experience running a team; or 

(b) they didn't cede that authority and they made the decision as to what amount to offer JC.

In either case, the blame rests with them not with Trae.

Trae saying that he wants to see JC resigned is not a blameworthy action.  It is not something you hold someone "culpable" for.  It is a very normal thing for a player to express support for a teammate in the NBA.  It is then up to the actual decisionmakers to do what is in the team's interest.

You keep referencing JUST the JC move.  I see this as the Young’s influence in all things where they assert themselves.  

You honestly believe they have used zero influence in the past five years in any transaction?  

Lawyers focus on who signs the agreement and the content of the agreement.  Deal makers understand all the parties who make contributions to get a deal to the table and closed.  It’s way more complex to someone like Matt Damon’s character in Air.  That guy made the deal happen and had to work with all the objections, agents, internal departments, client, client’s friends and family, Nike owner and CEO.  To me it’s never as simple as the two parties who sign a deal as the only ones who share in the credit or blame.  So I see your view as too limited.  

I see the Young’s as a key part of our franchise with significant influence, responsibility, and therefore culpability.  But only culpable when and if they assert themselves.  Taking actions without responsibility is not possible in my view.

[Final_quest]

27 minutes ago, AHF said:

 

Then you post an article talkign about how the team tried to trade JC for "almost four years."  So overpaying JC was about appeasing Trae but then immediately shifting to trying to trade JC was....what?  A rejection of that and assertion of their own authority? 

I only posted the article to show that the front office tries to appease Trae.  He uses influence.  I’m not hung up on the JC move.

If you think the Young’s sit back without asserting themselves.  I think you are wrong.  If you think the FO does nothing to appease the Young’s I also think that is wrong.

[AHF]

You said he was culpable for JC's resigning and that is the clearest example of something that he is obviously not to blame for.  That is why I am focusing on that first.  But you can't even admit that he obviously wasn't responsible for choosing the $125M number that was the problem.

The simple matter is that Trae has very limited leverage and there is very nothing other than innuendo in unsourced media reports to support the idea of him calling the shots in Atlanta.  He is just now in the phase where he could start forcing the franchise to do things, and we've heard nothing about him doing that (he only is getting this power now because he is just now nearing UFA and a loss of team control).  Short of the arrival of his UFA status in order for him to have leverage that wasn't freely given to him by management he would have to threaten something really major like a trade demand and there is not even a stupid rumor of that.

Trae wanted JC resigned.  So what?  That doesn't make him culpable for the contract particulars which is where the problem lies.  It wasn't resigning JC that was the problem it was overpaying him.

Trae wanted a talent upgrade and knew DJM wanted to play here.  Him sharing his support of either or both of those things isn't a problem.  It isn't unreasonable either for Trae to share that view with the team management or for team management to independently want to land another star.  In fact, we should be trying to work for trades that would be talent upgrades.  Even if we grant all of that, Trae is still not responsible for the terms of the trade.  He obviously isn't making decisions on things like which picks we move and what protections are being offered.  He is just saying "we need to upgrade the talent here" and management is making the decisions about what to offer, what move is the best one, etc. and it is on them if they are making bad choices.

The heart of the problem again comes down to one of two things:

(a) Either management gave Trae the power to call the shots which would be crazy stupid and blameworthy on their part and for which we have zero evidence; or 

(b) Trae communicated reasonable things like "let's upgrade talent here" or "let's resign JC" or "let's try to get that All-Star in SA who wants to play here" and it was up to team management to decide whether to do these things and, if so, the very significant details around negotiating those deals or trades.

The culpability around the JC resign was the inflated salary.  Trae doesn't negotiate that or make that call.

The culpability around the DJM trade was potentially two things:  

(a) failing to foresee that he would not fit 

or

(b) overpaying.

Neither of those things are Trae's job.  We have scouts and a general manager whose jobs are making these evaluations and negotiating these deals and an owner who makes the final call.

If you have a star who wants to retain or upgrade the talent on the team that is...normal.  Good GMs and owners go from there and make smart personnel decisions and bad GMs and owners make bad decisions.  If the teams wins players are ultimately happy and if the team loses then it doesn't matter what you did to appease them they won't be happy.  The meaningful responsibility for making those smart decisions is with management not with the players.

[Final_quest]

Never once am I asserting Trae is 100% responsible for any key move and if you read these posts again I am pretty much always speaking in generalities about influence.  I’m not responding to any specific details or deals because that would be complete conjecture.  So I never said he was to blame for the JC deal.  Read my statements from the perspective of trying to steer the conversation away from just JC.  

Did Trae tell them how much to pay JC? Of course not.

My whole point has been Trae’s level of influence is a mystery we probably will never know.  Further in my view it’s not about assigning a blame percentage.  

If you knew the Young’s were on the phone everyday raising hell or Trae buttering up Nicky to get something done.  Would they have zero accountability for those actions?  I say no.

They are responsible for anything they’ve done good or bad.  They should assert their influence and the GM and Tony should listen.  They need to work as a team and I believe they have done that at times.  But they all share in credit and blame for results where they are involved.  

[REHawksFan]

2 hours ago, Final_quest said:

I see the Young’s as a key part of our franchise with significant influence, responsibility, and therefore culpability.  But only culpable when and if they assert themselves.  Taking actions without responsibility is not possible in my view.

This argument doesn't make any sense. The only people that could possibly have culpability over the success or failure of Hawks transactions are the people with the power and authority to make the transactions. That's it. 

Trae, nor his father, have any power or authority to execute transactions for the Hawks. He is no more culpable than you or I are when the GM says he feels pressure from the fans to build a winning team. 

As a leader in my company, I make decisions regularly. If I choose to ask an employee for their input and opinion on a particular decision and base that decision on what the employee wants, the employee isn't culpable if the decision turns out poorly. I am.

Likewise if the employee says to me, make this decision or I'll find a new job, the employee still isn't culpable if I choose to do what they want. I am. 

The buck stops with the GM and Resssler, the only people with the authority to make transactions.