NBA ALLSTAR WEEKEND: Trae Young - 2024 Allstar

[AHF]

1 hour ago, Final_quest said:

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.

Where I think that misses the point is that it isn't about if Trae is 100% responsible.  That is because Schlenk and Resller are 100% responsible for the moves they made as team management in the absence of some extraordinary action by Trae that has never been suggested.

Quote

 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.  

For me, Trae can have no meaningful level of blame for moves because the responsibility lies with the GM and owner.  If the GM and owner cede that control to him, they should not do so and are to blame for having done so.

Quote

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.

If Trae was on the phone every day raising hell I am going to assume that would come with threats and that would cross into the realm of extraordinary actions for which I do think he should be culpable.  But merely expressing his wants to management is not a meaningful degree of control or culpability.

Quote

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.  

I don't have any issue with this.

Quote

But they all share in credit and blame for results where they are involved.  

This is where I fundamentally disagree.  The GM and owner own all the credit and blame for management decisions in the absence of something extraordinary from a player.  Whether they are listening to Trae or to DJM or to Capela or JC or anyone else, the decisions to offer deals to players or to make trades or to take a player in the draft, etc. is their responsibility so that is on them.

Because Trae has no meaningful level of control, he should not get credit or blame for anything.  I don't think you would ignore whatever his expressed preferences are but he doesn't make those decisions and doesn't have that responsibility to the team.  His job is to get out on the court and play hard.  When the day arrives where he recruits Luka to play here or threatens to refuse to play and force a trade if we don't give Bey a massive new contract, etc. then we get into scenarios where he will have done something extraordinary so as to warrant responsibility and make himself deserving of credit and blame. 

I've seen nothing that would make me relieve the owner and GM of full responsibility for their decisions to date.  They are responsible for those decisions, no one else.  They own them.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

47 minutes ago, REHawksFan said:

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. 

 

End of thread.

[JayBirdHawk]

 

 

 

[Final_quest]

3 hours ago, REHawksFan said:

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. 

 

Amazing that the word culpable is so triggering.  I definitely think if we were giving Trae credit for helping recruit someone it wouldn’t be an issue.  People were even saying he should recruit KAT at the allstar game.  If it worked only the GM gets credit, doubt it.  Players have been influencing transactions for years.  They scheme to play together.  I see that influence as meaningful.

But I also don’t buy into the concept that a title means you deserve all the credit or blame.  I’ve been a part of a lot of million dollar deals.  It’s always a team effort.  The VPs and C suite usually credit a lot of people and they should, but they get the bonuses and company equity.  If a deal goes south they say it’s 100% their fault and then people get fired.  

[REHawksFan]

6 minutes ago, Final_quest said:

Amazing that the word culpable is so triggering.  I definitely think if we were giving Trae credit for helping recruit someone it wouldn’t be an issue.  People were even saying he should recruit KAT at the allstar game.  If it worked only the GM gets credit, doubt it.  Players have been influencing transactions for years.  They scheme to play together.  I see that influence as meaningful.

But I also don’t buy into the concept that a title means you deserve all the credit or blame.  I’ve been a part of a lot of million dollar deals.  It’s always a team effort.  The VPs and C suite usually credit a lot of people and they should, but they get the bonuses and company equity.  If a deal goes south they say it’s 100% their fault and then people get fired.  

Culpable literally means "deserving blame."

It's not that the word is triggering. It's just that Trae is in no way deserving blame for any transactions made by the Hawks. Whether he wanted them or pushed for them or not. He didn't have authority to make the moves. He doesn't get to catch the blame for them. Not sure why that's so hard to understand. 

[JayBirdHawk]

 

 

[TheNorthCydeRises]

5 hours ago, macdaddy said:

or this

Kind of crazy that Trae is about to become our 3 point AND assist leader after only 6 years with the team.

That also speaks toward guys not staying with the team long term.  7 years seems to be the max for most of our top players, especially after Nique.

 

[REHawksFan]

2 minutes ago, TheNorthCydeRises said:

Kind of crazy that Trae is about to become our 3 point AND assist leader after only 6 years with the team.

That also speaks toward guys not staying with the team long term.  7 years seems to be the max for most of our top players, especially after Nique.

 

When was the last time the Hawks had an owner / GM combo that weren't a hot mess?  Instability in the front office leads to instability within the team.  I'm 45 and I'm not sure they've had a stable owner / GM combo since my early fandom in the 90s.  I don't really remember much of Ted Turner ownership.  Been a hot mess since the Joe Johnson days, although I really thought Ressler would be a positive for the franchise.  Hasn't turned out that way.   

[AHF]

11 hours ago, Final_quest said:

Amazing that the word culpable is so triggering. 

Triggering is the wrong word.  It just doesn’t apply to this situation and carries serious implications so expect pushback if you are going to say Trae is culpable for management decisions or a sexual assault victim is culpable or any of an myriad of potential examples where describing someone as culpable for something they don’t control since the word culpable doesn’t describe the conduct to which it is attributed in any meaningful way.

Edit:  Should have just read Re’s post first.  He nailed it.

[Spud2nique]

I didn’t see this Randle funnier than I thought  

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C3dmrgXuRPp/?igsh=ZWI2YzEzYmMxYg==

Trae is like.. lol you a foo dawg  

[Final_quest]

12 hours ago, REHawksFan said:

Culpable literally means "deserving blame."

It's not that the word is triggering. It's just that Trae is in no way deserving blame for any transactions made by the Hawks. Whether he wanted them or pushed for them or not. He didn't have authority to make the moves. He doesn't get to catch the blame for them. Not sure why that's so hard to understand. 

I think the concept of GM being 100% responsible no matter what anyone does is very easy to understand.  I do understand and still disagree.

To say that superstars can push front offices to make moves and do it without anyone ever having a right to be critical of those actions is where I have a problem.  You can say ultimately the GM don't have to agree to concede to any of their demands so it's ALWAYS on the GM.  I think there is still at least a sliver of accountability towards how superstars use their leverage with a franchise.  I don't actually think anything I've said is remotely controversial.  If they want to use their influence, there is some degree of accountability to how and when they do it. 

I can say that and still support Trae whole heartedly.  Without the Young's pushing the owners to spend and improve the team who knows what Tony would do.  But yes I do think they have accountability in any action they take.  They do help to shape our franchise, and they get it wrong sometimes.  

[REHawksFan]

5 minutes ago, Final_quest said:

I think the concept of GM being 100% responsible no matter what anyone does is very easy to understand.  I do understand and still disagree.

To say that superstars can push front offices to make moves and do it without anyone ever having a right to be critical of those actions is where I have a problem.  You can say ultimately the GM don't have to agree to concede to any of their demands so it's ALWAYS on the GM.  I think there is still at least a sliver of accountability towards how superstars use their leverage with a franchise.  I don't actually think anything I've said is remotely controversial.  If they want to use their influence, there is some degree of accountability to how and when they do it. 

I can say that and still support Trae whole heartedly.  Without the Young's pushing the owners to spend and improve the team who knows what Tony would do.  But yes I do think they have accountability in any action they take.  They do help to shape our franchise, and they get it wrong sometimes.  

You can be critical all you want.  People are critical of others for things they don't control all the time.  It doesn't mean the criticism is valid.  But by all means, be critical if you want to.  Here's the problems with your argument:

1. You don't know IF Trae has used his influence to push the front office to do any thing (you assume so, but have no idea);

2. You still haven't connected the dots to show how a player with zero authority to make front office decisions is culpable (deserves blame) for front office decisions made by others;

3. What does accountability look like for Trae and his dad?  Are we going to fire Rayford from being dad of the superstar?  Do we fire Trae from having any opinions?  What exactly does "accountability" look like?  Are we really just talking about your right as a fan to criticize Trae?  Because that's done with or without culpability.  

 

[JayBirdHawk]

Remember when Lebron tweeted “My favorite player in the draft! #Napier.

Pat Riley selected him in the draft with the hope that LBJ would stick around. He didn't. Riley traded him the following season. Only person 'culpable' (word of the week) was Riley. Was his decision INFLUENCED by LBJ? Most likely.

Giannis wanted Griffin as coach, it didn't work out, he got fired. Giannis used his influence to suggest a coach he wanted, the GM made the final decision  and is culpable especially since he's now paying 3 headcoaches.

[macdaddy]

If Trae really did get LP fired then he already has made better moves than a lot of our GMs

[macdaddy]

 

More fodder to worry about. 

[REHawksFan]

39 minutes ago, JayBirdHawk said:

Was his decision INFLUENCED by LBJ? Most likely.

Smart leaders collect information and input from a variety of sources and then make the best decision based on those sources.  The sources aren't 'culpable' for the outcome of the decision.  The leader is.  Simple as that.  

[JayBirdHawk]

13 minutes ago, macdaddy said:

 

More fodder to worry about. 

I think he's talking about the Allstar game being held in OKC.....

Calm yourself ModDaddy. Not I'll but it'll 

[macdaddy]

13 minutes ago, JayBirdHawk said:

I think he's talking about the Allstar game being held in OKC.....

Calm yourself ModDaddy. Not I'll but it'll 

Yes definitely but i was reacting to his Dad reading it as I'll also.  

[Final_quest]

1 hour ago, REHawksFan said:

You can be critical all you want.  People are critical of others for things they don't control all the time.  It doesn't mean the criticism is valid.  But by all means, be critical if you want to.  Here's the problems with your argument:

1. You don't know IF Trae has used his influence to push the front office to do any thing (you assume so, but have no idea);

2. You still haven't connected the dots to show how a player with zero authority to make front office decisions is culpable (deserves blame) for front office decisions made by others;

3. What does accountability look like for Trae and his dad?  Are we going to fire Rayford from being dad of the superstar?  Do we fire Trae from having any opinions?  What exactly does "accountability" look like?  Are we really just talking about your right as a fan to criticize Trae?  Because that's done with or without culpability.  

 

I don’t claim any first hand specific knowledge.  I see this as similar to when a team plays a game and they collectively own the loss or win.

BTW lots of people have actually blamed Lebron for his hand in bringing in the wrong players or coaches.  Never heard push back on people pointing fingers at Lebron for his role.  

Saying the GM is always 100% to blame to me is like when coaches say every loss is 100% their fault as if the players had no part.  It’s way closer to reality with multiple contributors that there is shared responsibility, accountability, success, and yes culpability.  

In a healthy organization you have meaningful input from scouts, coaches, and even your key players.  Whenever a leader stands up to take 100% blame it’s usually to protect all the contributors, but it’s actually media speak targeted at simple minded people who feel better when someone accepts responsibility.  I’m never sure if someone is sincere, but I also usually don’t believe they actually think something is fully their fault.  

 

[AHF]

44 minutes ago, Final_quest said:

Saying the GM is always 100% to blame to me is like when coaches say every loss is 100% their fault as if the players had no part.  

Here is the big way that analogy breaks down.  Players do the playing.  They execute on the floor.  Coaches implement schemes, set rotations, make decisions on time-outs and challenges, decide when to break with rotations and pull people off the floor or put them on, etc.  A game is inevitably a shared product because neither the coach nor the players have total responsibility for execution on the floor.  Both parties have extreme amounts of control - players are uniquely responsible for whether their shots connect, how they move on the floor, the passes they throw, etc.  Coaches can entirely refuse to allow a player to step on the floor, set the lineup combinations, call specific plays or defensive schemes, etc. that directly affect how plays progress.

In terms of executing trades, contract offers, draft picks, etc. total responsibility resides with the front office.  No matter what a player does or says, that players ultimately can do nothing.  It is entirely up to the GM (and owner) when decisions are made and implemented.  They can choose to take into account what they hear from players, agents, fans, or any number of other potential sources but the decision is entirely in their hands and unable to be affected by any of those sources unless they cede control voluntarily to those sources.

The responsibility of players and coaches for game execution and the responsibility of players and the front office for contract offers, draft picks, and trades are fundamentally different.