Is it naive to

[JeffS17]

On 4/20/2024 at 3:25 PM, Vol4ever said:

Believe this organization top to bottom will turn it around?  

I think we already have made the major moves to turn things around, even though we didn't see it in the results this year.  I never expected the team to adopt Quin's system smoothly and effectively in the first season -- it took Utah a while for the core players to get chemistry and perform well.  The coaching staff we have is very good and we have a great development program in place in College Park.  The only thing we have dragging us are some nasty contracts Schlenk extended (unforced errors imo) in Capela and Hunter.  Once we unwind the DJ trade, we will be on a good path.  Landry has been signing reasonable, if not team friendly, extensions, and he's been making prudent moves.  I think we're on a good path for the next 1-3 years.

[sturt]

2 hours ago, AHF said:

I don't think Ressler dictated that DJM play dangerously large minutes down the stretch.  Frankly, I'd be surprised if Fields dictated it and expect that it was a decision made by Snyder.  I also doubt Ressler cares much about whether we made Vit available for the playoff roster or not and that this was a decision by Fields to tank the playoff game and ensure the #10 slot in the lottery.  The mismatch of Snyder going for the playoffs and Fields tanking the playoffs are not things I lay at Ressler's feet.  These are decisions made at levels far below Ressler in the organization.

Again again... going back to Jay's original point... the direction of the team is going to have effect on the product put on the floor. Desire to win versus desire to develop players is a fundamental point in dictating direction, and then, will have ultimate effect in some ways on what decisions are made about who plays.

Ressler cares about it all. Most of us, I think, had accepted that as fact. And. That'd been considered a good thing. A passionate owner, involved with his team, dissatisfied with losing.

Until it wasn't a good thing anymore.

APR will weigh into whatever decision the underlings seem to leave room for him to weigh into, and even if they don't, he has a pipeline from his suite on Mt. Sinai through which he is able to convey his preferences. To your comment, the top dog does not have to dictate explicitly how many minutes he believes DJM should play in order to have his desired effect as your comment seems to suggest... rather, he merely has to let it be known that he expects the team to make the playoffs, and that he feels there should be every possible effort made to get there... and it should surprise no one in that event to see DJM play "dangerously large minutes."

"Well, sure, but how then do you explain a rotation player being left off the playoff roster, then?"

First, I could be mistaken (???), but it had been my understanding that you can re-set your roster from series to series.

Soooo... I can't say, but I can... admittedly ignorantly because I'm out of the loop... suggest.

1. Is it known that the player was healthy is my first thought.

2. If the player was healthy, is there some reason one would think the head coach felt the two other teams the #10 seed might possibly face in the Play-In were more strategically well-suited to face the Hawks with Vit than with the alternative?

3. Failing either of those, is it conceivable there could have been some other disciplinary issue that no one had incentive to make public?

It's a worthy inquiry to make... I'm just confident that Tony let it be known in verbals and probably non-verbals as well how he hoped to see the season end, and that Landry and Quin both would know what had been expressed.

 

 

[Final_quest]

3 hours ago, Vol4ever said:

do we have a capable front office that can make good roster moves to build a strong team ???

My answer is no.   Worse than Pete Babcock.  

I think the grade is incomplete.  

Don’t care if Ressler is cheap or not.  Fact is JC had to go or else we’re in complete cap hell.  Then the extensions for Murray and Okongwu were good value.  The draft picks got injured but have promise.  

Gonna see what they do this off-season before I call Landry incapable.  I’m not optimistic or pessimistic.  

[AHF]

You are out of the loop and I don’t think your logic holds for the reasons I’ve already said. There are shifts in direction I’ve cited in this thread that have nothing to do with Ressler.  You dislike him so much you’ve quit on your fandom.  That is fine.  Nobody is obligated to be a fan of anything. But I’m only going to blast him for what I am convinced is attributable to him.  For you that is everything. For me that is a subset of the front office action and decisions (although quite a significant one).
 

Better to agree to disagree at this point because the only difference in our view is that you have decided everything anyone does is the fruit of his poison tree and I can’t go there with you at this point.  I still see Landry Fields, Quin Snyder and others as having some agency and there is nothing to definitely make the case for either view because we aren’t in the room when decisions are made.

[sturt]

1 hour ago, AHF said:

You are out of the loop and I don’t think your logic holds for the reasons I’ve already said. There are shifts in direction I’ve cited in this thread that have nothing to do with Ressler.

Indeed. I am out of the loop on the details of a specific case. Which is accurate.

 

I am not out of the loop on the logic, based on my experiences. What I just laid out to you cannot be dismissed if the priority is on objectivity and on testing the logic.

Argue with that logic, AHF.

Or don't, and leave the impression you fear the logic has implications you'd prefer to avoid confronting.

 

1 hour ago, AHF said:

You dislike him so much you’ve quit on your fandom.

"Dislike him so much" is just close enough to accuracy that most here probably will gloss by that statement and accept it.

But it is inaccurate at worst and misleading at best.

What I dislike is not the man... I dislike what the man has revealed, somewhat unwittingly apparently, about his priorities through word and deed.

I dislike the man's priority on his spreadsheet. But. It's his money. He gets to make the call.

But. It's my fandom, and I get to make my own call. I am allowed to want him to prioritize winning.

And I'd strongly prefer even if he keeps the priority on his spreadsheet, that he be authentic enough to quit the whole #TrueToAtlanta charade... a marketing gimmick to pretend his priority is what it is not.

 

The worst thing about that assertion though is that you suggest that my fandom is on hiatus out of some personal angst... as-if he ran over my dog, or he had an affair with my best friend's wife... no... that's false, and reasonably perhaps it's stated in that way to avoid acknowledging the man's relevant words and behaviors as it pertains to the team's operations and the team's future are the cause of my hiatus.

 

1 hour ago, AHF said:

But I’m only going to blast him for what I am convinced is attributable to him.  For you that is everything. For me that is a subset of the front office action and decisions (although quite a significant one).

I only blast him for what I am convinced is attributable to him.

We're even.

Yes. For me that's pretty much everything... why so, sturt?... well, AHF, I just explained why so but you felt the better way to engage was no engagement at all... just dismiss the logic presented, and maybe that's enough to make it all go away.

I'm talking real life, here, my friend. This isn't some federal government bureaucracy. This is a relatively small number of people in a relatively few number of offices within a relatively confined space. Worse, you know and I know (I would hope) how these things go even without the top dog's kid involved in every meeting of significance. With that mole right there, though, with no way to even pretend it has no effect?!?

 

C'mon, man. Don't be so defensive. It's glaring because it's not what I would expect coming from you.

 

  

1 hour ago, AHF said:

I still see Landry Fields, Quin Snyder and others as having some agency

They have agency, yes.

What they do not have is agency without undo and highly compelling influence (... but you knew all that if you already read the post above).

 

Oh. Look. Jay liked your post. How bout that... hehe... who knew. Well, she's to be excused... it must be hell for her to think she's written things that I agree with... .

[JTB]

6 hours ago, Vol4ever said:

do we have a capable front office that can make good roster moves to build a strong team ???

My answer is no.   Worse than Pete Babcock.  

That’s my whole argument though. While we have fans waiting for Resselers to open up the wallet and go into luxury tax penalties, I’m looking at the fact that our front office was literally using nba 2k to come up with trade ideas.

I don’t think we have a capable front office either. We have too many newbie’s in the FO in my opinion and that includes korver. I’m not really that high on fields but at the least I do believe he tries.

 

in short I think there are two issues here. Cheap owner & newbie FO.

[sturt]

1 hour ago, JTB said:

I think there are two issues here. Cheap owner & newbie FO.

From the beginning, the perspective here was and is that the "cheap owner" is also the "controlling owner"... worse, the "controlling owner" who designs org charts and promotes org culture around the idea that he can hide that fact.

The "newbie FO" is a natural outcome of a controlling owner... ie, one who designs org charts and promotes org culture around the idea that he can hide that fact.

The one thing that this owner has consistently done in 4 attempts in 8 years? Not my fault. Not a consequence of some supposed implied personal rage I have against the owner. It's just what happened. Every time.

He put into place a newbie GM.

Add to that, the one time that he ended up with a newbie GM whose longevity and resume' allowed him to begin to "feel his oats" as the old saying goes (... where did that ever come from?... ) and make more autocratic decisions... that guy wasn't welcome any more, and how do we know that there was a direct correlation between cause and effect?... Schultz asked the right questions, and confession was made after awhile under those lights.

The newbie FO is a function of the controlling owner who imagines himself as successfully hiding that from view.

And the shaky legs of that GM leading the FO? Conventional wisdom says that the GM is highly conscious of the controlling owner's history. And conscious of his mole. When you go to work every day... that is, once the honeymoon period has subsided, of course... and you feel like you are in a constant fight to maintain your boss' trust... that's gonna have an effect.

Yes, again, technically the leader of the FO has agency. But it's like he's been given a rope that he can't help but notice is just long enough to hang himself. He is timid, for reason. He cannot feel decisive, for reason. Every day is a new day to wonder what Nicky is saying about you. For reason.

 

So, my dear old friend AHF can talk all day about my not having the intimate knowledge of the details of this season... all valid... but pardon the observation... that's a deflection... the details are irrelevant to the logic presented. These smaller office dramas are nothing new... I bet I'm not the only one here who can tell stories that resonate with this situation... though the presence of a biological mole makes it especially heinous, of course.

I do get it. It's very very hard for a person to engage, let alone accept, and so sometimes the easiest way to cope is to put it all in a box and place it in the attic, away from every day life. I sympathize. And at the same time, it feels important to reassure those on the fence that the grass truly is greener on the side where transparency and authenticity of mind are paramount.

 

[JTB]

3 hours ago, sturt said:

From the beginning, the perspective here was and is that the "cheap owner" is also the "controlling owner"... worse, the "controlling owner" who designs org charts and promotes org culture around the idea that he can hide that fact.

The "newbie FO" is a natural outcome of a controlling owner... ie, one who designs org charts and promotes org culture around the idea that he can hide that fact.

The one thing that this owner has consistently done in 4 attempts in 8 years? Not my fault. Not a consequence of some supposed implied personal rage I have against the owner. It's just what happened. Every time.

He put into place a newbie GM.

Add to that, the one time that he ended up with a newbie GM whose longevity and resume' allowed him to begin to "feel his oats" as the old saying goes (... where did that ever come from?... ) and make more autocratic decisions... that guy wasn't welcome any more, and how do we know that there was a direct correlation between cause and effect?... Schultz asked the right questions, and confession was made after awhile under those lights.

The newbie FO is a function of the controlling owner who imagines himself as successfully hiding that from view.

And the shaky legs of that GM leading the FO? Conventional wisdom says that the GM is highly conscious of the controlling owner's history. And conscious of his mole. When you go to work every day... that is, once the honeymoon period has subsided, of course... and you feel like you are in a constant fight to maintain your boss' trust... that's gonna have an effect.

Yes, again, technically the leader of the FO has agency. But it's like he's been given a rope that he can't help but notice is just long enough to hang himself. He is timid, for reason. He cannot feel decisive, for reason. Every day is a new day to wonder what Nicky is saying about you. For reason.

 

So, my dear old friend AHF can talk all day about my not having the intimate knowledge of the details of this season... all valid... but pardon the observation... that's a deflection... the details are irrelevant to the logic presented. These smaller office dramas are nothing new... I bet I'm not the only one here who can tell stories that resonate with this situation... though the presence of a biological mole makes it especially heinous, of course.

I do get it. It's very very hard for a person to engage, let alone accept, and so sometimes the easiest way to cope is to put it all in a box and place it in the attic, away from every day life. I sympathize. And at the same time, it feels important to reassure those on the fence that the grass truly is greener on the side where transparency and authenticity of mind are paramount.

 

Ok so…in short sounds like you agree that even if resseler opens up the wallet this summer it’s not going to be Landry and his staff deciding the best route forward this summer…at least not without the mole being heavily involved , therefore it’ll be Lil Nicky every step of the way dictating how the money is used.

if that’s your thoughts I can see that happening too. So yeah as fan my confidence for good outcome this offseason is unfortunately on the low end.

[AHF]

All you have is speculation to separate my view from yours, sturt.  You are making assumptions without conclusive evidence that I am not.  Feel free to engage in sophistry around it but that is the reality.  We don’t know how much independence and authority Snyder and Fields have at the end of the day.  Your answer is “none.”  My answer is “some.”  Only assumptions and speculation separate those two views. I am doing my best to hear you out and be being intellectually honest but I cannot see any evidence that conclusively rules out either scenario.

[sturt]

5 hours ago, JTB said:

Ok so…in short sounds like you agree that even if resseler opens up the wallet this summer it’s not going to be Landry and his staff deciding the best route forward this summer…at least not without the mole being heavily involved , therefore it’ll be Lil Nicky every step of the way dictating how the money is used.

That's slightly overstating it, to my mind, JTB.

Assuming "Ressler opens up the wallet" at this point, first, would not be consistent at all with what his actions nor words have ever said he will do. Unless he said something this season that slipped my notice, no one should expect Ressler to open up the wallet until the team is again tangibly on an upwards trajectory. His vision, he's said, is more like "show me we unquestionably have a championship caliber team, and then I'll see what booster rocket I can afford to add to that and put us over the top." (In other words, again, let me make sure I'm seeing reason to expect revenue that will allow for that booster rocket's purchase... and thus, see likelihood of further revenue on the other side of that expense having won a NBA Finals.)

But let's say for the sake of argument he does open up the wallet now. I could be wrong, but I get no strong indication that Ressler has outright lied when he's said in answer to the question, "Could Trae Young be on the market this off season?," that those are questions he leaves to his front office to decide. No really, I could be wrong. The man has admitted to outright lying before, and that could have been another lie. But I don't think that's his MO because again he likes to think he's able to successfully hide that he's controlling, and it is important to him to be able say he's not. This may be strange to hear from me, but it shouldn't be... I think Ressler has too much integrity for that. His lie about Schlenk, I feel, was probably partially driven to allow Schlenk some cover, and not be considered in the media as being "fired."

 

Rather, the process is more subtle. It's a kind of Darwin-esque random selection... he's not going to tell Fields what to do, but he is going to challenge Fields (his own verb). By definition, then, that says that Fields is expected to pass things by him, otherwise there would never be any opportunity for challenge in the first place. Right? Right.

And how do you think those "challenges" go?

Do you think Ressler might challenge some things more sternly than others, according to what he himself would consider the best path?

Add to that, do you think that the mole might be giving some nudges on occasion to what he or his dad feel might be best... and that that's interpreted by the GM and others as the smarter way to go, given the source? And that that "smarter way" sometimes is a basketball smarter way and sometimes is a job security, trust-building-with-the-boss smarter way?

 

The other analogy I would use is how I would walk my dog... yes, I let him take the lead, but I'm always there behind him with the leash, and if he turns in some way I don't prefer, he feels that and reacts accordingly.

 

[shakes]

On 4/20/2024 at 2:25 PM, Vol4ever said:

Believe this organization top to bottom will turn it around?  

yes, 100%.   You can't look at 50 years of ineptitude coupled with the horrific track record of the current owner and come away thinking this organization is anything better than a hopeless laughing stock.

[sturt]

3 hours ago, AHF said:

All you have is speculation

Nonsense.

Absolute nonsense.

We... not just me... have Ressler's history.

We... not just me... have Ressler's February 2023 come-to-Jesus interview with Schultz.

And we... not just me... have the John Collins deal.

Some of us... maybe just me but I figure some of this community have been employed long enough to have run into such a thing... also have some practical life experience having served under some top dogs whose organizational management paradigms match up pretty closely with Ressler's tangibly apparent paradigm.

 

  

3 hours ago, AHF said:

We don’t know how much independence and authority Snyder and Fields have at the end of the day.  Your answer is “none.”

No. My answer is more nuanced that "none." But you'd have to read for comprehension instead of scanning to get that, I'd think.

 

[AHF]

2 minutes ago, sturt said:

Nonsense.

Absolute nonsense.

We... not just me... have Ressler's history.

We... not just me... have Ressler's February 2023 come-to-Jesus interview with Schultz.

And we... not just me... have the John Collins deal.

Some of us... maybe just me but I figure some of this community have been employed long enough to have run into such a thing... also have some practical life experience having served under some top dogs whose organizational management paradigms match up pretty closely with Ressler's tangibly apparent paradigm.

If you can't acknowledge you don't have sufficient information to conclusively rule out that Snyder and/or Fields have meaningful authority over some decisions then we can't even have a conversation because we aren't talking logic and epistemology (or you actually are in the room with these guys and have direct evidence of how all these decisions were made and are holding out very important information from this conversation).  What you have is probability based conclusions - inferences based on life experience and the like are not conclusive evidence that definitively rule out all other scenarios.  

You drawing analogies to other situations is not definitive evidence.  It isn't even direct evidence.  Your view is that there are compelling reasons to draw the conclusions you draw but your ego is getting in the way if you can't see the difference between conclusive evidence and what you have.  

I also have life experience from working directly with senior management (CEOs, CFOs, etc.) and can recognize that even the most controlling ones had things they didn't micro manage for their subordinates such that even when they were the primary driver and deserved primary responsibility for many actions of a business unit that did not mean a plant manager or similar management employee was entirely bereft of the ability to make any meaningful decisions on their own.  This goes to where we diverge on assessing probabilities from the indirect evidence at our disposal.  But to have an honest conversation we must admit we are talking about probabilities and that we cannot definitively rule out the other's hypothesis.  I certainly will cop to the idea that you could be entirely right - it may be that our coach and GM are just dogs on a leash.  But you could also be wrong and that Ressler is one of many interfering owners who don't control every decision that is made in their organizations.

[sturt]

2 hours ago, AHF said:

If you can't acknowledge you don't have sufficient information to conclusively rule out that Snyder and/or Fields have meaningful authority over some decisions

Tipping point word #1... "authority."

Authority isn't the issue.

They have the authority. Read closer. I've straight up said...

2 hours ago, sturt said:

Rather, the process is more subtle. It's a kind of Darwin-esque random selection... he's not going to tell Fields what to do, but he is going to challenge Fields (his own verb). By definition, then, that says that Fields is expected to pass things by him, otherwise there would never be any opportunity for challenge in the first place. Right? Right.

And how do you think those "challenges" go?

Do you think Ressler might challenge some things more sternly than others, according to what he himself would consider the best path?

Add to that, do you think that the mole might be giving some nudges on occasion to what he or his dad feel might be best... and that that's interpreted by the GM and others as the smarter way to go, given the source? And that that "smarter way" sometimes is a basketball smarter way and sometimes is a job security, trust-building-with-the-boss smarter way?

 

The other analogy I would use is how I would walk my dog... yes, I let him take the lead, but I'm always there behind him with the leash, and if he turns in some way I don't prefer, he feels that and reacts accordingly.

The question you seemingly don't want to acknowledge, my friend, is the degree to which that authority is influenced by the decision-maker's perception of the plausible consequences of his decision... "do I perceive this builds my boss' confidence or corrodes my boss' confidence?"

Thus, the other tipping point word is... "meaningful."

You are right and we agree that some decisions do not register as all that salient. But more decisions than probably should, in that ecology, register as salient simply because there is always that consideration right in front of a young GM's face.

 

2 hours ago, AHF said:

(or you actually are in the room with these guys and have direct evidence of how all these decisions were made and are holding out very important information from this conversation).  What you have is probability based conclusions - inferences based on life experience and the like are not conclusive evidence that definitively rule out all other scenarios.  

I'll grant you that. Sure.

 

But are we in a criminal courtroom here or are we in a civil courtroom?

"Beyond a reasonable doubt?" Yes. If that's the courtroom where we're debating this... you win, the accused is acquitted and we all can go home, some to celebrate.

 

But "the preponderance of the evidence?"

  

2 hours ago, sturt said:

We... not just me... have Ressler's history.

We... not just me... have Ressler's February 2023 come-to-Jesus interview with Schultz.

And we... not just me... have the John Collins deal.

Some of us... maybe just me but I figure some of this community have been employed long enough to have run into such a thing... also have some practical life experience having served under some top dogs whose organizational management paradigms match up pretty closely with Ressler's tangibly apparent paradigm.

 

Strongly tilts to the prosecutor's side... the accusations are found to be merited, and no one gets to celebrate... no one wins.

 

(Due respect, sorry to short arm your response if there's more there that you'd have liked me to address, but that's all the time I have right now.)

[AHF]

Glad you've now admitted you could be wrong and this is a matter of assessing probabilities in the absence of direct evidence.  Not sure why that was so hard. 

I'm done with the conversation now and will simply agree to disagree on the probabilities and/or our definition of what is meaningful authority in the context of the original discussion.

[sturt]

1 hour ago, AHF said:

Glad you've now admitted you could be wrong and this is a matter of assessing probabilities in the absence of direct evidence.  Not sure why that was so hard. 

Yes, I did. Glad you admire that.

Now that I've admitted that in a court of law where beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard, you'd be right...

Your turn now... can you admit what is routinely the standard by which we make judgments in sports conversations generally and on this board specifically... preponderance of the evidence... that the conclusion is stout?

Or no?

Not sure why that would be so hard.

(Well, nah. That's not true. I do know why. But you can't ding me for having granted a benefit of a doubt.)

 

  

1 hour ago, AHF said:

I'm done with the conversation now and will simply agree to disagree on the probabilities and/or our definition of what is meaningful authority in the context of the original discussion.

Of course you will.

Observation. Dismissiveness isn't ordinarily a theme of your posts in my experience. It is in this thread, though.

 

[AHF]

40 minutes ago, sturt said:

 

Your turn now... can you admit what is routinely the standard by which we make judgments in sports conversations generally and on this board specifically... preponderance of the evidence... that the conclusion is stout?

 

 

I'm not at all interested in extending my part in debate of this topic but in the interests of not being dismissive I'll try to tackle this one last time.

I disagree that the conclusion is stout and have already given you an example of where it is obviously fallacious, imo.  IMO, it is far more likely than not that Ressler did not force Snyder to play DJM and others crazy minutes in a desperate effort to make the playoffs and then flip radically around a few weeks later and force Fields to not include Vit on the playoff roster in a bid to ensure we stay in the lottery.  I think it is far more likely that those decisions rest with Snyder and Fields and demonstrate a lack of consistency on their end.

As a general rule, I think Ressler, Snyder and Fields (and others) bear responsible to the degree that they exercised authority to make key decisions on any particular topic. 

Using TS, I would say that he bears full responsibility for a lot of the decisions he made but that it seems more likely that he was overridden on the DJM by Ressler (who was encouraged to do make the deal by Fields) and so Fields and especially Ressler bear responsibility for the DJM trade rather than TS even though the trade happened while he was the GM. 

In contrast, I don't find any compelling reason to blame Ressler more than TS for the Huerter pick, the Hunter trade and pick, the Cam pick, etc.  I don't blame Ressler for the Huerter extension but I blame him for demanding that we unload salary and place responsibility on our GM for choosing the specific deal among the range of options that would have let him meet what I think was likely Ressler's demand to get under the tax.  (Ressler bears the larger responsibility around the Huerter trade in case that wasn't clear.)

Other topics are impossible for me to reach a conclusion without simply speculating.  Who is to blame for JC getting the inflated contract?  Was that Ressler demanding that TS pay him more when TS was intending to offer him substantially less?  If so, Ressler deserves the vast majority of the blame on that.  Was that TS advocating for the contract that JC ultimately signed and Ressler signing off on it?  If so, TS deserves the virtually all the blame on that.

I acknowledge that defining responsibility for decisions is ultimately a matter of trying to infer probabilities based on what is publicly known and believe that our coaches, GMs, and owner in the Ressler era all bear responsibility in proportion to their authority on any particular issue during that time.  

Where I think your conclusion is not sound is that you conclude that responsibility for all material things falls on Ressler alone.  Instead, I see that as unwarranted and instead characterize responsibility as varying by topic.  Where we agree is that Ressler bears a lot of responsibility for some very important decisions and certainly the dump trades of Huerter and JC which have removed a lot of depth from our roster the last two seasons.

[sturt]

7 hours ago, AHF said:

Where I think your conclusion is not sound is that you conclude that responsibility for all material things falls on Ressler alone.

"Alone?"

Nah.

I've made that clear twice already  but what the hey...

11 hours ago, sturt said:

Rather, the process is more subtle. It's a kind of Darwin-esque random selection... he's not going to tell Fields what to do, but he is going to challenge Fields (his own verb). By definition, then, that says that Fields is expected to pass things by him, otherwise there would never be any opportunity for challenge in the first place. Right? Right.

 

The GM has agency. The HC has agency.

But the GM especially has reason to be dramatically affected by his perceptions of his direct boss' trust and confidence in him. (And being fair to your point in one respect, yes, the HC probably has too much clout to be nearly as significantly conscious.)

It's the GM's responsibility. But the GM is compromised by virtue of how his boss has set up the ecology of the operation--all the aspects we've covered. Given that, we can't really assess the GM as-if we're getting the full understanding of what he'd be capable of if granted a less constrictive, more normal leash.

Thus, while you can recognize that the GM has the capacity to make decisions, to fail to recognize his boss' encroachment and his boss' methods is to fail to assign a substantial hunk of accountability to the right person.

Of course, that goes both ways... if this team somehow ends up defying all conventional wisdom and establishing a dynasty in the coming seasons, it will serve as evidence that Tony Ressler (or maybe Nicky) was a budding basketball genius, and I've not fully appreciated his smarter way of running things.

 

 

I'm done. All bases covered as far as I can discern, twice over.

[sturt]

7 hours ago, AHF said:

In contrast, I don't find any compelling reason to blame Ressler more than TS

Missed this on first scan. I'll be brief. To be clear, I've only been commenting on the era since Nicky entered the picture. I believe TS as a rule was much more assertive with Ressler, and/but that ultimately is what led to his being asked to leave.

[sturt]