AJC: " Hawks need to trade Trae Young"

[Hawkmoor]

12 minutes ago, JayBirdHawk said:

Oh - but there are a few or two that think so.

Duh... lmao Two head coaches and a GM later.

Edited May 16 by Hawkmoor

[bird_dirt]

58 minutes ago, Final_quest said:

I don't believe anyone thinks Trae was our shadow GM who called all the shots.  I do think there is a potential for a nuanced conversation on Trae's influence.  Something more than zero impact on several of our moves.  

To label him as a teenager who drinks mountain dew and is like an annoying kid to ignore in the back of the car doesn't respect his actual position.  He is the box office draw.  He is also the engine of the team.  If someone is acquired or cut, it impacts what Trae has to do on the court to make it work.  There are a lot of reasons to include him in conversations if you want to have success.  

However, if all you have to say is Trae should have zero influence and has had zero influence, there really isn't a conversation.  Point taken and that's your perspective.  Many others see it differently.  

Thank you. 
Nuance. That’s all I ask for. 

[bird_dirt]

11 minutes ago, JayBirdHawk said:

My thinking is there is influence is terms of 'get me some help',  but in terms of specificity of hand picked players to target - less so.  

Example: The first get me some help moment was after a game walking in the tunnel in Season 2 after a tough loss and Trae was pissed.  Someone from the team as they were walking back to the locker room put their hand around is shoulders and said 'help is coming'.  The following offseason we signed Bogi and Gallo as our big FA acquisitions.  Did Trae specifically ask for those players or was it these are the guys we are targeting to get you some help?

I think that was a general “get me some help, generally speaking” moment. 
I think DJM was specifically picked. 

[Final_quest]

21 minutes ago, bird_dirt said:

Thank you. 
Nuance. That’s all I ask for. 

Every business wants to retain their best employee.  You actually want input from them, and at times you want them to challenge and push you.  They make mistakes too.  

[AHF]

1 hour ago, Hawkmoor said:

Duh... lmao Two head coaches and a GM later.

Please tell me again how I am straw manning and no one ever argues that Trae actually makes these calls.   It's right in this thread now.

@Final_quest

[AHF]

1 hour ago, Final_quest said:

I don't believe anyone thinks Trae was our shadow GM who called all the shots.  I do think there is a potential for a nuanced conversation on Trae's influence.  Something more than zero impact on several of our moves.  

To label him as a teenager who drinks mountain dew and is like an annoying kid to ignore in the back of the car doesn't respect his actual position.  He is the box office draw.  He is also the engine of the team.  If someone is acquired or cut, it impacts what Trae has to do on the court to make it work.  There are a lot of reasons to include him in conversations if you want to have success.  

However, if all you have to say is Trae should have zero influence and has had zero influence, there really isn't a conversation.  Point taken and that's your perspective.  Many others see it differently.  

The point is really simple.  It is not Trae's job to make personnel decisions.   It is like a hiring manager listening to his direct reports.  That person can and perhaps should listen to some of them but ultimately it is the GM or hiring manager's call and if they get overridden it is by the owner or CEO, etc. and not by one of their reports or players.

Responsibility lies with the GM, not the player - unless the player has the ability to walk and threatens to use it.  Otherwise, the player is under team control and the GM needs to make roster decisions and can listen to all the players, agents, media members, etc. he wants but the responsibility lies with him.

And when we get nuanced and the issue is more about the terms of a deal (how much did we pay JC, how many first round picks did we give up for Murray, etc.), the idea that a player like Trae gets into specifics like which draft picks to offer and what protections to put on them in a trade or how much money to put in a contract offer or anything is really headscratching for me.  Like no one didn't want to resign JC.  He was a RFA and was an upwardly mobile young player.  Did anyone want him to walk?  Of course not.  Trae didn't want him to leave neither did any of us. The only discussion is about how many dollars were in the deal.  The idea that Trae was the driving force behind determining the number of dollars the Hawks offered or had so much control over the terms of a contract offer that his name should come up in any discussion around that is just silly to me.  I legit don't get why we are talking about how much influence age 22 Trae had in the context of navigating JC's restricted free agency.

But if there is an ultimatum from a player I do put that in a different category.  If Trae says, "trade for Dejounte Murray or I walk" then I get that.  But otherwise this is normal business where the responsibility lies with the GM.

[Final_quest]

1 hour ago, AHF said:

The point is really simple.  It is not Trae's job to make personnel decisions.   It is like a hiring manager listening to his direct reports.  That person can and perhaps should listen to some of them but ultimately it is the GM or hiring manager's call and if they get overridden it is by the owner or CEO, etc. and not by one of their reports or players.

Responsibility lies with the GM, not the player - unless the player has the ability to walk and threatens to use it.  Otherwise, the player is under team control and the GM needs to make roster decisions and can listen to all the players, agents, media members, etc. he wants but the responsibility lies with him.

And when we get nuanced and the issue is more about the terms of a deal (how much did we pay JC, how many first round picks did we give up for Murray, etc.), the idea that a player like Trae gets into specifics like which draft picks to offer and what protections to put on them in a trade or how much money to put in a contract offer or anything is really headscratching for me.  Like no one didn't want to resign JC.  He was a RFA and was an upwardly mobile young player.  Did anyone want him to walk?  Of course not.  Trae didn't want him to leave neither did any of us. The only discussion is about how many dollars were in the deal.  The idea that Trae was the driving force behind determining the number of dollars the Hawks offered or had so much control over the terms of a contract offer that his name should come up in any discussion around that is just silly to me.  I legit don't get why we are talking about how much influence age 22 Trae had in the context of navigating JC's restricted free agency.

But if there is an ultimatum from a player I do put that in a different category.  If Trae says, "trade for Dejounte Murray or I walk" then I get that.  But otherwise this is normal business where the responsibility lies with the GM.

If your star player walked at the end of his contract with no warning, you might feel betrayed.  You might ask them why they didn’t bring up concerns earlier…before it was too late.  That you, the organization, might have done things differently if they provided more feedback.  

Repeating that it’s the GM’s responsibility final call over and over doesn’t really reflect how decisions are made.  That’s where the nuance comes in.  

[AHF]

13 hours ago, Final_quest said:

If your star player walked at the end of his contract with no warning, you might feel betrayed.  You might ask them why they didn’t bring up concerns earlier…before it was too late.  That you, the organization, might have done things differently if they provided more feedback.  

Repeating that it’s the GM’s responsibility final call over and over doesn’t really reflect how decisions are made.  That’s where the nuance comes in.  

Trae had zero ability to walk at age 22 when JC was resigned.  Why are we talking about Trae in connection with JC when Trae was under team control for 6 years and never threatened to force a trade?  

I already said that the influence a player has comes from the lack of team control and the player using that as a lever.  Only today is Trae entering that zone where team control is limited enough that he could serve them an ultimatum to tie the front office's hands.

[JeffS17]

1 hour ago, AHF said:

Trae had zero ability to walk at age 22 when JC was resigned.  Why are we talking about Trae in connection with JC when Trae was under team control for 6 years and never threatened to force a trade?  

I already said that the influence a player has comes from the lack of team control and the player using that as a lever.  Only today is Trae entering that zone where team control is limited enough that he could serve them an ultimatum to tie the front office's hands.

You're acting like the front office doesn't have to have a relationship with the guy they gave the keys to the city because he's under contract lol

[AHF]

13 minutes ago, JeffS17 said:

You're acting like the front office doesn't have to have a relationship with the guy they gave the keys to the city because he's under contract lol

They should talk with him and have a relationship.  Relationship doesn't equal letting him override the front office. They shouldn't do things they think are bad decisions just because he wants them as a 22 year old rising star. (And it is far from clear to me that he cared about whether JC got paid $125M or $90M as long as JC was going to be back.)

You really think any good GM would overpay JC when they would otherwise have resigned him for materially less because they want to improve their relationship with 22 year old Trae?  It makes zero sense that Trae would have that kind of leverage and it means they have $30M less to spend on the rest of the roster.  How does putting together a worse team around Trae improve the relationship with him?

[JeffS17]

15 minutes ago, AHF said:

They should talk with him and have a relationship.  Relationship doesn't equal letting him override the front office. They shouldn't do things they think are bad decisions just because he wants them as a 22 year old rising star. (And it is far from clear to me that he cared about whether JC got paid $125M or $90M as long as JC was going to be back.)

You really think any good GM would overpay JC when they would otherwise have resigned him for materially less because they want to improve their relationship with 22 year old Trae?  It makes zero sense that Trae would have that kind of leverage and it means they have $30M less to spend on the rest of the roster.  How does putting together a worse team around Trae improve the relationship with him?

The idea isn't that he is overriding anyone.  It's clearly not that black and white-- didn't realize we needed to explicitly state that.  But he does have opinions, and he absolutely can have influence if he strongly suggests he wants to keep playing with JC, and JC wants more money than the FO is otherwise willing to pay him, and they make a small concession and extend him to a contract thats too rich.  That type of thing is extremely plausible, if not probable.  "Do we pay JC an extra $2-5M per year to keep Trae happy" would be the decision point for the front office and even decent FOs could accept that trade off, as the risk of your star player being continually unhappy is a big financial risk.

So ultimately, yes, I agree with you the front office shouldn't listen to Trae's desires for the roster, but the disconnect is many people here absolve him of responsibility of influencing decision making, while simultaneously trashing the FO and ownership.  And would absolutely continue to blame the front office if Trae asks out, which is part of the reason they might be considering his input anyways.  The mental gymnastics is nauseating.

[Final_quest]

1 hour ago, JeffS17 said:

The idea isn't that he is overriding anyone.  It's clearly not that black and white-- didn't realize we needed to explicitly state that.  But he does have opinions, and he absolutely can have influence if he strongly suggests he wants to keep playing with JC, and JC wants more money than the FO is otherwise willing to pay him, and they make a small concession and extend him to a contract thats too rich.  That type of thing is extremely plausible, if not probable.  "Do we pay JC an extra $2-5M per year to keep Trae happy" would be the decision point for the front office and even decent FOs could accept that trade off, as the risk of your star player being continually unhappy is a big financial risk.

So ultimately, yes, I agree with you the front office shouldn't listen to Trae's desires for the roster, but the disconnect is many people here absolve him of responsibility of influencing decision making, while simultaneously trashing the FO and ownership.  And would absolutely continue to blame the front office if Trae asks out, which is part of the reason they might be considering his input anyways.  The mental gymnastics is nauseating.

It's exactly this, and no it doesn't mean Trae overrides the GM.  This isn't a binary where they allow Trae to draw up the contract terms if they take his input into consideration.  Also, I'm not talking about just the JC contract, so for me this is not exclusively or primarily about Collins.
Trae is the main revenue driver and makes the most impact on the court.  Biggest star since Nique.  They want to keep him content.  If you have to say that means nothing or means something on occasions, I think it has been a factor.
We don't know the details on what his impact has been on the front office.  There's a lot of speculation, but also good reasons why people think he's been vocal and that ownership has made some efforts to listen.  

Repeating the GM makes the final decision or a dozen analogies demonstrating that concept isn't very impactful.  That is easy to understand.  A binary where either GM or Trae decides is not the dynamic, so we're talking past each other it seems.  

[AHF]

1 hour ago, JeffS17 said:

So ultimately, yes, I agree with you the front office shouldn't listen to Trae's desires for the roster, but the disconnect is many people here absolve him of responsibility of influencing decision making, while simultaneously trashing the FO and ownership.  

What is the disconnect?  The front office shouldn't listen to Trae - we agree on that.  With us agreeing on that this necessarily means that whatever moves they make they own.  If they make good moves they own the credit for that.  If they make bad moves they own the responsibility for that.  That seems entirely logically consistent.

I am going to praise the front office or bash them for the moves they make not for whether they follow Trae's expressions of interest.  If they make good moves, I don't give Trae credit for it if it is something he wanted.  If they make bad moves, I don't absolve the front office if it is something Trae wanted.  The buck stops with the GM and owner on personnel decisions.

[AHF]

1 minute ago, Final_quest said:

It's exactly this, and no it doesn't mean Trae overrides the GM.  This isn't a binary where they allow Trae to draw up the contract terms if they take his input into consideration.  Also, I'm not talking about just the JC contract, so for me this is not exclusively or primarily about Collins.

What are we even talking about if Trae doesn't apply enough pressure on the front office to get them to do something they would not have chosen to do on their own?  What are we talking about if there is no causal link between the outcome and Trae's statements to the front office?

If Trae is the causal link and gets the front office to do things they would not have otherwise done, how is that different than saying he overrides them?

[JeffS17]

23 minutes ago, AHF said:

If Trae is the causal link and gets the front office to do things they would not have otherwise done, how is that different than saying he overrides them?

Overrides would mean he has some level of finality in the decision making, which no one here believes.  However, he can have influence, and ignoring that would be to assign 100% blame or praise on the front office as you've suggested.  The point here is that how Trae feels, how he acts, and his maturity level actually does matter for front office decision making, including a potential decision to move on from him entirely.

[AHF]

26 minutes ago, JeffS17 said:

Overrides would mean he has some level of finality in the decision making, which no one here believes.  However, he can have influence, and ignoring that would be to assign 100% blame or praise on the front office as you've suggested.  The point here is that how Trae feels, how he acts, and his maturity level actually does matter for front office decision making, including a potential decision to move on from him entirely.

The decision of whether to move on from Trae entirely makes total sense.  A player's maturity, how he acts, etc. is a necessary means of evaluating him which (in combination with financial management) is what personnel moves are all about.

Trae's influence has nothing to do with how I evaluate the front office because it is precisely the front office's job to listen to his wants and desires and figure out how to translate that into the best possible roster.   Trae wanted more help in the past.  You take that ask and identify the best way to get him more help (trade for an established player; draft an impactful player, etc.) or determine that it is in the best interests of the team long term to ignore that request.  A player making their feelings known does not relieve the front office of a single bit of responsibility to make thoughtful and correct decisions. 

Managing demands from players, coaches, agents, etc. is part of the job of being a GM but until you reach the point where a player forces you to make decisions you would not otherwise make I just don't see how it shifts responsibility to the player.  The best front offices manage a host of things including draft prep, cap management, trade negotiations, player management, owner management, and on and on.   A big part of that is like which player to draft or negotiating a contract  but it is also selling the owner on your vision, getting buy in from players, selling free agents, etc. which is as much a sales job as anything.  Until the owner steps in and overrides you or a player issues an ultimatum that limits your options, you have the final call on the players you draft, the contracts you offer, and the trades you make and own the results.

[Final_quest]

2 minutes ago, AHF said:

What are we even talking about if Trae doesn't apply enough pressure on the front office to get them to do something they would not have chosen to do on their own?  What are we talking about if there is no causal link between the outcome and Trae's statements to the front office?

If Trae is the causal link and gets the front office to do things they would not have otherwise done, how is that different than saying he overrides them?

Exactly. If you can only imagine a scenario where Trae overrides or he doesn't, there isn't a conversation to be had.  That's what I've been trying to say.  It's only a conversation if you see this outside of a binary.  

[AHF]

1 hour ago, Final_quest said:

Exactly. If you can only imagine a scenario where Trae overrides or he doesn't, there isn't a conversation to be had.  That's what I've been trying to say.  It's only a conversation if you see this outside of a binary.  

I agree and disagree about things being binary.  I mean there are many flavors of how this could play out.  When Trae expresses some want to the front office:

• They can ignore Trae entirely. 
• They can meet with Trae and listen politely but disregard what he says and make their own call. 
• They can meet with Trae and listen to what he says and decide whether trying to meet his expressed desire is a good idea; and if it is a categorically bad idea they can disregard but if it is promising they can then explore opportunities and make their own call about (a) whether anything makes sense and (b) identifying which scenario is best for the team. 
• They can meet with Trae and hear what he wants and then despite having the abilitiy to make their own decision decide to do whatever he asks.
• They can meet with Trae, come to their own decision, and then be overridden by ownership who tells the front office that their own judgment be damned they will do what Trae wants.
• They can meet with Trae and Trae make a demand of a more general nature like "get me help because if I don't believe this team is serious about winning then I will probably leave when I am an UFA in two years" and then the front office has fairly broad discretion about whether they want to make a move, the timing for the move, and what move they make and what form it takes.  Assuming a goal is to convince Trae they are serious about winning, they will have to factor that in similarly to how they have to convince the fan base that the team is serious about winning (except this requires probably more concrete action than it does for the larger fan base).  They can elect to move Trae knowing he is flight risk, to add a FA, to trade for someone, to bank on internal development, to draft a player who is more NBA ready and who they think will move the needle in the near term, to convince Trae that they will make their big move next year, etc. 
• They can meet with Trae, Trae can threaten to walk or force a trade if his specific demand isn't met, and then the front office can decide whether to trade Trae, let Trae walk, persuade Trae to accept another outcome, or meet Trae's demand.  If they can't talk Trae off the demand and decide to move Trae, then the front office will have a limited range of options and will make the decision which trade to accept.  If they decide to give in to Trae's demand, then the FO has made a voluntary election not to move Trae but may have no choice over the terms of the personnel move demanded by Trae.
• And probably 50 other scenarios that I don't think are any more difficult to dissect.

What is binary is whether the front office retains the authority to make their own decision or if their authority is stripped away in whole or in part.  Where they do retain authority, they own the decision to the full extent of their discretion and authority because that is exactly their job.  Where that authority is stripped from them, whoever took that authority owns the outcome of how and/or to what extent they limited the FO's authority.  Do you see why whether the FO retains authority and discretion makes a difference?

So let's look at these again.  Trae expresses some desire to the front office:

• They can ignore Trae entirely. Front office owns the decision.
• They can meet with Trae and listen politely but disregard what he says and make their own call.  Front office owns the decision.
• They can meet with Trae and listen to what he says and decide whether trying to meet his expressed desire is a good idea; and if it is a categorically bad idea they can disregard but if it is promising they can then explore opportunities and make their own call about (a) whether anything available to them makes sense and (b) if there are options that make sense then identify which scenario is best for the team. Front office owns the decision.
• They can meet with Trae and hear what he wants and then despite having the ability to make their own decision decide to do whatever he asks. Front office owns the decision.
• They can meet with Trae and Trae make a demand of a more general nature like "get me help because if I don't believe this team is serious about winning then I will probably leave when I am an UFA in two years" and then the front office has fairly broad discretion about whether they want to make a move, the timing for the move, and what move they make and what form it takes.  Assuming a goal is to convince Trae they are serious about winning, they will have to factor that in similarly to how they have to convince the fan base that the team is serious about winning (except this requires probably more concrete action than it does for the larger fan base).  They can elect to move Trae knowing he is flight risk, to add a FA, to trade for someone, to bank on internal development, to draft a player who is more NBA ready and who they think will move the needle in the near term, to convince Trae that they will make their big move next year, etc.  Front office owns the decision.
• They can meet with Trae, come to their own decision, and then be overridden by ownership who tells the front office that their own judgment be damned they will do what Trae wants.  Ressler and Trae own the decision by virtue of Ressler stripping the FO of their authority and then giving it to Trae.
• They can meet with Trae, Trae can threaten to walk or force a trade if his specific demand isn't met, and then the front office can decide whether to trade Trae, let Trae walk, persuade Trae to accept another outcome, or meet Trae's demand.  If they can't talk Trae off the demand and decide to move Trae, Trae owns the fallout from his demand crippling his trade market and the FO owns the responsibility for the offer they select among available offers.  If they decide to give in to Trae's demand, the FO owns the decision not to trade Trae and to cede authority to him and Trae owns the outcome of the personnel decision.

Throw out your own scenarios that you think would be useful for illustrating the variety and complexity of these scenarios if you'd like but I tried to hone in on a variety of realistic ones here.

[Final_quest]

2 hours ago, AHF said:

I agree and disagree about things being binary.  I mean there are many flavors of how this could play out.  When Trae expresses some want to the front office:

• They can ignore Trae entirely. 
• They can meet with Trae and listen politely but disregard what he says and make their own call. 
• They can meet with Trae and listen to what he says and decide whether trying to meet his expressed desire is a good idea; and if it is a categorically bad idea they can disregard but if it is promising they can then explore opportunities and make their own call about (a) whether anything makes sense and (b) identifying which scenario is best for the team. 
• They can meet with Trae and hear what he wants and then despite having the abilitiy to make their own decision decide to do whatever he asks.
• They can meet with Trae, come to their own decision, and then be overridden by ownership who tells the front office that their own judgment be damned they will do what Trae wants.
• They can meet with Trae and Trae make a demand of a more general nature like "get me help because if I don't believe this team is serious about winning then I will probably leave when I am an UFA in two years" and then the front office has fairly broad discretion about whether they want to make a move, the timing for the move, and what move they make and what form it takes.  Assuming a goal is to convince Trae they are serious about winning, they will have to factor that in similarly to how they have to convince the fan base that the team is serious about winning (except this requires probably more concrete action than it does for the larger fan base).  They can elect to move Trae knowing he is flight risk, to add a FA, to trade for someone, to bank on internal development, to draft a player who is more NBA ready and who they think will move the needle in the near term, to convince Trae that they will make their big move next year, etc. 
• They can meet with Trae, Trae can threaten to walk or force a trade if his specific demand isn't met, and then the front office can decide whether to trade Trae, let Trae walk, persuade Trae to accept another outcome, or meet Trae's demand.  If they can't talk Trae off the demand and decide to move Trae, then the front office will have a limited range of options and will make the decision which trade to accept.  If they decide to give in to Trae's demand, then the FO has made a voluntary election not to move Trae but may have no choice over the terms of the personnel move demanded by Trae.
• And probably 50 other scenarios that I don't think are any more difficult to dissect.

What is binary is whether the front office retains the authority to make their own decision or if their authority is stripped away in whole or in part.  Where they do retain authority, they own the decision to the full extent of their discretion and authority because that is exactly their job.  Where that authority is stripped from them, whoever took that authority owns the outcome of how and/or to what extent they limited the FO's authority.  Do you see why whether the FO retains authority and discretion makes a difference?

So let's look at these again.  Trae expresses some desire to the front office:

• They can ignore Trae entirely. Front office owns the decision.
• They can meet with Trae and listen politely but disregard what he says and make their own call.  Front office owns the decision.
• They can meet with Trae and listen to what he says and decide whether trying to meet his expressed desire is a good idea; and if it is a categorically bad idea they can disregard but if it is promising they can then explore opportunities and make their own call about (a) whether anything available to them makes sense and (b) if there are options that make sense then identify which scenario is best for the team. Front office owns the decision.
• They can meet with Trae and hear what he wants and then despite having the ability to make their own decision decide to do whatever he asks. Front office owns the decision.
• They can meet with Trae and Trae make a demand of a more general nature like "get me help because if I don't believe this team is serious about winning then I will probably leave when I am an UFA in two years" and then the front office has fairly broad discretion about whether they want to make a move, the timing for the move, and what move they make and what form it takes.  Assuming a goal is to convince Trae they are serious about winning, they will have to factor that in similarly to how they have to convince the fan base that the team is serious about winning (except this requires probably more concrete action than it does for the larger fan base).  They can elect to move Trae knowing he is flight risk, to add a FA, to trade for someone, to bank on internal development, to draft a player who is more NBA ready and who they think will move the needle in the near term, to convince Trae that they will make their big move next year, etc.  Front office owns the decision.
• They can meet with Trae, come to their own decision, and then be overridden by ownership who tells the front office that their own judgment be damned they will do what Trae wants.  Ressler and Trae own the decision by virtue of Ressler stripping the FO of their authority and then giving it to Trae.
• They can meet with Trae, Trae can threaten to walk or force a trade if his specific demand isn't met, and then the front office can decide whether to trade Trae, let Trae walk, persuade Trae to accept another outcome, or meet Trae's demand.  If they can't talk Trae off the demand and decide to move Trae, Trae owns the fallout from his demand crippling his trade market and the FO owns the responsibility for the offer they select among available offers.  If they decide to give in to Trae's demand, the FO owns the decision not to trade Trae and to cede authority to him and Trae owns the outcome of the personnel decision.

Throw out your own scenarios that you think would be useful for illustrating the variety and complexity of these scenarios if you'd like but I tried to hone in on a variety of realistic ones here.

After reading that I think the disconnect is I'm not focused on who owns the decision.  I'm more interested in the narrative of how a decision was made, what were all the factors involved.  

Like right now with Landry Fields I'm wondering if he really is a shadow GM that basically does what Ressler wants, or at least wondering if he's got a very short leash.  To the public they are making it look like Landry owns the decisions, but how much power does he actually have?  

You can have a powerful person who acts mostly independently that makes decisions and owns decisions.  You can have a powerful person who leans on a lot of talented people to make good decisions, but technically they alone own the final decision.  Have you ever experienced a no backbone "leader" who makes decisions but only after talking to a lot of people to try and figure out what will be the most popular decision?

Understanding who owns the decision is a small part of the how a decision is made.  When it came out that Nick Ressler had a bigger voice than anyone realized, even if Tony or Landry owns the decisions, it's still quite shocking that this kid even has significant influence.  

So you are focused on what you wrote in bold, and I'm more interested in the story leading up to the bolded part.  

Here's a question for you.  Take your example below.  In that scenario what actually happens in a public facing story?  Landry is STILL the public face of the decision, and in your world owns the decision.  The only way that changes is if the behind the scenes story gets leaked, which can happen years later.  The true story may never come out.  
 

• They can meet with Trae, come to their own decision, and then be overridden by ownership who tells the front office that their own judgment be damned they will do what Trae wants.  Ressler and Trae own the decision by virtue of Ressler stripping the FO of their authority and then giving it to Trae.

[AHF]

Ressler owns the most responsibility for the team.  He hires and fires the GM and has been overly involved and engaged in nepotism.  If there is a shadow GM and father and son are running the team I think it will eventually become clear as it was with decisions where TS was overridden by Ressler.  But the buck ultimately stops with whoever Ressler empower with authority (if anyone other than himself).  I find it unlikely that person will be a player so I find the narrative of Trae the GM to be incredible.  If you tell me Ressler could be the shadow GM that seems plausible.