SL Game Thread: Bucks v. Suns at 3pm CT (Thursday) ESPN3

[El Duderino]

Its stupid to think Kidd makes any decisions based solely on his agent

Yea, i never bought that line of thinking either.

It was an adorable couple threads however.

I never doubted that Schwartz may talk up a client of his to Kidd, but to think Kidd would make hugely important roster decisions like throwing huge money at a Schwartz free agent or draft a Schwartz client in the first round mainly so Kidd's agent benefits from those decisions, regardless if it wasn't in the best interest of the team just has always struck me to be ridiculous.

Jason Kidd is a super competitive guy and wants to win badly. After being in the NBA as long as he has, he knows as much as anyone that you can't reach the goal of legit contender without a really talented roster. Building a roster like that won't happen if the coach/GM is worrying more about getting commissions for an agent than acquiring the best talent fits you think are available.

[ReasonablySober]

I think if you guys are ignoring the agent connection you've got your head in the sand. No one is saying moves are being made solely because of an agent/client relationship, but you're fools if you don't think that's a big factor.

[El Duderino]

I think if you guys are ignoring the agent connection you've got your head in the sand. No one is saying moves are being made solely because of an agent/client relationship, but you're fools if you don't think that's a big factor.

So how exactly does this work then?

Take this recent draft. The Bucks front office and Kidd put together their board for the first round after countless hours preparing for the draft. They end up with a grouping of say 3-4-5 guys they like most of who also likely have the best and most realistic chance of being there at the 17th pick. So the Bucks time on the clock is only a few picks away. They start debating which way to go and since Schwartz being Kidd's agent is supposedly a "big factor" in roster decisions, the Bucks front office and Kidd were willing to move Vaughn higher above other players they may have liked better simply to throw a bone to Kidd's agent?

Then when free agency rolled around. Rumors whether true or not prior to free agency said the Bucks were interested in Brook Lopez, who is a Schwartz client. So are you really of the belief that had hypothetically the Nets passed on paying Lopez and the Bucks kinda liked Lopez, but weren't super sold on him, that they'd have still thrown the max at Brook to do a favor to Schwartz simply because Kidd also has Schwartz for an agent?

I'm not of the naive belief that agents don't ever have ways of helping steer some players to certain rosters. Obviously this happens. That said, no i don't buy that it is a "big factor" in who he Bucks spend their first round pick on, to the tune that the team is willing to bypass other players the front office and Kidd feels are better bets to help the team be better going forward, but those higher ranked players simply don't share Kidd's agent, so don't pick them.

Don't buy that the team would throw big money at any Schwartz client in free agency unless they were totally sold on that player. Now on the lower rung of free agency with a guy like Bayless, sure it could play some factor, but don't buy it was a big factor. Might be a factor in back of the bench types also

Kidd isn't dumb enough to think he can become a contender in this hyper competitive league if he goes about placing a "big factor" on roster decisions on who a players agent is compared to the best talents and fits. Maybe you think he's that dumb, but i just don't.

[emunney]

I think you're trying to shoehorn rationality onto something that could be fundamentally irrational. More likely the "Schwartz Effect" is just the result of some sort of cognitive bias where Kidd is disproportionately valuing Schwartz clients because of his positive relationship with Schwartz. There doesn't have to be anything overtly sinister with Kidd and Schwartz in the dark woods taking blood oaths and skinning lost pets.

Of course it doesn't necessarily exist, either. It could be coincidence and its adherents could be suffering from a cognitive bias of their own.

[HKPackFan]

I think you're trying to shoehorn rationality onto something that could be fundamentally irrational. More likely the "Schwartz Effect" is just the result of some sort of cognitive bias where Kidd is disproportionately valuing Schwartz clients because of his positive relationship with Schwartz. There doesn't have to be anything overtly sinister with Kidd and Schwartz in the dark woods taking blood oaths and skinning lost pets.

Of course it doesn't necessarily exist, either. It could be coincidence and its adherents could be suffering from a cognitive bias of their own.

[JimmyTheKid]

I think if you guys are ignoring the agent connection you've got your head in the sand. No one is saying moves are being made solely because of an agent/client relationship, but you're fools if you don't think that's a big factor.

So how exactly does this work then?

Take this recent draft. The Bucks front office and Kidd put together their board for the first round after countless hours preparing for the draft. They end up with a grouping of say 3-4-5 guys they like most of who also likely have the best and most realistic chance of being there at the 17th pick. So the Bucks time on the clock is only a few picks away. They start debating which way to go and since Schwartz being Kidd's agent is supposedly a "big factor" in roster decisions, the Bucks front office and Kidd were willing to move Vaughn higher above other players they may have liked better simply to throw a bone to Kidd's agent?

Then when free agency rolled around. Rumors whether true or not prior to free agency said the Bucks were interested in Brook Lopez, who is a Schwartz client. So are you really of the belief that had hypothetically the Nets passed on paying Lopez and the Bucks kinda liked Lopez, but weren't super sold on him, that they'd have still thrown the max at Brook to do a favor to Schwartz simply because Kidd also has Schwartz for an agent?

I'm not of the naive belief that agents don't ever have ways of helping steer some players to certain rosters. Obviously this happens. That said, no i don't buy that it is a "big factor" in who he Bucks spend their first round pick on, to the tune that the team is willing to bypass other players the front office and Kidd feels are better bets to help the team be better going forward, but those higher ranked players simply don't share Kidd's agent, so don't pick them.

Don't buy that the team would throw big money at any Schwartz client in free agency unless they were totally sold on that player. Now on the lower rung of free agency with a guy like Bayless, sure it could play some factor, but don't buy it was a big factor. Might be a factor in back of the bench types also

Kidd isn't dumb enough to think he can become a contender in this hyper competitive league if he goes about placing a "big factor" on roster decisions on who a players agent is compared to the best talents and fits. Maybe you think he's that dumb, but i just don't.

Huh. I guess this is still a "thing." And now I'm also curious about how this supposedly works. Its one thing to run out of healthy bodies and be forced to pluck a few familiar faces from the 10-day contract pile. Its another to shape the future look of the roster by maxing out a guy just because he has the same agent. Are there really Bucks fans who believe Jason Kidd isn't making every single personnel decision based on what he thinks is best for the franchise? And its fine to disagree with a move. I certainly didn't love the Bayless signing or the Vasquez trade. But to go as far as suggesting that Jason Kidd would make a major roster move to "help out" his agent is one of the more ridiculous things I've ever read on this forum.

[Nebula1]

It's not what you know...

Also, I really like Vaughn's jumper and despite not shooting well in SL, he looks like a player. And Archie Goodwin!

[ReasonablySober]

I think you're trying to shoehorn rationality onto something that could be fundamentally irrational. More likely the "Schwartz Effect" is just the result of some sort of cognitive bias where Kidd is disproportionately valuing Schwartz clients because of his positive relationship with Schwartz. There doesn't have to be anything overtly sinister with Kidd and Schwartz in the dark woods taking blood oaths and skinning lost pets.

Of course it doesn't necessarily exist, either. It could be coincidence and its adherents could be suffering from a cognitive bias of their own.

This is basically what I think is going on.

[emunney]

It's not what you know...

Also, I really like Vaughn's jumper and despite not shooting well in SL, he looks like a player. And Archie Goodwin!

Yes, succinctly put. Happens all the time. I bet pretty much everybody here has gotten a job this way and it wasn't as a 'favor' to anybody. It's why networking works. It's why players have agents. The thing is that it's a clear conflict of interest for an agent to represent GMs, coaches, and players. Which is why it is prohibited by NBPA rules. Yet it's not enforced, and here we are.

[paulpressey25]

We will find out by the end of next year whether Kidd has player personnel skills or not.

This past month he's doubled down on guys like Vasquez, Middleton, Monroe, Vaughn and possibly Henson if he gets big extension. And obviously MCW back in February.

Could work out great. Could be a bit of a car wreck or could be something in between. We'll have our answer shortly.

What I do know is that we've arguably got the most "talent" or "potential talent" I've seen on the team since 1999 when we had Glenn/Ray/TT/Sam.

[JimmyTheKid]

If it "happens all the time" why have there been so many mockingly critical posts about the Kidd/Schwartz relationship? My guess is because those who didn't like the Jason Kidd hire going into this thing aren't ever going to change their tune. If 90% of his actions as a coach and/or decision maker are considered "successful," the 10% will remain the focus.

[emunney]

If it "happens all the time" why have there been so many mockingly critical posts about the Kidd/Schwartz relationship? My guess is because those who didn't like the Jason Kidd hire going into this thing aren't ever going to change their tune. If 90% of his actions as a coach and/or decision maker are considered "successful," the 10% will remain the focus.

From my perspective, you haven't positioned yourself to credibly question the impartiality of others. If Jason Kidd had a RealGM Minister of Propaganda, how different from you would that person be?

The reasons Kidd's relationship with Schwartz, and how that relationship ramifies into his personnel decision-making, have been a topic of discussion seem pretty clear. One is that he's the coach and possible de facto player personnel exec for the Bucks and this is a Bucks forum. The second is that there has been significant national media focus on Kidd's relationship with Schwartz and Excel going back to his Nets days, where he coached a bunch of Schwartz clients and reportedly leveraged that relationship in the power play that resulted in him coming here. And while he was supposed to no longer be represented by Schwartz by the time he left specifically because of that conflict of interest, and instead was supposed to have represented by the wing of Excel that represents coaches and front office personnel, he said to the media that Schwartz personally was involved in negotiating his transition from the Nets to the Bucks.

Now, there probably are people here who will never be sold on Kidd and will always be waiting for him to slip up. I have full confidence that you will be up to the task of averaging them out.

[averageposter]

I guess when it comes to to Kidd's relationship where is the line for impropriety? If he were simply helping out a client of Schwartz with little regard for fit or need I guess that's possible but certainly counterproductive to needing to win as a coach. I guess that's why I don't see it as a problem, his role as a coach should keep the favors in line to what helps the team, rather than the agent. Maybe if he weren't playing the hand he deals to himself I'd be worried about it. But for now I think I think it really only been helping if anything.

[emunney]

I guess when it comes to to Kidd's relationship where is the line for impropriety? If he were simply helping out a client of Schwartz with little regard for fit or need I guess that's possible but certainly counterproductive to needing to win as a coach. I guess that's why I don't see it as a problem, his role as a coach should keep the favors in line to what helps the team, rather than the agent. Maybe if he weren't playing the hand he deals to himself I'd be worried about it. But for now I think I think it really only been helping if anything.

Yeah, that seems reasonable to ask. As a Bucks' and an NBA fan I really only have two concerns -- is there anything unethical going on, and more importantly for my viewing habits, is whatever's happening hurting the team?

IMO the answer to the first question is probably yes, just because I can see the conflict of interest and there's likely some inherent bias coming out of that relationship. I haven't seen anything that would suggest collusion or certainly nothing on-its-face scandalous like Kidd getting kickbacks for pushing deals out to Schwartz clients. I just think the rules are there for good reasons and they're not being followed. Plus we've got a disproportionate number of Schwartz/Excel clients, which supports the possibility of bias.

As to the 2nd point, I'm just hoping we take another step forward this year and our guys pan out. Time is going to tell the tale... if the Schwartz train keeps pulling into the station and dropping turds on us, obviously that's not to our benefit as Bucks fans. Other hand: idgaf if we have all Schwartz clients if we're putting up banners.

[JimmyTheKid]

If it "happens all the time" why have there been so many mockingly critical posts about the Kidd/Schwartz relationship? My guess is because those who didn't like the Jason Kidd hire going into this thing aren't ever going to change their tune. If 90% of his actions as a coach and/or decision maker are considered "successful," the 10% will remain the focus.

From my perspective, you haven't positioned yourself to credibly question the impartiality of others. If Jason Kidd had a RealGM Minister of Propaganda, how different from you would that person be?

Except when Kidd was hired, I didn't rush to the forum claiming he would be the best coach in the history of sports, a franchise savior, or Jason Christ. Unlike the detractors, who wanted to immediately tear him down, from the process of him getting hired, to his personal life, to his coaching ability. I doubt very much that those criticisms were of the informed variety. I didn't originally know anything about Kidd, the coach, as I had no interest in watching 82 games of Nets basketball. So I wasn't about to give an uninformed opinion at the time. I liked the idea (young, up and coming coach with a high bball IQ) because I grew up very much enjoying the way he played basketball. But I really had no idea if that would translate to being an effective coach. So you may see "Minister of Propaganda" and thats fine. But I look at it as simply defending him from the ignorant, overly critical, Bucks fan. And its not like I'm blindly pumping up Jason Kidd. I merely watched what transpired with my Milwaukee Bucks over the last year. This whole Schwartz angle is just another attempt, in a long line of attempts, to unfairly criticize Jason Kidd.

[paulpressey25]

The prior regime had their own "agent" problem that we talked about on here at the time. Seemed like Mark Bartelstein down the road in Chicago knew exactly who to call when he had an average player who was looking for a good deal. I think Kohl personally added multi-millions to Bartelstein's personal wealth.

Can't remember all his clients here but he had many. GAD would remember the list.

[emunney]

The prior regime had their own "agent" problem that we talked about on here at the time. Seemed like Mark Bartelstein down the road in Chicago knew exactly who to call when he had an average player who was looking for a good deal. I think Kohl personally added multi-millions to Bartelstein's personal wealth.

Can't remember all his clients here but he had many. GAD would remember the list.

A ton. I think you're always going to have situations where certain agents and agencies have better working relationships with the negotiating parties in certain franchises. It's a human thing. Where it gets dicey is when the guy with whom you're negotiating also represents you.

[paulpressey25]

A ton. I think you're always going to have situations where certain agents and agencies have better working relationships with the negotiating parties in certain franchises. It's a human thing. Where it gets dicey is when the guy with whom you're negotiating also represents you.

And it all comes down to whether your friends are sharp or not. If Kidd's judgment on players is sharp, won't matter the relationship. At the end of the day, the results will tell.

The agent relationship people here need to be watching is David Falk, since it was obvious from the Monroe deal that Falk and Lasry have a good relationship. Problem is Falk doesn't manage many guys anymore.

[MickeyDavis]

Mo Williams was a Bartelstein client, probably still is

[JimmyTheKid]

A ton. I think you're always going to have situations where certain agents and agencies have better working relationships with the negotiating parties in certain franchises. It's a human thing. Where it gets dicey is when the guy with whom you're negotiating also represents you.

And it all comes down to whether your friends are sharp or not. If Kidd's judgment on players is sharp, won't matter the relationship. At the end of the day, the results will tell.

The agent relationship people here need to be watching is David Falk, since it was obvious from the Monroe deal that Falk and Lasry have a good relationship. Problem is Falk doesn't manage many guys anymore.

I'm seriously trying to wrap my head around this. Are there Bucks fans who legitimately believe, in real life, that Jason Kidd would consider making a major move based on his relationship with a particular player's agent instead of making a major move solely for the betterment of the franchise? Is this seriously a concern? Was the Jerryd Bayless signing some huge red flag? Was there another combo guard available for 3 million dollars that would have gotten us past the Bulls? The Hornets have three, yes THREE!!!, Schwartz clients. Should we just assume something really shady is going on in Charlotte? And now we have to "watch" David Falk clients because Greg Monroe picked the Bucks over the Lakers, Knicks, and Blazers? This is what people are doing now? Because too much is going well, for a change, in Bucks land?


Watch List:

1) Jeff Schwartz
2) David Falk

Who am I missing?