DCZards wrote:payitforward wrote:Tim Connelly keeps being mentioned, but he is rebuilding in Minny. Since we are not even close to as good as Minny, you'd expect that he'd only take the job if he were given the green light & the runway to do the same here.
After all, even with an inane strategy like ours, if you draft well you can improve your team radically & quickly. Imagine how good we'd be if all we'd done was manage the last 4 drafts perfectly. I'd say we'd be one of the top 4 teams in the East.
Are they really rebuilding in Minny? They just traded away a ton of draft picks to team Gobert with KAT and Edwards, and then went out and traded for Conley. Sounds to me like the opposite of a rebuild....
Interesting point -- maybe "rebuilding" doesn't have to mean exclusively via the draft? Or through "youth?" So, if you trade umpteen guys for Gobert, I'd say you're trying to remake the team.
I.e., continuity is the opposite of a rebuild. Say GSW. Continuity but not "status quo."
DCZards wrote:Would be nice to have managed the last 4 drafts “perfectly” but is that realistic? Let’s just say they probably could have handled those drafts better....
No one manages a draft "perfectly."
Even if you get an optimum result, at least some of it has to be the product of chance rather than your skill.
But, "could have handled... better" is giving Tommy a break he didn't earn.
I'm not going to take away from the three brilliant trades he made that moved us decisively out of the previous era. Or from the terrific trade for Gafford, or finding Jordan Goodwin, or picking up Bertans for nothing. But, if you give credit where it's due, then you also have to be unflinching in your look at the rest of it.
It would have been hard to do a worse job than Tommy did over 4 drafts in a row. Kispert was a good pick. The rest of everything he did in all 4 drafts adds up to an utter disaster.
DCZards wrote:As much as I’d like to see Milt Newton get a top job, personally I’d prefer someone with no previous ties to the Zards. I’m not ruling out Langdon.
No one knows in advance who'll turn out to be an outstanding GM. Nor does it depend exclusively on the person himself.
Like you, I'd rather have Langdon than Newton, but either could turn out to be terrific, & either could fail. TBH, I'd say the main issue is with the goals set by ownership.
Even if you set out to be a "championship-level organization" (as Landry Fields described Atlanta's goal), it doesn't mean you'll get there. But, if you don't start with that goal, it's a certainty you won't achieve it.
