Hawks looking for a new GM

[NBASupes]

Not if Burke continues shooting 36% from the field. They really could be the Atlanta Hawks west, but Burke is preventing them from doing so.

They have Dante Exum playing PG as a starter. 

[JETSET]

Not if Burke continues shooting 36% from the field. They really could be the Atlanta Hawks west, but Burke is preventing them from doing so.

That's the one move that I wasn't fond of.  They gave up the picks that were Dieng and Shabazz for Burke. 

[sturt]

Wonder if we should anticipate hearing anything before the sale is official.

 

Wonder, too, if there are any other options besides keeping Ferry or signing-up Bud to a new Popovich-like status.

 

Not that anyone here can answer those with any certainty, but it occurs to me that, 10 days out from Bradley's suggestion that Ferry could make things simpler by resigning... that ain't happened. So, it seems plausible that Ferry's not given up.

 

Or, do I assume too much?

[Guest]

Wonder if we should anticipate hearing anything before the sale is official.

Wonder, too, if there are any other options besides keeping Ferry or signing-up Bud to a new Popovich-like status.

Not that anyone here can answer those with any certainty, but it occurs to me that, 10 days out from Bradley's suggestion that Ferry could make things simpler by resigning... that ain't happened. So, it seems plausible that Ferry's not given up.

Or, do I assume too much?

No announcement will be made (DF stays or go) until the new owners are approved by the BoG and officially takeover June 24th.

[atlhawks1]

Wonder if we should anticipate hearing anything before the sale is official.

 

Wonder, too, if there are any other options besides keeping Ferry or signing-up Bud to a new Popovich-like status.

 

Not that anyone here can answer those with any certainty, but it occurs to me that, 10 days out from Bradley's suggestion that Ferry could make things simpler by resigning... that ain't happened. So, it seems plausible that Ferry's not given up.

 

Or, do I assume too much?

 

EEEEHHH. If im wrong about Bud's front court decisions this year, wrong in that it was really Ferry's decisions, and not Bud's, i wouldnt mind seeing Bud hang on as ASSISTANT general manager and concentrating on personnel, while Wes is named general manager and concentrates more on the financial end of things. I rather do that if Ferry leaves, than to go get a outsider who brings something totally new to the table.

[bird_dirt]

On another note, I listen to the Rick and Jamie show on 92.9 from time to time. And quite a few times, they have made the claim that there is other stuff involving Ferry that has yet to become public and that will be the reason why he probably won't be back. They refuse to say what it is.

Hmmmm....anyone know if Nique has any daughters (that he legitimately claims) living in Atlanta?

[Guest]

Hmmmm....anyone know if Nique has any daughters (that he legitimately claims) living in Atlanta?

You tryin to date them?

[sturt]

No announcement will be made (DF stays or go) until the new owners are approved by the BoG and officially takeover June 24th.

 

Yeah, I get that Ferry staying won't be announced until then, but if he's on the way out the door, it's not so clear that it would need to wait until then. If it's really a matter of resigning or being fired, one would naturally think he'd choose the former. And I'm just suggesting that, given that premise, one is left to think that Ferry both wants to remain and perceives he has a viable chance at it.

[Guest]

Yeah, I get that Ferry staying won't be announced until then, but if he's on the way out the door, it's not so clear that it would need to wait until then. If it's really a matter of resigning or being fired, one would naturally think he'd choose the former. And I'm just suggesting that, given that premise, one is left to think that Ferry both wants to remain and perceives he has a viable chance at it.

I don't think he resigns without first agreeing to some sort of compensation with the new owners. If they are going to fire him, they still can't make any announcements per league rules until they actually receive ownership. Edited June 10, 2015 by JayBirdHawk

[sturt]

Dunno. Maybe you're right. I can understand nothing official can occur, but it's not like some long-term decisions aren't already occurring under the out-going owners that clearly the in-coming owners have their fingerprints all over. And it would seem to benefit everyone concerned to cut ties sooner instead of later, if in fact that's what both desire to do.

 

Ordinarily, I would be suspicious that the local columnist was given some inside information by the team PR guy in order to prepare the fan base for what's coming. I recall how the MLB Astros' move to the American League was handled in a similar way, and I'm sure there are other examples. And it just doesn't seem reasonable that the local columnist, Bradley in this case, would be quite so bold as to approve that headline on his essay if he might end up with needless egg on his face later on.

 

But something just isn't jiving here.

 

Maybe the explanation is that the new owners just don't want to underwrite any compensation whatsoever since they clearly have reason for dismissal anyhow. But even that doesn't make sense when you think about it--certainly, they have cause for firing, and so they have all of the leverage... why wouldn't Ferry just resign then and get on to his next stop whatever that is?

[bird_dirt]

You tryin to date them?

No, just irresponsibly speculating that Ferry might have shaken the Wilkins family tree. Only logical explanation why Nique doesn't like him, right?

[Guest]

No, just irresponsibly speculating that Ferry might have shaken the Wilkins family tree. Only logical explanation why Nique doesn't like him, right?

Shaken? Like how? Ferry is a stud bald guy but I don't think he'd land a young girl in her 20's...ok maybe he would with money but what are you sayin...did they dirty bird it together dirt bird?

[IheartVolt]

Shaken? Like how? Ferry is a stud bald guy but I don't think he'd land a young girl in her 20's...ok maybe he would with money but what are you sayin...did they dirty bird it together dirt bird?

Are you drinking?

[Guest]

Are you drinking?

 

He's high.  So is @bird_dirt for his suggestion (albeit jokingly).

[AHF]

Maybe the explanation is that the new owners just don't want to underwrite any compensation whatsoever since they clearly have reason for dismissal anyhow. But even that doesn't make sense when you think about it--certainly, they have cause for firing, and so they have all of the leverage... why wouldn't Ferry just resign then and get on to his next stop whatever that is?

 

Don't assume they have legal cause for firing.  This matter was investigated by counsel who recommended that action short of termination was appropriate.  Moreover, the Hawks offered Deng a contract equal to what he signed in Miami so it is hard to envision what damages Deng could claim to have suffered (and thus there is no or minimal legal risk to the team based on his conduct to date).  There is a very real chance that Ferry would be owed the additional $15M or so under his contract if it came down to litigation.

 

So it is possible that the current owners want no part of fighting Ferry and Ferry has no reason to do anything that could be construed as a resignation and would prevent him from having legal rights to the remaining $$s on his contract.  If the new owners want to get rid of him, it will most likely be through a buy-out where they agree to settle his contract for some lesser amount and he becomes free to move to his next job with a nice severance check from the post-ASG owners.

[Guest]

Don't assume they have legal cause for firing. This matter was investigated by counsel who recommended that action short of termination was appropriate. Moreover, the Hawks offered Deng a contract equal to what he signed in Miami so it is hard to envision what damages Deng could claim to have suffered (and thus there is no or minimal legal risk to the team based on his conduct to date). There is a very real chance that Ferry would be owed the additional $15M or so under his contract if it came down to litigation.

So it is possible that the current owners want no part of fighting Ferry and Ferry has no reason to do anything that could be construed as a resignation and would prevent him from having legal rights to the remaining $$s on his contract. If the new owners want to get rid of him, it will most likely be through a buy-out where they agree to settle his contract for some lesser amount and he becomes free to move to his next job with a nice severance check from the post-ASG owners.

Well said @AHF, Good lawyer speak, lol.

[AHF]

Well said @AHF, Good lawyer speak, lol.

 

I was once involved in a case where a company fired an exec with a similar "cause" provision where the exec sexually harassed subordinates and sent porn over the company's email system.  The exec won when the court determined that his conduct did not amount to cause.  I disagreed with that decision but it left me with a perspective on how hard it can be to prove "cause."

[sturt]

Don't assume they have legal cause for firing.  This matter was investigated by counsel who recommended that action short of termination was appropriate.  Moreover, the Hawks offered Deng a contract equal to what he signed in Miami so it is hard to envision what damages Deng could claim to have suffered (and thus there is no or minimal legal risk to the team based on his conduct to date).  There is a very real chance that Ferry would be owed the additional $15M or so under his contract if it came down to litigation.

 

So it is possible that the current owners want no part of fighting Ferry and Ferry has no reason to do anything that could be construed as a resignation and would prevent him from having legal rights to the remaining $$s on his contract.  If the new owners want to get rid of him, it will most likely be through a buy-out where they agree to settle his contract for some lesser amount and he becomes free to move to his next job with a nice severance check from the post-ASG owners.

 

You could be right, but I don't think so.

 

I'm not an attorney, and I don't know the wording of the contract, but I think it's more likely fairly routine that his contract, being one for an employee in a high visibility role, provides a very clear out for the organization if there is any behavior that casts a shadow on the franchise.

 

You mention the counsel's conclusion, but I'm not sure what standing a court would give to the opinion of the current owners' counsel.

 

If I'm betting, I would put my money on the "not much" side.

 

I don't think Ferry has any leverage whatsoever here unless the contract language is different than I'm suggesting would be conventional wisdom.

 

And yet, maybe it is. Moreover, what I think and where I'd put my money aren't actually important. Maybe there's wiggle room in the language, and maybe Ferry thinks more like you do about it.

 

Just sitting here with my popcorn.

[AHF]

I'm not an attorney, and I don't know the wording of the contract, but I think it's more likely fairly routine that his contract, being one for an employee in a high visibility role, provides a very clear out for the organization if there is any behavior that casts a shadow on the franchise.

 

Don't bet on that being in his contract.  The interesting thing would be that he would even have a good defense to that.  None of this would have cast a shadow on the franchise if our owner hadn't taken this to the media in a way designed to create the maximum negative impact for the team.  Thus, he would have a colorable argument that the only damage here is damage that was deliberately self-inflicted by Hawks ownership as part of a political power play within the ASG.

[sturt]

I was once involved in a case where a company fired an exec with a similar "cause" provision where the exec sexually harassed subordinates and sent porn over the company's email system.  The exec won when the court determined that his conduct did not amount to cause.  I disagreed with that decision but it left me with a perspective on how hard it can be to prove "cause."

 

That's polar opposite from my understanding of what is typical. Sounds like you were floored as well. Employers have exceptional latitude in firing as a rule. And of course, this isn't just a boilerplate employer-employee thing--one has reason to suspect that the GM's attorneys and the franchise's attorneys custom-assembled whatever it is that would be under the microscope here.

 

I admit it's an assumption on my part that there is distinct language that states unequivocally that any behavior that disgraces the franchise in any way is cause for firing. If that's erroneous on my part, okay, but that would seem to be the crux of the question here.