Well in that case I have absolutely no problem stating that IMO McPhee is not in Holland's or Lamoriello's class as a GM.
I think too, since 1995, the Wings have been in the SCF 7 or 8 times.
Not too shabby. This is why I wanted to see if mark Howe could be enticed to take the Cap's GM job, as he's said by many to be the best player scout in the business, and we need someone who can assess talent.
But it'll never happen: GMGM is the Russ Thomas of the NHL.
FYI (for those unfamiliar)... Russ Thomas is the man responsible for decades of Detroit Lion football teams. Lion fans could never get rid of him.... because the team made money, and the Ford's placed that as their #1 priority.
I could probably be described as a GMGM apologist but one thing I try to look at when evaluating any GM is not only the results, but the potential of the rosters he puts together. The guy doesn't play the games. I know talking heads are just that, but there have been several respected publications/analysts over the past several years who have picked the Caps as favorites for the Cup at the start of the season. Heck, even this season one of the guys on the NHL Network preview show picked the Caps to win it all.
Maybe he should have been better in targeting tougher "playoff" players or gone with more established coaches, but he couldn't stop Halak from turning into a wall or prevent the refs from waving off the goal in Game 7 vs. the Habs or stop Orpik from slashing Semin or having half the defensemen end up with broken feet against the Pens.
Should he have been fired already? Maybe. You could also talk me into probably, but an argument could be made for keeping him around as well.
GM also choose the coaches (who is supposed to lead the talent), and is directly involved in the locker room dynamic, as he again chooses the players and the coach.
Ultimately, the GM is the driver of the franchise. If the team succeeds, its on him. If it fails, its on him.
I realize you're passionate about wanting real change, and accountability. But there's no need to be sharp with the tongue (I do totally agree with you, though, and think you make great arguments via darn good writing).
The truth is, Forsberg/Wilson are not in the NHL yet, and the difference between the NHL and other leagues is like comparing college football to the NFL.
Good play in any other league is no indicator of the level that player will produce if he makes it into the NHL.
And that's the truth of it.
I get tired of people not reading. If they are sensitive to it, then thats on them. Its not like I called him an imbecile or challenged him to an internet fight.
Ultimately, the GM is the driver of the franchise.
Only if the owner lets the GM drive the franchise, which Leonsis did not do for a number of seasons in the middle of McPhee's reign and the repercussions of that extended IMO at least a couple of seasons after the last lockout.
Only if the owner lets the GM drive the franchise, which Leonsis did not do for a number of seasons in the middle of McPhee's reign and the repercussions of that extended IMO at least a couple of seasons after the last lockout.
Lets look at the records of the 6 longest tenured NHL GM's, shall we?
1. Jim Rutherford, Carolina (19 years). Since 1997 (when GMGM was hired): 3 ECF's, 2 SCF's, 1 CUP
2. Lou Lamoriello, New Jersey (18 years). Since 1997: 4 SCF's, 2 Cups
3. George McPhee, Washington (15 years). Since 1997: 1 SCF
5. Ken Holland, Detroit (15 years). Since 1997: 5 WCF's, 4 SCF's, 3 Cups
6. David Poile, Nashville (15 years). Since 1998 (1st year in league): 0 WCF's
Ok, so what does this tell you? Nashville didnt make it first playoffs til 2004.
The rest of the GM's all have minimum 3 Conference Finals. GMGM has 1. You wanted empirical proof of GM's ineptitude, and here you go. Obviously it can be even argued that the ONE ECF the Caps got too, was Poile's team (oddly enough).
So do you still think 3 Conference Finals is too much, Millhaus, for a 15 year reign?
So do you still think 3 Conference Finals is too much, Millhaus, for a 15 year reign?
Not all 15 year reigns are created equally. There are many, many, many details that go into McPhee's 15 years that you choose to ignore for whatever reasons.
I see those 15 years broken up into 5 very different segments each with actual details that helped shape the results.
Ok so on average make the conference finals every 5 years then?
And does it matter if you are allowed to run the team the way you see fit with an agreed upon budget made well in advance or if the owner interferes and brings in a top player you don't want and gives him a huge contract and then when the fans don't support the team the way he would like makes a knee jerk reaction and slashes the budget putting you in an almost impossible position?
Not so much make it once every five years, but it's not unreasonable to make multiple ecf appearences when given a generational talent. Pitt complemented their stars with the right pieces, likewise for Tampa and their hampered with a budget. I think a couple ecfs could have been made with the correct and/or more aggressive moves during OV's tenure. Is that a unreasonable view?
Not so much make it once every five years, but it's not unreasonable to make multiple ecf appearences when given a generational talent. Pitt complemented their stars with the right pieces, likewise for Tampa and their hampered with a budget. I think a couple ecfs could have been made with the correct and/or more aggressive moves during OV's tenure. Is that a unreasonable view?
By the same token, they were surprisingly close to the ECF in both 08-09 and 11-12 (not that they particularly deserved to be in either case, but go with it). Would a few random plays going differently in each case have suddenly validated GMGM's moves over that time?
It's reasonable to say that GMGM should have made better moves (to take advantage of Ovi's best years or whatever other context you want to put them in). It's unreasonable to say that not making the ECF is the problem. The problem is whether or not he built a team that was good enough, not whether they got far enough. I know the result is what we as fans want to see, but it's the construction (all facets of it, so coaching decisions come into play as well) that he has control over.
By the same token, they were surprisingly close to the ECF in both 08-09 and 11-12 (not that they particularly deserved to be in either case, but go with it). Would a few random plays going differently in each case have suddenly validated GMGM's moves over that time?
It's reasonable to say that GMGM should have made better moves (to take advantage of Ovi's best years or whatever other context you want to put them in). It's unreasonable to say that not making the ECF is the problem. The problem is whether or not he built a team that was good enough, not whether they got far enough. I know the result is what we as fans want to see, but it's the construction (all facets of it, so coaching decisions come into play as well) that he has control over.
I just disagree that the ecf is not the problem, it is. It would show progress and validate the conservative approach gmgm has held. Instead this team has taken a step back, three coaches in less than two years, still haven't built a competent D, and still believes in this core. He seems to be steadfast in being patient, not realizing failure.
By the same token, they were surprisingly close to the ECF in both 08-09 and 11-12 (not that they particularly deserved to be in either case, but go with it). Would a few random plays going differently in each case have suddenly validated GMGM's moves over that time?
It's reasonable to say that GMGM should have made better moves (to take advantage of Ovi's best years or whatever other context you want to put them in). It's unreasonable to say that not making the ECF is the problem. The problem is whether or not he built a team that was good enough, not whether they got far enough. I know the result is what we as fans want to see, but it's the construction (all facets of it, so coaching decisions come into play as well) that he has control over.
It's like you're in my brain.
To try to put it a different way. Let's say you're putting together a meeting. You could do everything right as a planner (get a good location, line up all the right people, set up all the A/V crap, etc.) but the meeting might not be a success for whatever reason (presenter gets sick the day of/snow storm/power failure/etc.). The blame for that shouldn't fall on the meeting planner.
To try to put it a different way. Let's say you're putting together a meeting. You could do everything right as a planner (get a good location, line up all the right people, set up all the A/V crap, etc.) but the meeting might not be a success for whatever reason (presenter gets sick the day of/snow storm/power failure/etc.). The blame for that shouldn't fall on the meeting planner.
Agreed.... until we start to see that these same factors are killing the meeting most or every year.
And even if a good portion of the failure is in bad luck, I still say... at a certain point, you've gotta find a luckier planner.
