HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Toronto Maple Leafs
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

How do you judge a general manager in sports

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-12-2013, 12:30 PM
  #1
MrValk
Registered User
 
MrValk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 173
vCash: 500
How do you judge a general manager in sports

I know the simple answer is how many games won, but is it that simple? With the recent dismissal of Brain Burke we have heard both sides of this argument. One side states he didn't win Enough; but others will say he wasn't given a chance to see it through. Should we judge gm's in sports by the foundation they lay or the immediate product in play. Is Brain Cushman with the Yankees a good gm because the Yankees always win? Or is Billy Beene a better gm because of his ability to work with what he had. I'd love hear thoughts.

MrValk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-12-2013, 12:30 PM
  #2
Kessely Snipes
Great White North
 
Kessely Snipes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,470
vCash: 500
Wins and losses.

Kessely Snipes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-12-2013, 12:32 PM
  #3
BillyD
JUST WIN BABY
 
BillyD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,566
vCash: 500
results

BillyD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-12-2013, 12:34 PM
  #4
Kegs
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 305
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluecrew67 View Post
I know the simple answer is how many games won, but is it that simple? With the recent dismissal of Brain Burke we have heard both sides of this argument. One side states he didn't win Enough; but others will say he wasn't given a chance to see it through. Should we judge gm's in sports by the foundation they lay or the immediate product in play. Is Brain Cushman with the Yankees a good gm because the Yankees always win? Or is Billy Beene a better gm because of his ability to work with what he had. I'd love hear thoughts.

peter chiarelli

Kegs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-12-2013, 12:35 PM
  #5
Cor
Me Troll? Never
 
Cor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: London, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,359
vCash: 72
This was worth a thread?

Wins and Losses


(unless you are the Columbus Blue Jackets)

Cor is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-12-2013, 12:45 PM
  #6
pooleboy
#tankformcdavid
 
pooleboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Ontario
Posts: 5,888
vCash: 500
wins and losses but a GM needs to be given time especially if the club is "retooling"

Brian Burke did a remarkable job in toronto idk how so people cant see that.

pooleboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-12-2013, 12:48 PM
  #7
MrValk
Registered User
 
MrValk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 173
vCash: 500
I realize that wins and losses are the ultimate judge of how management performs. However how do value short term results vs long term stability.

MrValk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-12-2013, 12:49 PM
  #8
legendinblue
LEAFS SUCK
 
legendinblue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 6,097
vCash: 500
On the ability of the squad he assembled to win games.

legendinblue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-12-2013, 12:51 PM
  #9
Leaf Rocket
Leaf Fan Till I Die
 
Leaf Rocket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: India
Posts: 71,549
vCash: 500
If you are hind sighted, it's based on wins and losses. However if you want the overall view and true value on a franchise its based on the years a franchise has been growing together and developing. So around 7-10 Years, not this 2-4 year GM musical chairs.

As Kenny Holland said, it takes a decade or so to find out how a GM did his role.

Hence I couldn't be more sour atm with the Burke signing.

__________________
Leaf Rocket is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-12-2013, 12:54 PM
  #10
Suntouchable13
Registered User
 
Suntouchable13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Thornhill, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,695
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leaf Rocket View Post
If you are hind sighted, it's based on wins and losses. However if you want the overall view and true value on a franchise its based on the years a franchise has been growing together and developing. So around 7-10 Years, not this 2-4 year GM musical chairs.

As Kenny Holland said, it takes a decade or so to find out how a GM did his role.

Hence I couldn't be more sour atm with the Burke signing.
How many GMs get 10 years? Not many.

Suntouchable13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-12-2013, 12:58 PM
  #11
Hurt
Registered User
 
Hurt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,485
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suntouchable13 View Post
How many GMs get 10 years? Not many.
True. This is a league that demands and can have quick turnarounds (sometimes at the cost of young prospects etc). We're not all going to have a Ken Holland at the helm.

__________________
Shoot me a PM with your concerns. Also, come visit us in the Science Forum!
Hurt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-12-2013, 01:04 PM
  #12
Leaf Rocket
Leaf Fan Till I Die
 
Leaf Rocket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: India
Posts: 71,549
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suntouchable13 View Post
How many GMs get 10 years? Not many.
The ones that are wise and hold on to their group for as long as possible to results are wiser. One franchise in recent times has already faced the dilemma of screaming of firing their GM in sather.

Nashville, New York, Sabres, Bruins, and so on.

I know this is part of business and what not but for a franchise to actually rises from the ashes you actually have to clear out the ashes first.

Leaf Rocket is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-12-2013, 01:08 PM
  #13
Stephen
Registered User
 
Stephen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 32,556
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kessely Snipes View Post
Wins and losses.
Apparently this was not obvious before...

Stephen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-12-2013, 01:22 PM
  #14
Guy Boucher
Registered User
 
Guy Boucher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 2,600
vCash: 420
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen View Post
Apparently this was not obvious before...
It is apparent to everyone. The question is what is a fair sample size.

For example, you might state that the ultimate judgement for a goaltender is also Wins and Loses.

But you can judge a goaltender on that basis after 10 games? 30? 60? 120?

A GM's impact is difficult to ascertain. His first two years or so is largely attributed to the decisions made before his arrival. You can only really begin to judge him on the next 4 years which is when his decisions begin to come to fruition.

I don't think you can judge a GM on Wins and Loses until he's been making the important decisions for 6 years or so.

Guy Boucher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-12-2013, 02:28 PM
  #15
Blackhawkswincup
Global Moderator
 
Blackhawkswincup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Chicagoland
Country: United States
Posts: 111,768
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluecrew67 View Post
I know the simple answer is how many games won, but is it that simple? With the recent dismissal of Brain Burke we have heard both sides of this argument. One side states he didn't win Enough; but others will say he wasn't given a chance to see it through. Should we judge gm's in sports by the foundation they lay or the immediate product in play. Is Brain Cushman with the Yankees a good gm because the Yankees always win? Or is Billy Beene a better gm because of his ability to work with what he had. I'd love hear thoughts.
You have to judge a GM by his entire body of work and ultimately what it achieved

For instance ,, here in Chicago despite being an unpopular guy (Mostly because of Michael Jordan/Phil Jackson conflicts) the greatest GM we have had in sports was Jerry Krause

The guy brought the pieces that put Jordan and Bulls over the top. Krause acquired players like Pippen (trade) , Grant (Draft) , Rodman (FA) , etc that built the greatest modern dynasty in recent sports history IMO


Blackhawkswincup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-12-2013, 02:35 PM
  #16
MrValk
Registered User
 
MrValk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 173
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guy Boucher View Post
It is apparent to everyone. The question is what is a fair sample size.

For example, you might state that the ultimate judgement for a goaltender is also Wins and Loses.

But you can judge a goaltender on that basis after 10 games? 30? 60? 120?

A GM's impact is difficult to ascertain. His first two years or so is largely attributed to the decisions made before his arrival. You can only really begin to judge him on the next 4 years which is when his decisions begin to come to fruition.

I don't think you can judge a GM on Wins and Loses until he's been making the important decisions for 6 years or so.
I agree here. It seems the sword cuts both ways with this. We want wins and a high end prospects. We want a team that competes year in And year out and but no bloated contracts and over 30 over the hill stars.

If ownership can't stop making knee jerk reactions based on nothing but short term results this franchise will only be a premier nhl team in name only.

MrValk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-12-2013, 02:40 PM
  #17
Grant
LL Genius
 
Grant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: London
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,043
vCash: 658
Wins and losses are the usual and obvious answer, but sometimes others have to be rated differently in my opinion.

I will use Vancouver and Gillis for an example.

Gillis in his 4 seasons as GM has gotten 100+ points every season with 2 (back-to-back) president trophies. Do we judge him as a success because of this? Maybe not because he inherited an extremely good core. For him (and he is one of a select few who can be judged in this manner), he may be judged on whether he brings a cup to Vancouver or not in his tenure as general manager instead of just wins and losses.

Grant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-12-2013, 03:09 PM
  #18
eyeball11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 12,315
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kegs View Post
peter chiarelli
So you like a guy who walks in the door with almost every single key cog in place? Much like Shero as well.

eyeball11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-12-2013, 03:25 PM
  #19
TOGuy14
Registered User
 
TOGuy14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,687
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grant View Post
Wins and losses are the usual and obvious answer, but sometimes others have to be rated differently in my opinion.

I will use Vancouver and Gillis for an example.

Gillis in his 4 seasons as GM has gotten 100+ points every season with 2 (back-to-back) president trophies. Do we judge him as a success because of this? Maybe not because he inherited an extremely good core. For him (and he is one of a select few who can be judged in this manner), he may be judged on whether he brings a cup to Vancouver or not in his tenure as general manager instead of just wins and losses.
Gillis got to inherit a stacked roster in Vancouver (built by Burke and Nonis). He has added no significant pieces really, just depth guys for the most part. Apparently he is a good GM though.

Hell, if you made me the GM of the Pittsburgh Penguins tomorrow, I would get my team into the playoffs every year, and maybe get a cup or two. Does that make me a top end GM? Nope, I am just riding the coattails of someone else.

Burke inherited a JFJ built roster, which was filled with old guys, bad contracts, and guys who quite frankly weren't even good. In that time he has revamped our entire prospect pool, and built a significantly better roster. I fault Burke for hanging on to Wilson too long and a couple other things, but you cannot question that this franchise has a vastly better skill base than before he got here.

TOGuy14 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-12-2013, 04:07 PM
  #20
Frankie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,163
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TOGuy14 View Post
Hell, if you made me the GM of the Pittsburgh Penguins tomorrow, I would get my team into the playoffs every year, and maybe get a cup or two. Does that make me a top end GM? Nope, I am just riding the coattails of someone else.
coattails or not, you're the one in charge, you're the one responsible and accountable for that team at that time.

if you're the gm when the pens win the cup, you get a ring and your name on the cup. the previous gm does not. is that wrong?

Frankie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-12-2013, 04:09 PM
  #21
Mike1
Registered User
 
Mike1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Mississauga,Ontario
Posts: 3,541
vCash: 500
In my opinion these are the only questions that matter.

Has he put together a front office that is effective in all the ways to make your team better(draft,free agents & trades)?
Has he made your franchise better from the day he got there?
Are you making progress & will your team be better in the next 5 years than the last 5 years?

When you apply these questions to Burke, you can certainly make the case for firing him. I don't know how you make the case of keeping the front office that Burke hired & letting them still run the team....

Mike1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-12-2013, 07:58 PM
  #22
Kessely Snipes
Great White North
 
Kessely Snipes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,470
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen View Post
Apparently this was not obvious before...
Hey someone had to do it...

Kessely Snipes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-12-2013, 08:02 PM
  #23
charliolemieux
rsTmf
 
charliolemieux's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,570
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluecrew67 View Post
I know the simple answer is how many games won, but is it that simple? With the recent dismissal of Brain Burke we have heard both sides of this argument. One side states he didn't win Enough; but others will say he wasn't given a chance to see it through. Should we judge gm's in sports by the foundation they lay or the immediate product in play. Is Brain Cushman with the Yankees a good gm because the Yankees always win? Or is Billy Beene a better gm because of his ability to work with what he had. I'd love hear thoughts.
NO it isn't that simple. A NEW GM is usually brought it because the team is a disaster.

So they get to look forward to 3 or 4 years of losing records to start their tenure.

GUys like BUrke who walk into ANH with a decent level of talent are reare. Granted Nonis had done it twice now to Burke.

But usually a GM is brought in to rebuild, and that means losing for a few years.

charliolemieux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-12-2013, 08:06 PM
  #24
Vexxed14
Registered User
 
Vexxed14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Barrie, Ont
Posts: 4,413
vCash: 500
I think the real question is when do you judge a GM rather than how

Vexxed14 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-12-2013, 08:09 PM
  #25
charliolemieux
rsTmf
 
charliolemieux's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,570
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluecrew67 View Post
I agree here. It seems the sword cuts both ways with this. We want wins and a high end prospects. We want a team that competes year in And year out and but no bloated contracts and over 30 over the hill stars.

If ownership can't stop making knee jerk reactions based on nothing but short term results this franchise will only be a premier nhl team in name only.
That's right either you spend the kids and go for gold with the vets. Or you play hte kids and take the results.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grant View Post
Wins and losses are the usual and obvious answer, but sometimes others have to be rated differently in my opinion.

I will use Vancouver and Gillis for an example.

Gillis in his 4 seasons as GM has gotten 100+ points every season with 2 (back-to-back) president trophies. Do we judge him as a success because of this? Maybe not because he inherited an extremely good core. For him (and he is one of a select few who can be judged in this manner), he may be judged on whether he brings a cup to Vancouver or not in his tenure as general manager instead of just wins and losses.
Ya Gillis getting credit for Burke and Nonis' work.

I can't wait to shove our current depth down a few throats over the next 5 years.

charliolemieux is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:08 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.