Ah.. no.. asinine is thinking most fans have the knowledge of the game that a 20-year veteran player brings to the table.
Yes, management is different than playing, but to suggest it is two completely different non-transferable skills is utterly ridiculous. To think someone who played over 1000 games in the NHL hasn't gained an understanding of his profession that vastly outpaces some couch potatoes sucking back hot-dogs while watching the game on TV, is just nonsense.
The vast majority of GM's in the league were former Pro's. With the odd exception (i.e. the analytics kid in Arizona) most of the non-NHL vet GM's played at a very high-level, or emerged from years of experience in the game.
Sorry fans running an NHL hockey team make a great Disney movie plot, but thankful not in real-life.
Substitute a few of these words:
Ah.. no.. asinine is thinking most shareholders have the knowledge of the auto industry that a 20-year veteran mechanic brings to the table.
Yes, management is different than working on a shop floor, but to suggest it is two completely different non-transferable skills is utterly ridiculous. To think someone who repairs over 1000 vehicles in the dealership hasn't gained an understanding of his profession that vastly outpaces some couch potatoes sucking back hot-dogs while tracking the stock charts on Google Finance, is just nonsense.
Operational knowledge does not translate to organizational management. Yes, a company COO should have a deep understanding of on the ground operations, but you don't pluck the best guy with their boots on the ground for that role.
Anyone who lists 'they're learning!' as some sort of excuse for Linden and Benning should smack themselves upside the head.
These aren't 19 y/o hockey players. These are 50 y/o businessmen running $800 million companies. There are only 31 jobs available in this position on the planet, and anyone hired into this sort of exceptionally important and exclusive position should be fully qualified and prepared, and should hit the ground running.
There are no excuses and anyone who is 'still learning' going into their 4th season on the job is just functionally incompetent. Full stop.
$800M company is the absolute key here.
I'll fully admit that sometimes people here, including myself, go too far into Armchair scouting. That's a wholly different thing from management. As dumb as I think Benning and Linden are, they definitely have scouting experience and can pick things up from watching a game that the very best posters here couldn't. They also obviously have a much, much deeper insight into team dynamics, player personnel management, coach/player dynamics, etc. than anyone outside of the industry possibly could have.
At the same time, that isn't the whole scope of management. There's also the inherent psychological biases that come with being so entrenched in an industry, where a guy like Benning might value character more than he should because he had a terrible experience with a teammate in his playing days or whatever. Which leads to decision making like the Seguin trade where it was statistically bound to be a disaster from the start. Maybe that experience changes someone's scope of thinking on a situation like that, but that preconceived notion that is a supposed "plus" of hiring someone with the better part of a century in the sport has a real downside too that isn't recognized. Note: I'm clearly, clearly
not saying that character doesn't matter.
Really though, even if the person within the game was the best evaluator of character and even on-ice ability, that still doesn't give someone the qualifications for the legal, financial, public relations, marketing, managerial, business relations, etc. aspects of the job. Like I alluded to earlier, someone could be the best mechanic in the world, but that doesn't qualify them to run General Motors.
Of course, when you're talking about a pool of people who had the dedication and discipline to make it into a professional sport, the calibre of person is already pretty strong. Someone who made it to the ****ing NHL likely has a lot of the habits that successful executives share across all industries; but sometimes you just can't make up for a low managerial IQ. Joe Sakic and Steve Yzerman were pretty similar, all-time great players, but they have been vastly different managers to date. For every Kevin Lowe, there's a Ron Hextall or Ron Francis that is actually doing a good job. But if the pool is only limited to 500 or so ex-players for those 31 jobs, a huge other range of qualified Laurence Gilman types is probably being overlooked.
a lot of false equivalencies in here. the fact this thread exists is evidence that there is more to running an nhl team than running a business of comparable value and overhead. there is nowhere near the level of nitpicking detailed public scrutiny of management within a normal billion dollar company even by the larger shareholders.
and there is no practice of firing ceos as scapegoats for failing to be the best business in their industry sector, provided they run a decently profitable company.
or maybe show me the threads out there scrutinizing every decision that ceos of bc forestry companies or other comparable operations make. the people who run those companies have far more leeway to make mistakes and quietly fix them, or to be ploddingly adequate rather than "excellent".
http://www.stockhouse.com/companies/bullboard/t.cfp/
You've never been to an AGM eh? The level of scrutiny for companies is much, much higher than guys like Pauser and Tanbir from Surrey getting in a couple quips before being hushed by some PR flunky.
(the 4th stooge).
