George McPhee II

[Langway]

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1125039

Any other viable candidates not named Burke?

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/spor...-15/nhl-general-manager-candidates/53562872/1

http://espn.go.com/blog/nhl/post/_/id/22084/assistant-gms-ready-to-take-next-step

Click to read more...

 

[Halpysback*]

# of championships really isn't that important when evaluating whether someone is a good GM. What's important is looking at those championships in context and evaluating how well a GM can sustain and repeat success. Give me a GM who's teams have regularly made deep playoff runs over a guy who's had one magical run any day.

Weren't you the guy assigning significance to 1 GM winning cups with 2 different teams in 100 years, context be damned?

To "sustain" success you first need to have it, no?

Or has McPhee been "successful"?

 

[IkeaMonkey*]

Yo cain, I'm pretty sure the post you are quoting from the Devil's Advocate is stating that deep playoff runs are "more important" than a championship.

Which...is ****ing laughable. A GM/Coach/Owner can have 24 ****ing winless seasons, as long as they have 1 championship, that's how they will be remembered.

No one says, "Man, he had an awesome track record for getting deep in the playoffs." Because it's always countered with..."but how many championships did he win?"

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

This thread will probably continue for another 10 years....makes me proud.

 

[Liberati0n*]

Yo cain, I'm pretty sure the post you are quoting from the Devil's Advocate is stating that deep playoff runs are "more important" than a championship.

Yes. In predicting the likelihood of a future championship. I absolutely agree with him. There are too many factors at play in a given year to use one championship as an indicator of future ones. Doug Wilson has a much, much more impressive resume than Burke.

 

[Halpysback*]

Also, tossing out "3 runs past the first round" is about as contextless as you can get.

He GM'd over Vancouver when they sucked and left them with Sedins, Kesler, Elder (maybe), etc. His tenure in Toronto was over a completely rebuilding team that had nothing going for it, and yeah he screwed up there. "Contextually" we are absolutely nothing like Toronto when we got it and a lot more like Anaheim.

 

[IkeaMonkey*]

Yes. In predicting the likelihood of a future championship. I absolutely agree with him. There are too many factors at play in a given year to use one championship as an indicator of future ones. Doug Wilson has a much, much more impressive resume than Burke.

I may be silly but give me the guy who has proven he can win the championship once than the guy who has "come close" a dozen times. That guy has proven he knows what it takes to win when it matters, regardless of if that move is to call up a single ****ing AHLer or to bring in 5 key pieces.

In Burke's case, he acquired one of the best players in the game when that player was available via trade. He saw a hole, saw a huge ****ing cork, popped it in and won. Had there been a different GM, would they have made that trade? Would they have won the cup? Who the **** knows, what is known is that Burkey pulled the trigger and acquired the pieces to win the cup.

 

[IkeaMonkey*]

He GM'd over Vancouver when they sucked and left them with Sedins.

People will find a way to criticize this move.

Be it that they've never won the cup with them.

Or "their chemistry was so obvious it didn't take a genius to draft them"

Or something.

 

[Halpysback*]

It's not the championship for me, just the circumstances

- offseason full of Burke type players, perhaps he has inside track on signing some/will know to pursue guys like Clowe.

- draft a layup if we tank, he won't mess it up (hopefully)

- team has core set, needs rounding out, mostly closing a few holes.

- new CBA puts his self-imposed contract term limits on even playing field with rest of league.

 

[Atlas]

I cannot imagine Ted hiring Brian Burke.

Ted: "Hey, uh...gee...do you think we can compete for the Cup one day?"

Burke: "Why the f is Ovie not playing hard in the g-damned defensive zone?"

Ted: "Gee, I'm not sure about that..."

Burke: "Is Backstrom ever gonna shoot the puck or what?"

Ted: "Backstrom is a nice person."

Burke: "Ha! Ha! Good one."

Ted: "No really, Nicky is very kind."

Burke: "Anyway...why is our defense so easy to play against? I want entering our D zone to be scarier than entering a biker bar!"

Ted: "I don't like biker bars."

 

[Ajax1995]

Weren't you the guy assigning significance to 1 GM winning cups with 2 different teams in 100 years, context be damned?

To "sustain" success you first need to have it, no?

Or has McPhee been "successful"?

I'm not quite sure why being in the anti-Burke camp automatically puts one in the pro-McPhee camp...?

 

[Halpysback*]

I'm not quite sure why being in the anti-Burke camp automatically puts one in the pro-McPhee camp...?

Who said it did?

Merely pointing out that one shouldn't worry about sustaining success before getting it in the first place. Otherwise you'll end up like tedphee and their "10 year window".

 

[Halpysback*]

I cannot imagine Ted hiring Brian Burke.

Ted: "Hey, uh...gee...do you think we can compete for the Cup one day?"

Burke: "Why the f is Ovie not playing hard in the g-damned defensive zone?"

Ted: "Gee, I'm not sure about that..."

Burke: "Is Backstrom ever gonna shoot the puck or what?"

Ted: "Backstrom is a nice person."

Burke: "Ha! Ha! Good one."

Ted: "No really, Nicky is very kind."

Burke: "Anyway...why is our defense so easy to play against? I want entering our D zone to be scarier than entering a biker bar!"

Ted: "I don't like biker bars."

That's about what it would be I'd imagine.

Seriously though, he must have been riding Phil Kessel's ass real hard then.

 

[NobodyBeatsTheWiz]

Of course the trolls ignore the context of the debate, but it was considering what type of GM I'd rather hire for the Caps, not the type of success I'd like to see the Caps have.

Multiple deep playoff runs are an indicator that a GM can build a Cup caliber team, and most likely done it with different sets of players. Any team that gets to the conference finals has a realistic chance of winning the whole thing, but bounces, injuries, hot streaks, etc. come into play. There's a lot of luck involved in winning the Cup, which is why the one run type of GMs shouldn't be given as much credit as they do.

 

[Brad Tolliver]

If only GMGM didn't suffer the incredible bad luck of winning the 2004 draft lottery saddling him with Ovechkin instead of that franchise PMD Cam Barker that he always wanted to build around. Why does it always rain on him?

Staturbation time:

Let's assume a "deep" playoff run would mean at least the conference finals, which Burke's teams have done twice. In the 15 years of the GMGM era, 5 GMs (Holland, Lamoriello, Lacroix, Rutherford, Gainey) have done better that and also won the Cup, 1 lost in the finals (Regier), and 1 has never gotten past the WCF (Wilson). The only GM to make the conference finals more than twice in the cap era is Holland.

 

[RandyHolt]

Langway nails it.

So the moral of the story is that Cup winning GMs tend to have balls and are decisive (for good or bad).

Lock the thread until we can get someone on the inside with Patrick.

 

[Halpysback*]

Or multiple deep playoff runs mean you managed to luck into 3-4 franchise players.

Though I'm sure Holland is the only GM out there smart enough to listen to his head scout on who to take with his 7th round picks. Or inherit a generational defenseman.

I wonder how Burke's tenure compares to the majority of other GMs. I'm sure there's a bunch that have had a ton of deep playoff runs in the same time frame. Of course, we'd have to define what "deep" means in the first place, but maybe that would just get in the way of "context".

 

[InjuredChoker]

Or multiple deep playoff runs mean you managed to luck into 3-4 franchise players.

Though I'm sure Holland is the only GM out there smart enough to listen to his head scout on who to take with his 7th round picks. Or inherit a generational defenseman.

I wonder how Burke's tenure compares to the majority of other GMs. I'm sure there's a bunch that have had a ton of deep playoff runs in the same time frame. Of course, we'd have to define what "deep" means in the first place, but maybe that would just get in the way of "context".

Should have listened Häkan too when he recommended Markström over McLOLlum.

 

[NobodyBeatsTheWiz]

Ah, so Ken Holland has only had success because he's inherited a generational defenseman and listened to his scouts?

I'm sure it had nothing to do with him being able to replace the likes of Yzerman, Kozlov, Murphy, Shanahan, and Larionov. Any putz would be able to do that.

 

[BrooklynCapsFan]

Or multiple deep playoff runs mean you managed to luck into 3-4 franchise players.

Though I'm sure Holland is the only GM out there smart enough to listen to his head scout on who to take with his 7th round picks. Or inherit a generational defenseman.

I wonder how Burke's tenure compares to the majority of other GMs. I'm sure there's a bunch that have had a ton of deep playoff runs in the same time frame. Of course, we'd have to define what "deep" means in the first place, but maybe that would just get in the way of "context".

Holland signed a 40 goal hall of famer as a ufa and won the cup 12 months later. He signed a future hall of fame dman as a ufa and won the cup 12 months later.

Holland has had some luck along the way but he's got balls and conviction.

 

[txpd]

holland also has the advantage of his team's reputation built up by previous administrations. when his team takes the ice in the playoffs, no matter how good they are, there is fear and respect. for a long time now, well before mcphee became the gm opposing teams see the capitals take the ice in the playoffs, no matter how good they are, see an opportunity to win and move on.

 

[BrooklynCapsFan]

holland also has the advantage of his team's reputation built up by previous administrations. when his team takes the ice in the playoffs, no matter how good they are, there is fear and respect. for a long time now, well before mcphee became the gm opposing teams see the capitals take the ice in the playoffs, no matter how good they are, see an opportunity to win and move on.

You realize that the Wings were a lot like us in the mid 90s...noted playoff chokers. Then Holland came on and they won cup after cup. So, yeah, he built teams and rebuilt the franchise. That's what a good manager does.

 

[Halpysback*]

Holland signed a 40 goal hall of famer as a ufa and won the cup 12 months later. He signed a future hall of fame dman as a ufa and won the cup 12 months later.

Holland has had some luck along the way but he's got balls and conviction.

So, what exactly has Holland's "genius" done since the 04 lockout?

Sign Rafalski, draft Helm, trade for Stuart, sign Hossa, have the option to keep Hossa at a discount only to let him go in favor of keeping guys like Hudler? Yeah, having Lidstrom, Datsyuk and Zetterberg fall into his lap didn't do him any favors.

 

[Halpysback*]

And I'm sure Rafalski being a michigan native and Detroit being held in high esteem had nothing to do with him signing there, while Burke got Niedermayer and Pronger simply by lucky accident.

 

[Halpysback*]

You realize that the Wings were a lot like us in the mid 90s...noted playoff chokers. Then Holland came on and they won cup after cup. So, yeah, he built teams and rebuilt the franchise. That's what a good manager does.

Except the same players that choked lead the charge in winning cup after cup.