How do you judge a general manager in sports

[MrValk]

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.

Click to read more...

 

[Kessely Snipes]

Wins and losses.

 

[BillyD]

results

 

[Kegs]

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

 

[Cor]

This was worth a thread?

Wins and Losses


(unless you are the Columbus Blue Jackets)

 

[pooleboy]

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.

 

[MrValk]

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.

 

[legendinblue]

On the ability of the squad he assembled to win games.

 

[Leaf Rocket]

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.

 

[Suntouchable13]

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.

 

[Hurt]

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.

 

[Leaf Rocket]

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.

 

[Stephen]

Wins and losses.

Apparently this was not obvious before...

 

[Guy Boucher]

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.

 

[Blackhawkswincup]

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

 

[MrValk]

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.

 

[Grant]

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.

 

[Rants Mulliniks]

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.

 

[TOGuy14]

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.

 

[Frankie]

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?

 

[Mike1]

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....

 

[Kessely Snipes]

Apparently this was not obvious before...

Hey someone had to do it...

 

[charliolemieux]

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.

 

[Vexed]

I think the real question is when do you judge a GM rather than how

 

[charliolemieux]

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.

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.