That's the thing though, and why I'm not so concerned about who it is. Chayka might be a perfectly fine candidate in a vacuum. The big question is will he have any authority.
Confirmed with Link: John Chayka named Arizona Coyotes GM
- Thread starter moosemeister
- Start date
That's the thing though, and why I'm not so concerned about who it is. Chayka might be a perfectly fine candidate in a vacuum. The big question is will he have any authority.
This was Chayka's first year in any capacity in any hockey organization. Hiring him as GM would make us the laughing stock of the entire hockey world.
Even the TOR analytic guy Dubas, who people are saying is extremely young to be where he is, is like three years older than Chayka's and worked for a SSM Greyhounds for several years.
Chayka? Nothing against him personally but the lack of experience will be a disaster. Coyotes are doing everything they can to rival the mismanagement of the Oilers.
Matias Maccete
Chopping up defenses
- Sep 21, 2014
- 9,693
- 3,607
This is the big factor here imo, dude has no experience. Didn't someone mention being scared of another Barnett type situation?
We have seen so many GM's with eons of experience make horrendous decisions, so I don't really worry about his youth. He isn't on island, he will be surrounded by people with experience, and if he's not that's a bigger problem.
In a vacuum, as it's been mentioned, this is a very interesting hire. I'm extremely partial to running low budget teams with an analytics focus, but I wouldn't mind the all-in experiment to be done in a different team. I'm less worried about that and far more worried that this type of hire is a way to give DT more control. I'm actually higher on DT than most, but just don't believe in the coach/gm model.
So I'm not excited for the news, but if it happens I will be very interested in seeing the first moves.
In a vacuum, as it's been mentioned, this is a very interesting hire. I'm extremely partial to running low budget teams with an analytics focus, but I wouldn't mind the all-in experiment to be done in a different team. I'm less worried about that and far more worried that this type of hire is a way to give DT more control. I'm actually higher on DT than most, but just don't believe in the coach/gm model.
So I'm not excited for the news, but if it happens I will be very interested in seeing the first moves.
He'll get zero respect from scouts, players, and other GM's. That means a lot when it comes down to any kind of negotiations
BUX7PHX
Registered User
- Jul 7, 2011
- 5,581
- 1,350
I think that this is a key factor. My understanding was that Chayka was a proponent of Richardson. Maybe this was a player that Maloney did not figure in, and maybe he was a player that Maloney was also targeting. It is very possible that Chayka had limited pull in other regards or his opinion was partly what differed between the Maloney, IA, and Tippett circles in some capacities through the season.
Richardson had a pretty good year and was paired with a captain and rookie in what could be called our most consistently iced line in the season. We have talent and I am not worried about that integration on the forward side. The players will prove if they have the talent and can also handle the rigors of an NHL schedule through camp. If they make deals using prospects, we have to make sure that we are offering the players that should be offered (weaker analytical projections short and long term). Outside of that, leave it to free agency to sign one big name defenseman and then try to fill the holes. If we win the lottery or move up to the top 3, we could see a lot more activity with regard to picks/prospects trading.
That's true and I was happy with the Richardson deal when it happened. Chayka coming to that conclusion primarily through analytics, put that aside. It's a type of move Maloney has made before Chayka even got here, just through different means.
Either way I'd hope a 3C isn't a big factor
Pull off the next Michalek. A bottom 6 forward isn't that impressive given we overpaid on term and $.
Plus historically Richardson has had trouble staying healthy. If he missed his normal 20ish games the contract looks a lot worse
At the risk of turning this into a Brad Richardson Thread, I just disagree entirely.
$ figure was right, maybe 1 year too long but we're Arizona not New York or Toronto.
If you wanna see an overpayment, see what the Oilers gave Gordon. 3x3 for a worse player.
$ figure was right, maybe 1 year too long but we're Arizona not New York or Toronto.
If you wanna see an overpayment, see what the Oilers gave Gordon. 3x3 for a worse player.
Moneyball was about finding undervalued players whose production was better than what traditional experts expected via traditional valuation.
We overpaid on term and paid a standard salary as to what was expected. It's not exactly finding that hidden treasure when you overpay on anything or pay the going rate.
I'm more impressed by a signing of a Gaudet or when you steal a guy from an organization like Letunov or even Michalek. Show me that formula. Find me that diamond in the rough that will blossom when you bring him here. That's when you know this works.
Finding me a expensive veteran that you still have to pay market value isn't a magic formula. It's business. We need this to be a competitive advantage. Right now it's competitive. Show me the advantage.
I have long been extremely skeptical of this existing on anywhere near the same level in hockey as it did in baseball. The traditional valuation in hockey is substantially more effective than were traditional valuations in baseball in the 90's.
For my sense of Analytics in hockey, it's much more about finding players who help complete your roster and making the best use of your dollars. I don't think it's much about beating the market as a small payroll team.
They're the same thing. You just have a much smaller market to do it in, with few secrets in hockey. Grossmann is an objectively bad player from an analytical standpoint. A traditionalist (say, Brian Burke) would value his physical presence. An analaytics guy would favor a more rounded player that can actually move the puck up the ice, even if they aren't as big.
The problem with measuring hockey is that it's fluid. Baseball is very easy to measure, and in almost every respect it's a collection of individuals performing. Hockey is different. A player could be inexplicably bad or good with another on their line or as a pairing. You really won't know until you try it. The best you can do is project.
Richardson is a cheap enough forward that can play all three positions. He is the opposite of Grossmann. Richardson is the definition of looking for aggregate value. There's nothing about him that you could say would definitively make a roster better, yet he does. If you had six Richardsons in your bottom six, you'd be a pretty good team.
I have no problem with Chayka's thought process on that player. My problem is with the power dynamic. It's pretty clear that nobody wanted the job, or worse, they just gave it to a stooge that was happy to sit in the chair. Chayka could be the most brilliant mind in hockey and it's not going to matter if DT has the final say and can basically push through whatever he wants. It's not even about whether or not you like DT as a coach, that kind of power dynamic is just dysfunctional.
Coaches coach. Managers manage. Players play. This is the way it is for all 29 other teams, with few exceptions, yet the Coyotes think they can be the exception. This experiment is going to run in the most crucial year ever of the rebuild. It's going to take place over what should be a very transformative summer. If you had to pick a year where you either needed a complete fresh start or continuity, this summer is it. Ownership managed to pick the worst of three options, and then (if Chayka is named) managed to squander what little potential there was for improvement.
Even if Chayka is great in the future, he will need to learn on the job, and this isn't the atmosphere to be learning in. You need to cultivate relationships over years to be able to function as a good GM. The challenge for Maloney was very large this summer, even with his experience. The challenge for Chayka is that much harder.
This will probably not end well.
The quibble I have with this is because of that dynamic, it simply can't do the same thing so the goals have to be different. In baseball during the early years of analytical influence it could legitimately turn a bottom feeder into a playoff or near playoff team. That level of impact cannot be had in hockey.
Which I think is an important distinction when hbk asked:
hbk said:
The latter is simply an impossible ask in this sport. It can help put you over the top but isn't going to take a bottom feeder to the playoffs.
XX said:
On that we agree, and HBK as well judging by his post on page 1.
That's why I don't think who the GM is ultimately matters all that much.
XX said:
If this were twitter I'd call this an evergreen tweet. We are Coyotes fans after all.
Bonsai Tree
Turning a new leaf
- Feb 2, 2014
- 9,238
- 4,576
You could be right, who knows. We aren't privy to the day to day operations, input of different people etc. It still scares the hell out of me that Chayka's does not have GM experience. We are talking about a multi million dollar business here not some sandwich shop.
Bonsai Tree
Turning a new leaf
- Feb 2, 2014
- 9,238
- 4,576
As long as the team remembers that analytics aren't everything, I'd be happy with Chayka. Torres, Carbomb, even Avery brought a pucker factor to the opposing team, affecting their performance. I don't see how analytics took the decrease in opposing team effectiveness into account when the effect spread out over the entire game, not just during the particular players' ice times.
Oh probably.
I like Dave Tippett the coach. I fear Dave Tippett who is now essentially calling the shots without anyone to veto him. I think given previous history that fear is justified.
