Quote:
Originally Posted by Strange Brew
Would you say bad teams hire bad GM's (and therefore have to fire them) or are they firing good GM's?
The Patriots cycled through GM's and coaches until BB showed up.
The Penguins won the Cup with a brand new management team.
Haven't the Oilers had the same jokers in charge for a long time?
IMO it all comes down to whether you have a GM with an appropriate vision and strategy and then you can measure how they do against that strategy.
|
I don't think its that binary. I think in some cases bad teams are hiring bad, and in other cases they are firing good GMs.
Specific to the Flames, I believe that Button and Coates were both not given enough time to execution to their vision.
We are speaking a lot in this thread about broader organizational issues that plague bad teams, including the price paid for trying to accelerate the path to winning. Well, part of what breeds that is the historic time that a GM has been given to get there. This organization has a history of only giving a GM a short number of years to execute to the vision. So that means that GMs are only managing to that window. And that's not healthy.
I further believe that when you swap GMs you pay a price, including that the new GM will move out some pieces that maybe shouldn't be. If we look back at the Flames I would point to players like Martin St. Louis, JS Giguere and more recently Paul Byron as players that the previous regime was knowledgeable about and found of, but were moved out when someone took over. This is pretty common as the new person puts their stamp on things.
It's one of the reasons why this organization has been in a continual weak spot from an asset POV.