Quote:
Originally Posted by SebC
I do think there's potentially some merit to the "owner as GM" view. A GM's fundamental interest is the short-to-medium term. The owner may have a longer term view that works out better over the time. The catch is that the owner would need to be a top-tier hockey mind for it to work.
|
That’s a good point. It can probably help and hinder depending on the kind of owner you are.
I think coaches and GM’s are guilty of making roster decisions based on saving face and/or keeping their job... even if it’s not what’s best for the team. Examples of this are seen in how every GM basically gets 1-2 coach firings that they can do in their tenure before they know they are next to be fired. This can make them hang on to coaches for too long.
Another example is buyouts... GM’s are reluctant to buyout players that they signed because it’s basically admitting they made a bad call and asking the owner to pay millions of dollars for their mistake. That mistake can put a GM in the hot seat in the eyes of the owner.
But as an owner-GM, you’re making the decisions both in terms of money/profits and in what you want tour team to look like. If you really don’t like having a bad player on a bad contract taking up a spot on your roster... you have the ultimate authority to buy him out and there’s no one to answer to for it.
If it’s the right kind of owner-GM... one who can make decisions not based on pride or keeping their job... then it could really help a team in fixing big problems faster... most GM’s just have to wait for bad contracts to expire or hope their coach suddenly starts working.
That’s not to say that things can go really bad really fast as an owner-GM... he has to know what he’s doing. Not being accountable to anyone can make your bad team even worse.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk