Quote:
Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina
^I disagree.
Too much of that is on ice performance
My primary evaluation is looking at the state of the franchise, across all assets and how those assets are used.
results on the ice are important too but that's on the coach and players to deliver to that more than the GM.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saqe
I never understood this argument. GM is the one deciding who the players are and who the coach is. His biggest job is to make sure the pieces fit together or otherwise it's just armchair GMing on paper.
|
Well, if nothing in a player's history says he won't be a fit and then he isn't that can't be on the GM.
IMO Jiri has a good take on it. I would also say that there's a difference to me between a rational strategy which doesn't pan out (let's say Neal), or just a massive f-up (like screwing up on a CBA issue which costs you bargaining position, money or the player entirely). The latter could be an event based firing IMO. The former is just a move that didn't work out. It's the difference between me as a lawyer choosing a bad court room strategy and me as a lawyer missing a fundamental deadline and the case is punted.
Now, a GM with a poor strategy will, over time, lose his job because of results, cap mismanagement, bad team structure etc. But one trade will never do it.