GM Meetings: Daly warns GMs about tampering. Considering shorter max term contracts

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

This whole post feels a bit naive, but suggesting GMs are stupid babies because they sign players for longer than 5 years is just totally absurd.

I'm not suggesting that they're stupid babies because they sign players for longer than 5 years. Signing players is a choice and it's their job to determine whether that choice is good or bad in it's totality. What this tells me is that GM's are making bad choices in totality and want to be saved from their own bad choices not through any reflection or re-evaluation but by just removing choice. I'm suggesting that they're like babies because it's all "now now now now" they choose to ignore the long-term consequences of their actions in favor of immediate gratification and now want to be not face the consequences of their actions... which is a characteristic I most associate with small children not middle-aged+ adults.

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

The reality is that GMs are competing against each other. This isn’t EA NHL where you’re playing in your own little bubble against a computer and the most agency anyone else has is broken AI. Anywhere from 1/3 to 2/3 of GMs have the same goal, and they are in direct competition with everyone else that has that goal. And it’s a zero sum game. Someone gets better, and someone gets worse, every time.

That's true (in a sense). I mean in most deals (trades and signings) GM's are trading present wins for future wins (or vis-versa as the case may be) So really someone is theoretically getting better and worse most times (just on different timescales). Again, this is a choice they are making and it's a choice they could elect not to make getting the benefits and consequences of each.

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Some teams are cup contenders. They’re in “win now” mode whether you like it or not. Patience is irrelevant to these teams,

If that's their choice then more power to them. They should get the benefits and consequences of that choice. Frankly, I consider patience to be a virtue so I wouldn't hold that up as a positive.

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

as it should be. It’s about what gets you over the top. So sure, it’s easy to say “don’t sign anyone beyond 5 years”

I didn't say that.

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

but in today’s reality, that’s just saying competitive teams should close or delay their window

Again I didn't say that... although you could just as easily argue that it's about choosing to keep the window open longer by ensuring that you're not over-extending yourself later.

No, I stand by what I said. This IS GM's wanting to be saved from themselves. They could choose to take the long view and make choices that won't bite them in the behind later... but they don't. That's on them, it always has been on them, and always should be on them.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Parallex

I'm not suggesting that they're stupid babies because they sign players for longer than 5 years. Signing players is a choice and it's their job to determine whether that choice is good or bad in it's totality. What this tells me is that GM's are making bad choices in totality and want to be saved from their own bad choices not through any reflection or re-evaluation but by just removing choice. I'm suggesting that they're like babies because it's all "now now now now" they choose to ignore the long-term consequences of their actions in favor of immediate gratification and now want to be not face the consequences of their actions... which is a characteristic I most associate with small children not middle-aged+ adults.

Are you not ignoring the dynamics that surround these positions. Are these dumb people, or are they people incentivized to do the less than ideal things. Such as pressure from their owners and average tenure of a GM.

I would put forth that I don't think these are dumb people. I think the system and incentives create these behaviors.

We can all sit here and say if we were a GM we would take a long-view and make rationale choices for that, but if your owner says "i want to win now" what do you do?

[CliffFletcher]

No doubt NHL GMs take solace in their principled, long-term decisions when they’re out of a job and watching their successor reap the benefits of a strong cap sheet. They may not have the salary and the power and status anymore, but they’ll know they did the right thing in the long run.

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

We can all sit here and say if we were a GM we would take a long-view and make rationale choices for that, but if your owner says "i want to win now" what do you do?

You either win now or update your CV.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Are you not ignoring the dynamics that surround these positions. Are these dumb people, or are they people incentivized to do the less than ideal things. Such as pressure from their owners and average tenure of a GM.

I would put forth that I don't think these are dumb people. I think the system and incentives create these behaviors.

We can all sit here and say if we were a GM we would take a long-view and make rationale choices for that, but if your owner says "i want to win now" what do you do?

Incentivizes them AND necessitates them. The latter is the killer, and the latter is why they want to reduce contract lengths.

As Cliff said (love when we agree, best friends!), it probably feels good to know they took a principled, long term view during their time, but I doubt it feels that good without a paycheque as they turned their contending team into one that isn’t but might contend better 7 years later when everyone is 7 years older.

I get the dreamy notion of things, but again, GMs have to operate within the confines of reality and many of them out of necessity have to be more focused on right now than 8 years from now. This change helps them do that without the heightened risk.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Are you not ignoring the dynamics that surround these positions. Are these dumb people, or are they people incentivized to do the less than ideal things. Such as pressure from their owners and average tenure of a GM.

We don't know those details. I would say though that I doubt ownership is involved in most player personnel choices to the extent that they are explicitly directing specific acquisitions. If there is pressure from an owner to make a bad choice then it's their (the GM) responsibility to run up the ladder exactly why it's a bad choice and convince them of such.

As far as the average tenure of a GM goes I would say there is a case to be made that it's an effect as well as a cause. Teams sack the GM when the team is terrible, choosing to sign deals that will eventually be poor value contribute to eventually making the team terrible, which leads to the team sacking the GM

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

We can all sit here and say if we were a GM we would take a long-view and make rationale choices for that, but if your owner says "i want to win now" what do you do?

We have no idea what goes on at that level... I'm not willing to just assign all blame to some hypothetical concept of widespread tone-deaf micromanaging ownership. That seems like a cop out.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Well a lot in that post are things I did not say.
- I'm not suggesting ownership is involved in specific acquisitions, though for big tickets I bet they are. But I bet there is a need to alignment on the overall strategy and expectations for what success looks like. As it is with any business.
- And I'm not assigning all the blame. In fact my post didn't use the world blame at all. I'm acknowledging the dynamics in play within the environment these people work within. You may choose to ignore those realities I guess.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

You may choose to ignore those realities I guess.

They're your hypothetical realities is the thing I take issue with. You put up some "what if this and what if that" scenarios... but we don't know if those scenarios are real or imagined and if real to what extent.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Parallex

They're your hypothetical realities is the thing I take issue with. You put up some "what if this and what if that" scenarios... but we don't know if those scenarios are real or imagined and if real to what extent.

Well, we kind of do know some of the realities around being a GM in the NHL. There’s no shortage of books, interviews, talks, and other things that give good insight into what that reality can look like.

But, if you’re saying you don’t know any of the realities… aren’t you the one just making things up to come to the conclusion that a lot of these guys are just stupid?

[Strange Brew]

Is it really owners that put pressure on the GM to win now? You'd think they'd be interested in more long term sustainable success. Mots owners aren't in the business of flipping pro sports franchises.

[Enoch Root]

The NHL is definitely a zero sum game - if a team gets better, all other teams get worse (to a greater or lesser extent). And of course, other teams are getting better or worse by their own actions, at the same time. That's literally what standings are - a snapshot of how good each team is, relative to the others.

[Ped]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Is it really owners that put pressure on the GM to win now? You'd think they'd be interested in more long term sustainable success. Mots owners aren't in the business of flipping pro sports franchises.

I think when you're that rich, that having a team winning championships is definitely a bragging point for most of them in the circles they run in. Sure there are some that are just in it for the investment, but there are definitely owners who like to see their teams win, too.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Is it really owners that put pressure on the GM to win now? You'd think they'd be interested in more long term sustainable success. Mots owners aren't in the business of flipping pro sports franchises.

From what I’ve read, there are very few hands-off owners in today’s NHL. Some (like the Wild’s Leipold) have come right out and said they will never rebuild, and they want to stay competitive.

Most owners have pretty extreme personality types, and their team being at the bottom of the standings is unbearable to them. They hire management teams to make the playoffs and compete for a Cup. The ownership who took over the Penguins a few years ago wouldn’t let Hextall rebuild, even though it was obvious to most hockey people that time was up on the Crosby-Malkin-Letang core. His replacement, Dubas, didn’t trade for Karlsson because he thought it was the smart long-term move, but because his marching orders from his bosses was to keep the band together and make another run.

NHL owners might be smart at whatever they earn their money from, but they’re often extremely impatient and unrealistic about their status toy.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Is it really owners that put pressure on the GM to win now? You'd think they'd be interested in more long term sustainable success. Mots owners aren't in the business of flipping pro sports franchises.

The owners typically make a huge amount of money when they do sell. A rebuild costs 10s of millions/year in lost revenue.

If you're rebuild could guarantee that sweet sweet playoff revenue it would be an easy choice, but many rebuilds result in more rebuilding. Look at Buffalo, Detroit, Columbus, Montreal, Anaheim, etc...

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

From what I’ve read, there are very few hands-off owners in today’s NHL. Some (like the Wild’s Leipold) have come right out and said they will never rebuild, and they want to stay competitive.

Most owners have pretty extreme personality types, and their team being at the bottom of the standings is unbearable to them. They hire management teams to make the playoffs and compete for a Cup. The ownership who took over the Penguins a few years ago wouldn’t let Hextall rebuild, even though it was obvious to most hockey people that time was up on the Crosby-Malkin-Letang core. His replacement, Dubas, didn’t trade for Karlsson because he thought it was the smart long-term move, but because his marching orders from his bosses was to keep the band together and make another run.

NHL owners might be smart at whatever they earn their money from, but they’re often extremely impatient and unrealistic about their status toy.

If I was an NHL owner, I would 1000% name myself GM as well. It's amazing we don't see more Jerry Jones' in pro sports. I figure their egos wouldn't allow them to handover decision making to someone else.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

From what I’ve read, there are very few hands-off owners in today’s NHL. Some (like the Wild’s Leipold) have come right out and said they will never rebuild, and they want to stay competitive.

Most owners have pretty extreme personality types, and their team being at the bottom of the standings is unbearable to them. They hire management teams to make the playoffs and compete for a Cup. The ownership who took over the Penguins a few years ago wouldn’t let Hextall rebuild, even though it was obvious to most hockey people that time was up on the Crosby-Malkin-Letang core. His replacement, Dubas, didn’t trade for Karlsson because he thought it was the smart long-term move, but because his marching orders from his bosses was to keep the band together and make another run.

NHL owners might be smart at whatever they earn their money from, but they’re often extremely impatient and unrealistic about their status toy.

Or...

perhaps they have different goals for said toy than fans do.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

The NHL is definitely a zero sum game - if a team gets better, all other teams get worse (to a greater or lesser extent). And of course, other teams are getting better or worse by their own actions, at the same time. That's literally what standings are - a snapshot of how good each team is, relative to the others.

By metric of standings rank alone, not points, sure, whatever. Zero sum game. Except for expansion years.

Even in the Markstrom trade example, I reconsidered. Jersey got getter and Calgary got better. And Edmonton got worse. Because that is what they do

Carry on

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Ped

I think when you're that rich, that having a team winning championships is definitely a bragging point for most of them in the circles they run in. Sure there are some that are just in it for the investment, but there are definitely owners who like to see their teams win, too.

I get that for sure. It's a vanity project more than anything.

But I'm not sure I really buy the impatience angle. Many of them are smart business people, which requires some shrewdness and maturity. You'd think they'd prefer having multiple shots at winning a championship vs. pushing so many chips in all at once.

Of course not all owners are geniuses. Some have inherited wealth and frankly aren't that successful in other walks of life.

I think about the Treliving/James Neal buyout rumor. He wanted to buy out Neal and ownership said no supposedly. Who was the impatient one there?

[Kipper_3434]

Treliving was hired in Toronto, because he follows orders to a fault. It's so weird that the bosses have bosses.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Kipper_3434

Treliving was hired in Toronto, because he follows orders to a fault. It's so weird that the bosses have bosses.

And yet it was a major point of contention here that he wanted complete autonomy.

I hope since he doesnt actually have to think for himself that he had to take a cut in pay.