• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
Nightfall

At what point does the GM deserve credit/blame?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

I have been following the Lightning's playoff run pretty closely this year and I have been impressed with what they have been able to accomplish. Especially considering they were swept out of the playoffs last year. Yzerman took the helm a couple years ago and last year was a his first with the club. I know I was quick to point out that Yzerman's team collapsed last year, but was it really his team? After all, he didn't draft any of those players. He did make a couple personnel decisions though that had an effect on the club though. Same with this year. Johnson for instance was drafted before Yzerman was in the pipeline. Would he have made that same decision? At the same time though, he took the helm in March of 2011 and that team made it to the conference finals.

Anyway, I just got to thinking about 1998 when Holland was hired. Many members here were quick to point out that this was not Hollands team as it was built by the previous regime. Personally, if the GM is in command that season, they should get credit or blame for the result of that team for the season. Doesn't matter if they have been on the clock for an hour or a year.

What is your take? At what point does the GM deserve credit or blame for the results of their team? Right away? Two or three years?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I give Holland credit as GM for the 2002 and 2008 cup winning teams. He fully took over in 1998 for Bowman as full time GM. But it was Scottys team. He brought in Vernon and Larionov and Fetisov and pushed for the Shanahan trade. He brought in Maltby and brought back Kocur. Rouse and Macoun as well. Kenny traded for Hasek and that was a big move for the 2002 cup win. Kenny has done a great job keeping the Red Wings on or near the top for almost 20 years now. He must get credit for this. Pre salary cap as well as post salary cap he's succeeded whereas most Gms have failed. The Wings gave not really been a legit cup threat since 2009. He has made mistakes. Lowballing Hossa was a big one. His drafting record has been great with the help of Hakan Andersson of course. I'd like to see him a bit more aggressive but he tried hard to get Suter and he went to Minny. Holland deserves credit but needs to take blame too. Overall he has done a great job but has blundered along the way. 20 years on the job, anyone will screw up every now and then. My only worry is if he's become too complacent with all the Cup wins. Does he have that burning desire to win Cups anymore? Or is his goal just to make the playoffs each season? Bottom line for me....Kenny gets big credit and big blame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it depends on the team. Which players are drafted and developed by the Gm there compared to the one who took over. Look at the hawks. Their core group was built by Dale Talon. He drafted Toews, Kane, Keith, Seabrook. He traded for Sharp. He signed Hossa. Stan Bowman is still riding Talons team. Bowman has done a good job keeping solid depth to replace guys he lost to stay under the cap I.e. Ladd, Byfuglien. But the core of that team is all Dale Talon. The Wings team which won in 1997 and 1998 was essentially built by Bryan Murray starting with the infamous 89 draft when he selected Fedorov, Lidstrom and Konstantinov. Its tough to determine which Gms get credit for what. Anyone can interpret one way or the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We will forever rue the day we let Yzerman go. We wanted him to overripe before becoming GM. Next thing you know, he doesn't want to overripe, he goes to Tampa, makes two Conference Finals, and trades KFQ (as he's called here) for a first round pick. Yeah, it's not all him and there's other factors involved, but it's hard to say that he's not succeeding, because he is.

To answer Nightfall's question, there is no magic number for how long a GM should have. It depends. Holland has been lucky that he surrounded himself with smart people in the front office, good coaches, great players and no salary cap. As the people around him left, the salary cap disappeared, and the top players got old, he doesn't look so hot anymore. I would have pulled the plug a few seasons ago on Holland and gone in a new direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We will forever rue the day we let Yzerman go. We wanted him to overripe before becoming GM. Next thing you know, he doesn't want to overripe, he goes to Tampa, makes two Conference Finals, and trades KFQ (as he's called here) for a first round pick. Yeah, it's not all him and there's other factors involved, but it's hard to say that he's not succeeding, because he is.

To answer Nightfall's question, there is no magic number for how long a GM should have. It depends. Holland has been lucky that he surrounded himself with smart people in the front office, good coaches, great players and no salary cap. As the people around him left, the salary cap disappeared, and the top players got old, he doesn't look so hot anymore. I would have pulled the plug a few seasons ago on Holland and gone in a new direction.

You are very quick to give Yzerman credit for the conference finals appearance in 2011 when he was just hired in March. I give him the same credit because his hiring brought a lot of mental stability to the franchise. Still, many would look at Holland's team in 98 and say he did nothing and deserves no credit. Same with Yzerman's team in 2011.

In short, a GM's title at the time of the season ending is who gets credit in my book.

I think it depends on the team. Which players are drafted and developed by the Gm there compared to the one who took over. Look at the hawks. Their core group was built by Dale Talon. He drafted Toews, Kane, Keith, Seabrook. He traded for Sharp. He signed Hossa. Stan Bowman is still riding Talons team. Bowman has done a good job keeping solid depth to replace guys he lost to stay under the cap I.e. Ladd, Byfuglien. But the core of that team is all Dale Talon. The Wings team which won in 1997 and 1998 was essentially built by Bryan Murray starting with the infamous 89 draft when he selected Fedorov, Lidstrom and Konstantinov. Its tough to determine which Gms get credit for what. Anyone can interpret one way or the other.

Great post! I agree. Which is why the person who is hired in at the time is the one who gets credit. Doesn't matter what has been done previously.

Yet, there are many here that like to point at the successes and failures of GMs and put an asterisk by some of their accomplishments or failures just based on the amount of time they have been in control. That really is what this thread is all about. After hearing some of the discussion in other threads, I decided to see what everyone thought as a whole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ken Holland has been with the organization for 30 years. 18 of which he's been the GM. He started as as scout, then the director of scouting, then the assistant GM, then the co-GM, and then the full GM. It's not a coincidence that he was hired just prior to the Wings beginning an epic playoff streak.

To try and dismiss his contributions to the organization as anything less than profound would be an absolutely gross understatement. He's been more important to this team's success then any other individual.

If you hire a GM from outside the organization, you can argue he's riding coattails. But it's a little hard to say that about a guy who's been a member of the Red Wings longer than Steve Yzerman and Nick Lidstrom.

To a lesser extent, this is true of Stan Bowman as well. Sure Tallon was the GM before him. But he started with Chicago in 2001 when they were a garbage team. Unless he was just standing around playing with himself for 8 years he likely contributed to their assent. Is he entirely responsible? No. But he's contributed from the bottom up.

Yzerman doesn't deserve much credit for that first conference finals appearance as he had just come in from outside the organization and had been with the team for less than a year. But he deserves credit for every single other success they've had since.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bowman was GM for a bit, but Holland handled most of the day to day stuff. Minimizing his contributions is just bs. When Yzerman wanted to he a GM I don't blame Holland at all for not taking a different role. He's the GM, he wanted to continue to fill that role.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't we just have this exact thread like a month ago?

The other thread was just on Holland, this is on GMs in general. I made this strictly to get the input from people here on at one point does a GM deserve credit or blame based on the team's performance. Many here are quick to anoint Yzerman as one of the top GMs in the game. Yet, people forget that his first two full seasons under his belt the team didn't even make the playoffs, and then his team last season was swept out in the first round. Considering when he was hired in March of 2011, his team made it to the conference finals. I am not saying that missing the playoffs was his fault, but when does the overall results of the team become the GMs?

This goes far beyond Holland. I will paint another picture here.

Its easy for the GM of Edmonton to be labeled as a failure with all the failed draft choices. Look at Toronto as a good example of making a regime change. If the Leafs make the playoffs next year, does Shanahan get credit? Absolutely he should.

As many have said, the past regime really does have a lasting impact on the team. Far more than the GM of the team does right away. The past GM for the Lightning really did pave the way for what the LIghtning are today. Sure, Yzerman has made some changes, but the great young players in the system now were not drafted by Yzerman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a GM comes in to a successful franchise and maintains success, they deserve credit. 100%. A few careless moves and the core of a great team can fall apart.

If a GM comes into a mess and can't show any progress after a 2-3 years (even improving at the AHL level is a start), they are at fault. It's a case of if you're not a part of the solution, you're a part of the problem.

If a GM comes into a success and turns it into a mess, well, that speaks for itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Johnson was undrafted. and was signed as a free agent by tampa bay in 2011... after Yzerman took over.

My bad on that. I was thinking Johnson but it was Hedman I was thinking about. He was drafted in 2009.

Edited by Nightfall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My bad on that. I was thinking Johnson but it was Hedman I was thinking about. He was drafted in 2009.

No worries :) I just remember hearing announcers mention that he was undrafted sometime this post season so I looked into it. Good find on yzermans part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No worries :) I just remember hearing announcers mention that he was undrafted sometime this post season so I looked into it. Good find on yzermans part.

Both him and Palat were great finds. Palat was a late round selection (208 overall)

Edited by Nightfall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ken Holland has been with the organization for 30 years. 18 of which he's been the GM. He started as as scout, then the director of scouting, then the assistant GM, then the co-GM, and then the full GM. It's not a coincidence that he was hired just prior to the Wings beginning an epic playoff streak.

To try and dismiss his contributions to the organization as anything less than profound would be an absolutely gross understatement. He's been more important to this team's success then any other individual.

If you hire a GM from outside the organization, you can argue he's riding coattails. But it's a little hard to say that about a guy who's been a member of the Red Wings longer than Steve Yzerman and Nick Lidstrom.

To a lesser extent, this is true of Stan Bowman as well. Sure Tallon was the GM before him. But he started with Chicago in 2001 when they were a garbage team. Unless he was just standing around playing with himself for 8 years he likely contributed to their assent. Is he entirely responsible? No. But he's contributed from the bottom up.

Yzerman doesn't deserve much credit for that first conference finals appearance as he had just come in from outside the organization and had been with the team for less than a year. But he deserves credit for every single other success they've had since.

People will always s*** on Holland and it's pretty sad. No one really knows what we have had the last 20 years until it's gone. He has an eye for talent and continues to pick the correct draft picks year after year. I mean Larkin could have probably been picked top 5 last year at the pace he's at right now. In my opinion he's a huge steal for us.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bowman was GM for a bit, but Holland handled most of the day to day stuff. Minimizing his contributions is just bs. When Yzerman wanted to he a GM I don't blame Holland at all for not taking a different role. He's the GM, he wanted to continue to fill that role.

Great post, Bowman is a great hockey mind but in the last few years he was what the Queen is to Canada..a figure head with very little power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been following the Lightning's playoff run pretty closely this year and I have been impressed with what they have been able to accomplish. Especially considering they were swept out of the playoffs last year. Yzerman took the helm a couple years ago and last year was a his first with the club. I know I was quick to point out that Yzerman's team collapsed last year, but was it really his team? After all, he didn't draft any of those players. He did make a couple personnel decisions though that had an effect on the club though. Same with this year. Johnson for instance was drafted before Yzerman was in the pipeline. Would he have made that same decision? At the same time though, he took the helm in March of 2011 and that team made it to the conference finals.

Anyway, I just got to thinking about 1998 when Holland was hired. Many members here were quick to point out that this was not Hollands team as it was built by the previous regime. Personally, if the GM is in command that season, they should get credit or blame for the result of that team for the season. Doesn't matter if they have been on the clock for an hour or a year.

What is your take? At what point does the GM deserve credit or blame for the results of their team? Right away? Two or three years?

Pretty sure Stevie's been with Tampa for 5 years. I would say he gets a lot of credit for the team he has now.

He drafted a few of the players. And brought in a lot of them.

Edited by Dr Dubya

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A GM is the builder of the team and probably the most important piece to hire because they are basically overseeing everything.

So if they are able to make their team a contender in only 4 years they'll deserve a ton of credit, like the captain obviously does.

If a team fails to deliver or a GM is watching it getting worse without doing something, then the blame is deserved too. I mean Chiarelli had it all and he managed to trade it away so the blame is deserved and he topped it if by trading Boychuk away for basically nothing.

In terms of Holland he used to deliver the goods , but somehow and somewhere he has lost his fire and he was never prepared for the post Godstrra plus failed to extend the teams cup window when Pasha and Z still where somewhat in their primes.

Edited by frankgrimes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A GM is the builder of the team and probably the most important piece to hire because they are basically overseeing everything. So if they are able to make their team a contender in only 4 years they'll deserve a ton of credit, like the captain obviously does. If a team fails to deliver or a GM is watching it getting worse without doing something, then the blame is deserved too. I mean Chiarelli had it all and he managed to trade it away so the blame is deserved and he topped it if by trading Boychuk away for basically nothing. In terms of Holland he used to deliver the goods , but somehow and somewhere he has lost his fire and he was never prepared for the post Godstrra plus failed to extend the teams cup window when Pasha and Z still where somewhat in their primes.

What is a post Godtrra?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this