Management Bill Guerin
- Thread starter BuiumSaveUs
- Start date
Not flexing anything at all, just pointing out he hasn't done anything yet to be considered "the best gm in franchise history" yet. He's got an incomplete at best at this point, with some good and some bad, with a LOT more that needs to be accomplished before he can be credited with building anything.
Guerin hasn't done anything catastrophic as a GM. The rest of the GMs have some absolutely terrible moves.
Trading the 2nd best player this franchise has ever seen because he didn’t like his hair isn’t catastrophic? What planet do you live on?
Yes, when a GM builds, they can make mistakes.
Fletcher was given a shit team with no prospects, built them to a borderline contender, making the playoffs consistently, but unfortunately had to face a cap era dynasty in Chicago repeatedly, but did accomplish series wins vs both the Avs and Blues.
He just plateaued and thus had to go... We've only gone backwards overall since though thus far.
Can Guerin build something better? Sure he can. Has he yet? Not even close.
GordieGallant
Registered User
A planet that gives me the ability to realize that Fiala was traded because of cap and not because of his hair? Lmao
The best regular season this franchise has ever had was under Guerin. The best playoff run this team has ever had was under Risebrough. Are you gonna make the argument that Risebrough was a good GM? He’s arguably our worst GM all time.
There are stark contrasts to each GM and when they started. Fletcher started in 2009 with a bad team. He got to accumulate top picks (Granlund, Brodin, Dumba) and already had a top 6 center in Koivu and a jumpstart the rebuild deal by trading Burns.
Guerin inherited a playoff team that was down on itself from poor leadership (Fenton, Boudreau). He signed the best player this team has ever had. He’s accomplished rebuilding a pretty bare prospect pool while also being a playoff team. He took our pretty crappy goaltending duo last year into a pretty darn good one this year.
Fletcher drafted that best player.
I'm not saying Guerin is bad or terrible, I'm saying that he has a long ways to go yet before he can be lauded for what he's done. He hasn't done enough.
As for DR, you know I'd never call him a good GM. He just happened to have the best coach this franchise ever had.
As it currently stands, Fletcher is still the best GM we've had. That said, could I see Guerin getting there one day? Sure... let's see what he builds first though.
Dickie Dunn
Registered User
Passed on Caufield
Trade Fiala instead of locking him up
Sign Boldy long term instead of Fiala
I’m happy they signed Boldy but its still the third best outcome of the three. Imo
Trade Fiala instead of locking him up
Sign Boldy long term instead of Fiala
I’m happy they signed Boldy but its still the third best outcome of the three. Imo
That's your opinion. Not one I share.
Funny enough, Spurgeon was in trade rumors towards the end of the 2018-19 season and leading up to the 2019 draft. Maybe Edmonton would have bought him at the TDL for a 1st and we could have had Caufield and Boldy.
Fiala put together a better season for us than Gabby , Suter or Parise ever did and he’s just hitting his prime.
BagHead
Registered User
Adjusting for era, Gaborik's 83 point season would be the better offensive season, and not by a little. Gaborik finished 12th in scoring that year. Last year 12th in scoring was Panarin with 96 points. Gaborik finished 20 points above the next best Wild scorer, while Fiala finished 23 points behind the best Wild scorer and 6 points ahead of the 3rd best.
I'd put Fiala around Havlat level, which is still very good. I'd definitely put Kaprizov, Gaborik, and Koivu ahead of him as better overall players (factoring in more than just offense), and I'd probably also put Suter ahead of him, but that's sort of apples to oranges.
MuckOG
Registered User
- May 18, 2012
- 15,866
- 5,843
I give Guerin a grade of "B" to this point. Some missteps, but overall pretty good.
Not to mention third best would have beat him by 8 points (pace based) if he was healthy.
Blah, I don’t like the Havlat comparison. I viewed him as a pretty decent 2nd liner and I view Fiala as a 1st line game breaker. Unless you are talking about Ottawa/Chicago Havlat and not Minnesota Havlat.
BagHead
Registered User
I did think about that, but the point seemed made already. It wasn't my intention to pile on.
That's fair. Havlat was used as a comparable because he's the closest Wild player I can think of in terms of overall skill level and offensive results. He was 3rd on the Wild in scoring in his first year, tied for 1st in his second, and then was gone. That's very similar to Fiala's offensive finishes. If there's a better comparison out there, by all means I'd be happy to use them instead, I just can't think of any.
Just saw TSK's Demitra reply. That's pretty good!
To be fair, Demitra wasn't a huge offensive catalyst like Fiala and was only here for two years.
OH! Even better was Brian Rolston! I think Fiala was like Rolston more than Demitra. Rolston was on the second line as well and they split up Rolston and Gaborik
Dr Jan Itor
Registered User
If you're grading a GM that is truly trying to win, as we've been told we are, then you're probably looking at something like this:
C/C+ for making the playoffs
B-/B for winning a round
B+/A- for making the Conference finals
A for the making the Cup finals
A+ for winning the Cup
Pretty simplified version, but I think it's decently reasonable.
C/C+ for making the playoffs
B-/B for winning a round
B+/A- for making the Conference finals
A for the making the Cup finals
A+ for winning the Cup
Pretty simplified version, but I think it's decently reasonable.
Where does Riser fit into this? He'd be B+/A-, Fenton would be a F, Fletcher would be a B-/B and Guerin would be a C/C+, which doesn't make sense as
Riser is a D
Fletcher is a C
Fenton would be a D/F
Guerin would be a C
Circulartheory
Registered User
I think that's were I differ - because it is a simplified version where I feel there needs to be alot of nuances - from proper player/contract evaluations, negotiations with agents/gms, properly managing draft value, and cultivating a positive culture. In extremely example, if we win the cup (which is A+) but in the process gut the entire prospect pool, I will have to downgrade the grade. Yes, I want to win, but I want to a team that is capable of winning for the next 5 years so that requires both on-ice success and proper management of future assets.
Dr Jan Itor
Registered User
For that year. Take all the years, apply a grade and see where it averages out.
Obviously this is for prolonged stretches so Fenton isn't really applicable. Or you can call him an "incomplete".
Also, it probably would need to be adjusted for expansion rules and such.
I'm not saying it's 100% etched in stone or anything. Just general buckets.
So give him an A+ for that year, and then grade the rest of the years accordingly.
BagHead
Registered User
I appreciate what you're attempting to do with this, but I think this more measures the overall fan sentiment about a team over a period of time, rather than a GM's actual success at building a good team.
Imagine having to build a team with a bare prospect pool, no stars, and bad contracts, building that up over multiple years of missing the playoffs, and then getting canned before the team sees success because the owner (or fans) lost patience. You then see the next GM win multiple Cups with your guys that you put together, as he slowly burns it to the ground and turns it back into a non-playoff team. Yet you're the GM with the bad grade. This is an extreme example, I just meant to use it as a very clear model for why I believe your grading system actually measures sentiment rather than success.
