BUX7PHX
Registered User
- Jul 7, 2011
- 5,581
- 1,350
Thinking about Chayka. How he seemed to be able to find talent but struggled to build a team properly because he failed to account for intangibles.
Then BA at the intro press conference when he was hired took a subtle shot saying that if you build an analytics roster, you'll get boring, ineffective, uninspired play (or something to that effect). Of course BA goes and add nothing but a bunch of intangibles like immediately.
I'm wondering if maybe that is actually enough to make the parts Chayka collected actually start working properly. Like maybe he wasn't wrong about Keller, Schmaltz, etc. Maybe Chayka was right on the money about these key pieces. But maybe we just needed BA to come in and actually put them together properly and add the proper supports.
Makes me think that maybe Chayka’s biggest problem was that he was a General Manager instead of an assistant General Manager. Kinda like how Tocchet makes a great AC but a poor HC. It’s not that these guys are bad at their jobs, they’re just in over their heads.
Chayka always bungled the human element of everything. Cant do that as a GM. But you can in a more specialized role like AGM. Tocchet seems to bungle everything other than the human element. Cant do that as a HC. But as an AC? That’s the most important part.
Both guys were last-minute, bargain bin, desperation hires from a broken organization that had the cooties. The only way they could attract solid candidates despite low pay and instability, was to offer them jobs at least one tier above where they were probably qualified.
I think that’s how it always felt like it might work or was about to work but nothing ever really came together. It’s that lack of big-picture experience at all levels.
So many novel, and interesting things were done so well. So many boring and conventional things were done so poorly. It feels like we could never balance the innovation with the conventional wisdom.
Just saw this, and this actually makes a lot of sense.
Here is my logic: the hardest thing to get in the NHL is purely talented players, like Hall. They cost a lot, and the way to get them if you don't draft them involves picking them up in free agency or trade.
I actually think that Chayka and Armstrong have similar approaches, to a degree. If Chayka were still around, he would be in year 5. Armstrong talked about a 5 year plan. What if Chayka's went like this:
Yr 1: evaluate who you currently have and where you can go with it. This is the start of drafting better and development as well with Keller and Chychrun.
Yr 2-3: start to get rid of some of the non-fits, but make sure we get talent back as well (Strome/Perlini for Schmaltz). Get some of these individuals with higher end talent to stay long term so that in 2 years, you can see who is progresssing (Dvorak, Chychrun)
Yr 4: once the talent is in, now if that talent is doing well, the next part is a little easier: find the bottom 6 that can complement well. There are multiple players to sign for less than $2 M. Not a lot of high quality players available for that low. That was the purpose of bringing Hall in. If we make noise with Hall and keep him, it is way easier to dunp certain deals and then fit players around elite talent than it is to have a bunch of average players and maybe hope to convince someone to sign, as we saw with JVR.
I think that the methodology was not as bad as it appears, but two things work against: #1 the person who measured heights/weights cost picks that could be used to rid bad contracts and #2 our coach is probably not the best for them right now.
I think Chayka recognized that we needed a talent infusion, and we went after that first. To me, once you have that, many more players will listen come FA. But if we don't make those types of moves, we have to play the waiting game woth our own development.
Last edited: