Speculation: Who should be the new GM of the Washington Capitals?

[BTCG]

The win a cup requirement is ridiculous. Does this mean that a couple years ago Benning would have been an easy no? Boston was a playoff choker worse than the Capitals until a couple years back.

You live in Philly, so you know about Mark Howe. He is a part of a regime that has won 4 Cups. Let's give a Philly guy a shot, eh?

 

[txpd]

The win a cup requirement is ridiculous. Does this mean that a couple years ago Benning would have been an easy no? Boston was a playoff choker worse than the Capitals until a couple years back.

no team is a playoff choker worse than the capitals. yes, the bruins blew a 3-0 series lead and the caps have not done that. that's true, but the caps history of blowing two game series leads and losing series where they are the home ice advantage team is done as a matter of course, not the odd aberration.

the sharks are close to that and with their 3-0 collapse might rival the caps. but the bruins? not a chance

 

[NobodyBeatsTheWiz]

Those who only want an AGM from a Cup winner care to name a GM with that profile who's won a Cup?

 

[BrooklynCapsFan]

The Western Conference is a ****ing gauntlet the likes of which you can't appreciate unless you actually watch the games. The Sharks have gone to two WCF recently.

The choke talk is so overblown and such a lazy assessment.

 

[txpd]

I am sure it doesn't matter. except its a chance for you to demean anyone that disagrees with you. I'd just rather avoid adding to the caps choke history. there are many here that think the choke history has zero value going forward. maybe you are one of them.

and yes,....I am lazy. and perhaps blowing 3-0 series leads in the west is not an unusual thing.

@nbtw...I am lazy and wont look it up. I just prefer a winning pedigree to a choker one. but whoever they hire, I will probably like them longer than most of the rest of you because I am a company man

 

[BTCG]

I am sure it doesn't matter. except its a chance for you to demean anyone that disagrees with you. I'd just rather avoid adding to the caps choke history. there are many here that think the choke history has zero value going forward. maybe you are one of them.

and yes,....I am lazy. and perhaps blowing 3-0 series leads in the west is not an unusual thing.

He (?) is right about the strength of the West, though. I realize he's often out on a ledge, but he got this right.

 

[NobodyBeatsTheWiz]

@nbtw...I am lazy and wont look it up. I just prefer a winning pedigree to a choker one. but whoever they hire, I will probably like them longer than most of the rest of you because I am a company man

The last to do it was Jim Devellano in 1997, and he'd been with the Red Wings since 1982.

So it seems a Cup "winning pedigree" for a GM candidate is completely irrelevant in the modern game.

 

[Atlas]

Experience with a winning franchise is a big plus because it helps the person see what it takes to win it. But it's not everything. The essential characteristic is a kind of unique vision or genius. The great GMs can see how players fit into the team's philosophy. Knowing that the whole is greater than the parts—and having the vision to recognize the right individual parts.

I actually think that it is impossible for Ted and Dick to bring in this kind of person because they don't think like that. I think Ted and Dick would be uncomfortable around a GM with that vision and focus. And the reverse, I don't imagine a GM like that would be impressed with Ted and Dick.

Sorry to be a downer. Caps fan since the 70s.

 

[InfernalDark*]

99 deal done. You heard it from me first.

 

[IafrateOvie34]

Experience with a winning franchise is a big plus because it helps the person see what it takes to win it. But it's not everything. The essential characteristic is a kind of unique vision or genius. The great GMs can see how players fit into the team's philosophy. Knowing that the whole is greater than the parts—and having the vision to recognize the right individual parts.

I actually think that it is impossible for Ted and Dick to bring in this kind of person because they don't think like that. I think Ted and Dick would be uncomfortable around a GM with that vision and focus. And the reverse, I don't imagine a GM like that would be impressed with Ted and Dick.

Sorry to be a downer. Caps fan since the 70s.

I don't see this a downer post at all. I agree with you about Ted.

 

[Atlas]

I don't see this a downer post at all. I agree with you about Ted.

Thanks and hello again! Well, it's a bummer in that it would mean no Cup for us in the foreseeable future.

 

[SimplySensational]

You live in Philly, so you know about Mark Howe. He is a part of a regime that has won 4 Cups. Let's give a Philly guy a shot, eh?

After that Weiss contract, no thanks.

 

[kicksavedave]

The last to do it was Jim Devellano in 1997, and he'd been with the Red Wings since 1982.

So it seems a Cup "winning pedigree" for a GM candidate is completely irrelevant in the modern game.

First, Ken Holland was AGM of the Wings in 97 then won 3 more Cups as GM.

Second, there are only 22 total Cup winning GMs since expansion in 67. There is no one single formula for hiring a GM that is guaranteed to win a Cup. And since NONE of us on this board are in the rooms, listening to the decisions being made with each team, determining who is influencing what moves.. all we can do is look at resumes from afar.

The reason I like hiring a GM from a winner is looking at the teams on the rise right now, their GMs largely came from the recent winners. Cliff Fletcher in Minnesota came from the Pens under Shero when they won. Murray with the Ducks was SVP Hockey Ops under Burke when they won. Bergevin with the Habs was Dir PP then AGM with the Hawks when they won.

I concede, there is no single magic formula for this decision. But when I look at our choices, we can find a guy who has won before and ask him to repeat that process, to use that same blueprint, to do what his boss did before. Or we can find a guy who hasn't won before and ask him to do something he hasn't done before, to perform better than his previous boss performed.

One of my criteria for a promotion is, excellence in your previous position, which is pretty easy to spot. If you think you can determine someone's "vision" and talent from the vantage of message board poster, reading a few articles on the web, well more power to ya.

 

[kicksavedave]

Another way of looking at this: Its reasonable to expect the new GM to duplicate the level of success he had previously. Its less reasonable to expect him to significantly exceed the level of success he had prior. If we hire a guy who's never won, never been involved at a high level, with a championship team, we're asking him to do something he's never been a part of. It could work out. Its optimistic.

 

[g00n]

no team is a playoff choker worse than the capitals. yes, the bruins blew a 3-0 series lead and the caps have not done that. that's true, but the caps history of blowing two game series leads and losing series where they are the home ice advantage team is done as a matter of course, not the odd aberration.

the sharks are close to that and with their 3-0 collapse might rival the caps. but the bruins? not a chance

Right. The Bruins were a 6 seed who beat a 3 seed in the first round before blowing that 3-0 series lead to the 7th seed. That's not the same as a 1 seed choking away a 3-1 series lead against an 8 seed in the first round. Plus, the Bruins as a franchise had won Cups before, and they've won the Cup since.

What have the Caps done OTHER than choke? If the Caps win the Cup next year, do we still say "yeah, but they're chokers"? **** no. So why are we still calling the Bruins chokers?

 

[Hivemind]

Prior to winning the Cup in 2011, the Bruins hadn't been past the second round since 1992 and hadn't won it all since 1972. It was more than blowing the 3-0 series against Philadelphia, thought that certainly capped it off. That was their 4th consecutive game 7 loss (a familiar tune to Capitals fans), and they had lost in the first round the three previous times they had won their division. My point is that I don't buy that Benning suddenly became better at his job between 2010 and 2011.

You live in Philly, so you know about Mark Howe. He is a part of a regime that has won 4 Cups. Let's give a Philly guy a shot, eh?

A jump from Director of Pro Scouting to General Manager is rather large if the individual has not spent time as an Assistant General Manager. What makes you think Howe has the business saavy to execute the job? If you wanted someone from the Detroit regime, Jim Nill would have been the guy.

The reason I like hiring a GM from a winner is looking at the teams on the rise right now, their GMs largely came from the recent winners. Cliff Fletcher in Minnesota came from the Pens under Shero when they won. Murray with the Ducks was SVP Hockey Ops under Burke when they won. Bergevin with the Habs was Dir PP then AGM with the Hawks when they won.

What about Colorado/Sakic? Tampa Bay/Yzerman? Columbus/Kekalainen? None of them had a Cup from a management position on their resume, and all three were in the playoffs this year.

Or on the flip side, how has Florida done under Dale Tallon and his cup pedigree? How about the Rangers under Glen Sather?

 

[BrooklynCapsFan]

This is getting to be as stupid as Talbot>>>>>>>Ovechkin because cups deeeerrrrrrrrr.

 

[HunterSThompson]

If the Caps go and get an Assistant GM, I don't care if he has won a cup or not. I want a guy that was an AG for a good team. I also want a guy who was an AG for a poor team. Someone can learn from the mistakes of his boss just as much if not more than he can learn from the successes. I would want a guy that was with a team that turned it around. I would want a guy that had tough times and saw what not to do. I would want a guy that worked under a restraint or problems (self-imposed cap, inherited a poor system, a horrible move or two). The lessons you learn when you make a mistake are much more valuable than those you learn from being a part of success.

 

[Langway]

I concede, there is no single magic formula for this decision. But when I look at our choices, we can find a guy who has won before and ask him to repeat that process, to use that same blueprint, to do what his boss did before. Or we can find a guy who hasn't won before and ask him to do something he hasn't done before, to perform better than his previous boss performed.

You're not creating an authentic atmosphere if you want an AGM to come in and essentially copycat what his boss did that year they won it all. Everyone has their vision and way of doing things and deviating from past success isn't wrong. Every situation is different so it's not like a Benning is going to come in and copycat Boston anyway. You can't really copycat Boston without a Bergeron or Chara (rare exceptional talents). He can improve their floor, diversify their mix and instill greater discipline but most (if not all) franchises are still at the mercy of their top-end talent.

Winning AGMs didn't do what their GM did to begin with and that's create that network and vision. If rigid replication is the answer then just hire Brian Burke, a guy that's actually won the Cup as a GM, and minimize any translation questions altogether. Everything else is guesswork as far as translating skill sets and past usage to a job that's far more widespread and demanding. It's one thing to be an advisor and another to be the ultimate decision-maker.

Cup winning AGMs may have lessons learned that non-winners can only infer but excellence in a previous position can occur without team success (just as team success can obscure individual ability in terms of their actual influence and ability to translate that role in a more demanding context). Neither Shero nor Chiarelli won as AGMs, just as Lombardi didn't win as GM in San Jose and Burke didn't win in Hartford or Vancouver.

That's not to say I prefer Fenton over Benning because the resume of winning as an AGM is a definite advantage but it should be kept in context. The interview process and their overall demeanor is more far important IMO. It's not that different from questions of whether an assistant coach's skill set will translate into being an effective head coach. Some do, some don't. It doesn't matter whether they've been part of a winner before or not. Some have that demeanor and desire to be the head guy and some don't thrive on that pressure. That can't be emulated. It has to be authentic and that's not easy to spot based on resume alone.

 

[Liberati0n*]

You're not creating an authentic atmosphere if you want an AGM to come in and essentially copycat what his boss did that year they won it all. Everyone has their vision and way of doing things and deviating from past success isn't wrong. Every situation is different so it's not like a Benning is going to come in and copycat Boston anyway. You can't really copycat Boston without a Bergeron or Chara (rare exceptional talents). He can improve their floor, diversify their mix and instill greater discipline but most (if not all) franchises are still at the mercy of their top-end talent.

Winning AGMs didn't do what their GM did to begin with and that's create that network and vision. If rigid replication is the answer then just hire Brian Burke, a guy that's actually won the Cup as a GM, and minimize any translation questions altogether. Everything else is guesswork as far as translating skill sets and past usage to a job that's far more widespread and demanding. It's one thing to be an advisor and another to be the ultimate decision-maker.

Cup winning AGMs may have lessons learned that non-winners can only infer but excellence in a previous position can occur without team success (just as team success can obscure individual ability in terms of their actual influence and ability to translate that role in a more demanding context). Neither Shero nor Chiarelli won as AGMs, just as Lombardi didn't win as GM in San Jose and Burke didn't win in Hartford or Vancouver.

That's not to say I prefer Fenton over Benning because the resume of winning as an AGM is a definite advantage but it should be kept in context. The interview process and their overall demeanor is more far important IMO. It's not that different from questions of whether an assistant coach's skill set will translate into being an effective head coach. Some do, some don't. It doesn't matter whether they've been part of a winner before or not. Some have that demeanor and desire to be the head guy and some don't thrive on that pressure. That can't be emulated. It has to be authentic and that's not easy to spot based on resume alone.

What are all these details and nuances? WAY too complicated for this thread. Let's focus on things we can understand here, winning, good family names, and avoiding chokers.

 

[NobodyBeatsTheWiz]

Just because it seemingly needs to be repeated every day until this silliness dies:

1997

That's the last year that the GM of a Cup winner was someone who'd won a Cup in his previous position.

 

[Caps8112]

dont care whether he is an AGM or not. No more rookies and favors for friends/former players. The only quality I ask for is the balls to make a trade to make your team the front runner when the time has come to do so. We would have won the cup already a few years ago if GMGM could have let go of his precious prospects and picks that have amounted to nothing. Dont bring up the Erat trade because the way I see it Forsberg has done exactly nothing in the NHL to make you believe he is anything to be upset about. I also would like the next guy to avoid displaying obvious and completely stupid favoritism to his own draft picks no matter how bad they suck (Jeff Schultz).

 

[SDBondra]

The Capitals have a few things going for them:

• Superstar talent
• A solid roster with no awful contracts
• A better than average amateur scouting staff
• Good, young goaltending
• A sold out building

For those reasons, I don't think the first qualification for selecting the next GM is "can he build a team"? The team is built. The culture is broken. There are problems with leadership among the players and within the organization that need to be addressed far more urgently than player talent needs to be addressed. We need a no-nonsense GM and in a sense we had it with McPhee. I strongly believe that McPhee wasn't the problem. He was undermined on at least two occasions by his ownership who made huge personnel decisions contrary to his plans (Jagr and Oates come immediately to mind).

What I hope Ted and Dick Patrick might recognize is that their meddling is directly related to the cultural dysfunction that we know and love. McPhee probably didn't support Oates even though he appeared to publicly. Why? McPhee wanted Cooper. Could the Erat trade have been effective with a good coach who saw the roster the same way George did? We'll never know.

If and only if Ted and Dick can take a step back and stay out of the Jerry Jones world, Gretzky could be an effective GM. He might be able to stand up to the owners better than George did. What I'm afraid of is that the owners are just giving us lip service and they're really just looking for another "company man" who doesn't make decisions without their say-so. If that's the case, we're likely in for 17 more years of this.

In either case, my heart wants Hextall. I think he would call the owners out if they continue to meddle. He's a player's guy but he also has a strong reputation and will be sure to be good for at least some entertainment.

 

[um]

Just because it seemingly needs to be repeated every day until this silliness dies:

1997

That's the last year that the GM of a Cup winner was someone who'd won a Cup in his previous position.

what about 1998

 

[NobodyBeatsTheWiz]

what about 1998

Promotions from within obviously don't apply to the Caps.