GM Succession

[CoachReilly 688]

(Please note: I am going to post this as two articles as this is about 1,300 words, but wanted everyone to read as a whole piece so we got the full picture of this for discussion purposes).  You only have to grade up to 'Part Two - GM Succession')

 

GM Succession

One of the VHL's Greatest Mysteries

 

TORONTO, ON, CANADA -- At the VHL's headquarters, there seems to be a constantly changing methodology on how succession plans are made and enforced.  We decided to do an investigation on how warped the system is in an effort to highlight the issue in a cohesive manner.  Below, we review the factors and outputs of the last 6 changes in leadership in the Victory Hockey League.  Frankly, I think if you do not agree with me after reading this than you are either being stubborn or have the reading comprehension level of a toddler.  

 

For many of the successions, you can click the header link (all underlined) in order to read more about the front office shake ups. Each shake up will have the respective timing (it is listed in chronological order), the exchange of players, picks, etc., commentary, as well as a rating of how much the succession benefited the respective team (1st - best, 6th - worst).  This will be a two-part article with the three most recent changes being preview in this week's version, with the remaining three next week.

 

Davos: Simon Valmount >> Pavel Komarov

Timing: S47 Off-Season

Exchange: Davos received Pavel Komarov in exchange for the 7th overall pick.

Comments: First, let me state that this is not a disaster for HC Davos. Komarov is a passionate leader, but when you put it under the lens with other GM transitions, you can see that the Dynamo were not treated fairly in any respect.  Komarov was probably rated as the 8th-10th best prospect in the league.  There was a huge drop off from Komarov to Kendrick Cole.   Komarov was in fact closer to the 13th best player in terms of TPE.  Although all of this (and more) was laid out in front of the BOG, they apparently decided to drastically change the decision-making process for GM succession.  In terms of precedent, this is by far the least beneficial to the respective team.  With the somewhat barren situation HC Davos is in, they could have stood to not be the poster child for GM reform.  Also, unlike other GM transitions, they won't be able to trade Valmount for anything worthwhile as he has gone completely inactive and his player will not improve moving forward.

Rating: 6th

 

Davos: Freedom McJustice >> Simon Valmount

Timing: S46 Off-Season

Exchange: None - player already played for HC Davos

Comments: Not going to go into this one too much because there was no exchange of player rights in bringing the new GM in.  I will provide an explanation, however, on McJustice's apparent disappearance from the league.  Around the end of S45, HC Davos was eliminated right around the Christmas holiday.  The day after Christmas, I had to leave the country to attend my best friend's wedding in Bolivia -- had to give a speech at the wedding, the whole nine yards.  I had mentioned this to Draper via personal message, and I had thought I had also told Mason Richardson and Bismarck Koenig (our two pending FA's) as well.  Unfortunately, I did not make it back to the country until the draft, free agency, etc. had begun.  I had asked Draper if they could stomach pushing everything pack a few days (due to holidays of Christmas/New Year's).  He did not acquiesce to my request.  Also, the VHL finals moved through in a quick four- or five-game series, and the perfect storm materialized for me.  Embarrassed and upset by a lack of flexibility, I told Draper I wanted to resign.  I know I should have had a better plan, but I feel like giving some breathing room around the holidays might be a decent idea. 

Rating: 5th

 

New York: Chris Miller >> Edwin Reencarnacion

Timing: S46 Off-Season

Exchange: NY received rights to Atticus Von Braxton (S47 - G), a top three prospect as part of the GM recreate rule. 

Comments: This was a well-planned transition by Chris Miller, one of the all-time greatest general managers in the VHL.  As he retired a young, budding star in Benjamin Dupont, he was able to create a new player shortly before handing the reigns over to Reencarnacion, who was acquired with the first overall selection in his draft.  In my mind, this still positively benefits New York in a somewhat unbalanced manner, as New York was able to hold onto Miller's new goalie, while giving the reigns to someone new within the span of one or two seasons. Still, it's tough to find anything seriously unbalanced here as Dupont was also a young player prior to retiring.

Rating: 4th

 

Part Two -- GM Succession

As we continue to look at GM succession, we see a number of changes from the S46 and S45 off-seasons, and this is where you really begin to see how vastly the methodology can range.  These next three successions were unquestionably beneficial to the respective organizations and make the recent Davos change look incredibly unfair.  Please feel free to leave your thoughts below in the comments section, and feel free to tag @CoachReilly.  

 

Cologne: Thaddeus Humbert >> Joel Jarvi

Timing: S46 Off-Season

Exchange: COL received rights to Joel Jarvi (S47 - D), a top three prospect in his respective class for no particular reason. Cologne was also able to trade Humbert and one other player to New York for a S48 NYA 1st, S48 NYA 2nd, and Tyson Stokes. 

Comments: Although this only happened exactly one season ago, you can see how ridiculously outlandish the return for Cologne became.  Besides receiving a free prospect, they were able to also get a solid return for their former GM.  Cologne didn't even have to exchange a second round pick for him in a historically weak draft class.  If we were looking at prospect rankings, Jarvi probably would have been the first or second best prospect from this class.  There were no two sides to this transition - just a blatant miss by the board of governors with no offsetting detraction from the Express.

Rating: 1st

 

MENGSK SPEAKS TO THE MEDIA, SHORTLY AFTER BEING NAMED GM OF SEATTLE

 

Toronto: Sachimo Zoidberg >> Max Molholt and Seattle: Brady Stropko/James Faraday >> Arcturus Mengsk

Timing: S45 Off-Season

TOR Exchange: Top S45 player Max Molholt was acquired in exchange for voiding Toronto's S46 2nd round pick 

SEA Exchange: Top S45 player Arcturus Mengsk was acquired in exchange for voiding Toronto's S46 2nd round pick 

Comments: The Toronto/Seattle transitions were both incredibly one-sided.  Although the S45 draft was strong, neither team had to give up a pick in that draft.  Instead, they were able to defer their voided draft choice to S46's second round.  Both players are undoubted, first round talents. Additionally, the two teams were able to respectively leverage Zoidberg as well as Faraday for some great draft choices.  Again, the two teams vastly underpaid for their original acquisition of their new general managers' players, while also getting a direct bonus from trading their former GMs.  This one is again, very, very favorable to the respective franchises.

Rating: T-2nd

 

As we reach our conclusion, it's clear to see that the patterns of GM succession are all over the map.  The VHL's Board of Governors needs to take a serious look in the mirror and decide to employ some sort of consistent methodology moving forward, taking a range of factors into consideration, including but not limited to:

 

(1) worth of exchange -- does this greatly hurt a team or does this greatly help a team? Are we really giving the VHL overall a fair shake? Does the future value of the player match what we're exchanging? Are we exchanging anything at all?

(2) current team situation -- how much help does this team currently need?

(3) precedent -- how does this compare to prior GM changes? 

 

In the long run, I'm hoping we can trust the BOG to take these matters more seriously than they have in the past.  If there's major disagreement when a decision is announced, you can reconsider.  Be flexible.  There's no shame in reversing an unfair decision.

Edited March 7, 2016 by CoachReilly

[FacePuncher 1,343]

What is this rule?

[CoachReilly 688]

There really is no consistent rule or methodology is the biggest point

[JardyB10 4,865]

I thought Cologne had to/was supposed to give up a 2nd as well, but either way, those three succession plans were undoubtedly full of fuckery to begin with. I wasn't particularly active with the SEA and TOR ones so I can't really speak to what happened.

 

In the future, if we do have to look a the draft pool for a GM replacement, I think the team should certainly have to give up a 1st rounder.

[Higgins 3,618]

Would you have liked me to take over as Davos GM for a 2nd rounder the day before the draft? That seems quite unfair. But I could have taken over Davos the day before I created Black Velvet, with no compensation, and no one would care.

 

When a a team goes through a normal GM change they get so much more benefits. Possibilities include, trading the current GMs player for picks, trading the new GMs player as a one season rental, acquiring a prospect with the new GM recreating. 

 

Teams used to have successors in place or we had multiple seasons to try and find a replacement from another team. 

 

80% of your examples, Bushito, Zoidberg, Ahma, and Coach, all have one thing in common. They up and abandoned their teams while in the position of GM, without ever acknowledging getting a replacement lined up.

[eaglesfan036 4,598]

I agree with Coach here and brought it up in the BOG, seems like blue team is all over the place with their decisions on what to charge teams for GM players

[Will 4,660]

6 minutes ago, eaglesfan036 said:

I agree with Coach here and brought it up in the BOG, seems like blue team is all over the place with their decisions on what to charge teams for GM players

 

Pretty sure we've gone with the general BOG consensus in all the above cases so I don't think you can put that all on us.

[Molholt 2,185]

I suggested when Toronto went through this, and I believe when Seattle did, that there be no compensation paid at all. When a normal GM gets their recreate, they do so for free and they get to sell their former player for the one season rental if they choose. It works like that for GMs who stick with their job, so I think it should work like that when a team gets put in a shitty situation too. Why punish a team who is already losing a GM?

 

When I retire Molholt, I'll get my next player for free, who will be a top prospect in all likelihood, and I'll also be able to trade Molholt for assets as well. Just make that the standard for all GM transitions. 

[Evans 305]

rabblerabblerabbleanarchyrabblerabble

[FacePuncher 1,343]

Why don't you just separate the player and the GM and just have no compensation and don't have GMs get free recreates and stop this nonsense?

[Evans 305]

Just now, ADwyer87 said:

Why don't you just separate the player and the GM and just have no compensation and don't have GMs get free recreates and stop this nonsense?

 

Because that seems too simple. Duh.

[CowboyinAmerica 2,889]

3 minutes ago, ADwyer87 said:

Why don't you just separate the player and the GM and just have no compensation and don't have GMs get free recreates and stop this nonsense?

 

And have GMs eligible to go to other teams? I feel like that sets up a whole different can of worms and conflicts of interest.

[FacePuncher 1,343]

Just now, CowboyinAmerica said:

 

And have GMs eligible to go to other teams? I feel like that sets up a whole different can of worms and conflicts of interest.

like what?

[Evans 305]

Lock the GMs into their teams. So they go to their team, but they have to use their own pick on them. Then allow them to still trade their old guys in the final season for scraps and whatnot like is already done.

[Molholt 2,185]

Why don't you just separate the player and the GM and just have no compensation and don't have GMs get free recreates and stop this nonsense?

 

 

I tried to propose a change to this in May of '14. It didn't get any push.

Edited March 7, 2016 by Molholt

[CowboyinAmerica 2,889]

1 minute ago, ADwyer87 said:

like what?

 

Not that he'd do this, but take this year's Calgary team. What's to stop Eagles from, say, trading himself with TebowGow to New York for the rest of his career for no compensation? Sure it might screw Calgary, but his player gets the best chance at a Cup possible since NY didn't have to give anything up, so he's happy.

 

Or the flip side, say TebowGow gets drafted by Quebec. What's stopping him from not updating once that happens - or worse, dumping all of his points into Fighting so Quebec's cap raises, then paying for a reallocation from the Player's Store once he can sign to his own team?

 

Not locking GMs into their teams opens up a bunch of potentially dirty tactics. And although I feel like the majority of GMs wouldn't take advantage of them, I wouldn't guarantee that.

[CowboyinAmerica 2,889]

7 minutes ago, Evans said:

Lock the GMs into their teams. So they go to their team, but they have to use their own pick on them. Then allow them to still trade their old guys in the final season for scraps and whatnot like is already done.

 

Problem with this one is like what happened in S45. Cologne and Toronto, for example, both changed GMs before S45 draft. Toronto's original pick was #2, Cologne's original pick was #9 (ignore for now that both were traded ahead of time). Serious question: Is that fair? And it wouldn't be Toronto's fault - Jala left them high and dry on that one.

 

TBH, I see what Coach is saying here, but I don't think it's easy to come down with a rule that is applicable to all situations at all. Often just comes down to a judgment call, and I feel reasonable people can disagree about what that judgment should be.

[JardyB10 4,865]

6 minutes ago, CowboyinAmerica said:

Or the flip side, say TebowGow gets drafted by Quebec. What's stopping him from not updating once that happens - or worse, dumping all of his points into Fighting so Quebec's cap raises, then paying for a reallocation from the Player's Store once he can sign to his own team?

 

Unless I was in the middle of a rebuild I would definitely do this.

 

Evans raises a fair point about making all GMs have to give up a 1st to bring in their player, but there is a fine line between fair return and crippling a franchise. Maybe a GM doesn't have a 1st for the season his player would be coming in. Okay, so then give up the next available 1st. But what if this GM is the remnant of a former GM's ill-advised Cup push who traded all his assets and bailed? Is it really much better for the team/league to pile it on by making them give up more picks?

 

All in all, I don't mean to sound like an ignorant old dude, but the current system has always been in place and it's been mostly fine for almost 50 seasons. Yeah, occasionally a team will be left in a tough spots, but as I illustrated above, changing the system doesn't necessarily fix that. At least the current system rewards good team and franchise management, which is arguably how it should be.

[Evans 305]

7 minutes ago, CowboyinAmerica said:

 

Problem with this one is like what happened in S45. Cologne and Toronto, for example, both changed GMs before S45 draft. Toronto's original pick was #2, Cologne's original pick was #9 (ignore for now that both were traded ahead of time). Serious question: Is that fair? And it wouldn't be Toronto's fault - Jala left them high and dry on that one.

 

TBH, I see what Coach is saying here, but I don't think it's easy to come down with a rule that is applicable to all situations at all. Often just comes down to a judgment call, and I feel reasonable people can disagree about what that judgment should be.

 

I agree that sucks for the team at #2, but it sounds like a very rare situation. I base a lot of my opinions off of what I've experienced in the SBA, so take these with a grain of salt. In the SBA, every team got their GM recreate once for free. After that, they had to spend their own first round pick on them. If they were to somehow have two firsts, the highest one is used to draft the GM. If they don't have a first the year their GM comes out, their next available first gets locked where they can't trade it and it is taken as compensation. This leaves no room for interpretation and everyone gets treated the same.

 

Was Toronto's new GM a player entering the league at that point because that's the only way it would have effected them with what I was suggesting. In all cases but one that I've seen in the SBA with the GMs, their player entering the league is usually a top player in their class. No one is handed the reigns as a GM that has a player that is not close to the top of their draft class because that shows a lack of commitment.

Edited March 7, 2016 by Evans

[FacePuncher 1,343]

9 minutes ago, CowboyinAmerica said:

 

Not that he'd do this, but take this year's Calgary team. What's to stop Eagles from, say, trading himself with TebowGow to New York for the rest of his career for no compensation? Sure it might screw Calgary, but his player gets the best chance at a Cup possible since NY didn't have to give anything up, so he's happy.

 

Or the flip side, say TebowGow gets drafted by Quebec. What's stopping him from not updating once that happens - or worse, dumping all of his points into Fighting so Quebec's cap raises, then paying for a reallocation from the Player's Store once he can sign to his own team?

 

Not locking GMs into their teams opens up a bunch of potentially dirty tactics. And although I feel like the majority of GMs wouldn't take advantage of them, I wouldn't guarantee that.

First of all, I would say if a GM used these tactics then they aren't professional enough to be a GM and should be removed from that position.

 

second of all why would you sabotage your own player? I don't see how that would make sense. I mean that's what the site is about.

 

Third of all, About the trade, I would think the blues(as apparently they're called) could step in and reject a trade so clearly unbalanced like that

 

fourth of all, about the not updating, well, that's a choice they can make. Same with signing with the team they GM with in free agency. But that's why there's a certain amount of money has to be given to players with a certain amount of TPE, at least that's what there seems to be.

 

fifth and finally, there seems to be so many flaws in the current system. there seems to be absolutely no consistency in how a GM switch is compensated for. GMs get there recreates for free apparently, that is in no way fair. This way should get rid of drama.

 

honestly this GM compensation thing makes no sense. Why do you have to compensate to get your own untouchable guy that you can't trade, but you get your own recreate without any need for compensation? Maybe I'm understanding this wrong but I mean that's just very unfair and I would like to know how this rule got into place lol

[Molholt 2,185]

Ought to be hiring GMs who care enough about the integrity of the league to not screw it over.

 

And for that matter, Admins too.

[JardyB10 4,865]

And yes, to add on to what Cowboy said, it also opens the door for "shady" tactics, like going out of your way to having a low 1st round pick in a season you plan on recreating (which, really, you should always be aiming to have a low 1st round pick, but that's neither here nor there).

[Evans 305]

2 minutes ago, JardyB10 said:

And yes, to add on to what Cowboy said, it also opens the door for "shady" tactics, like going out of your way to having a low 1st round pick in a season you plan on recreating (which, really, you should always be aiming to have a low 1st round pick, but that's neither here nor there).

 

While that may be "shady" giving up a first for your own guy is a lot more than the 2nds that I've seen as compensation instead. And with this place having auto retirement after a certain point, it should be pretty easy to string together if someone is trying to set their team up for something like you have explained.

[JardyB10 4,865]

3 minutes ago, Evans said:

 

I agree that sucks for the team at #2, but it sounds like a very rare situation.

That's just the thing, the "Top 3" succession plans in this article ARE rare situations. That's three un-ideal plans in 48 seasons. Most other last ditch GM-finds were usually able to come to a sensible and legal conclusion. Everyone has seen how bad of a precedent was set with SEA and TOR, which is why we're trying to put a stop to it.

[FacePuncher 1,343]

All I know is I'm glad I'm a VHLM GM haha