Forbes Ranks Sports GMs

[Lord Avalon]

They have strange criteria, more business-oriented than sports. Holland was ranked low for having high payroll and low winning % improvement over predecessor. (So if you took over a team that was winning, you lose in the ranking formula.)

From a fan perspective long playoff runs and championships are bigger factors. There should be bonus points for those.

I wonder why they didn't just use improvement in value of the franchise rather than winning % improvement.

[Asher]

Here's The Hockey News' new rankings of NHL GMs...much better.

1. Ken Holland, Detroit
2. Lou Lamoriello, New Jersey
3. Brian Burke, Anaheim
4. Darcy Regier, Buffalo
5. Jim Rutherford, Carolina
6. Jay Feaster, Tampa Bay
7. David Poile, Nashville
8. Darryl Sutter, Calgary
9. Doug Risebrough, Minnesota
10. Doug Wilson, San Jose
11. Kevin Lowe, Edmonton
12. Paul Holmgren, Philadelphia
13. David Nonis, Vancouver
14. John Muckler, Ottawa
15. Bob Gainey, Montreal
16. Garth Snow, N.Y. Islanders
17. Ray Shero, Pittsburgh
18. Dale Tallon, Chicago
19. Don Waddell, Atlanta
20. Doug Armstrong, Dallas
21. Dean Lombardi, Los Angeles
22. John Ferguson, Toronto
23. George McPhee, Washington
24. Glen Sather, N.Y. Rangers
25. Peter Chiarelli, Boston
26. Jacques Martin, Florida
27. Francois Giguere, Colorado
28. Mike Barnett, Phoenix
29. Doug MacLean, Columbus
30. Larry Pleau, St. Louis

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Ming
Has Daryl been in place for three years? Because that was a key criteria for being on the list.

But not currently being a GM clearly wasn't.

[Ming]

Now that's a better list. Every time I look at the Forbes list, I see something else that just doesn't make sense.

[Arrian]

The Forbes list is silly. As a baseball fan, I can see that their rankings of the baseball GMs make little sense.

Brian Sabean of the SF Giants is NOT a good GM. Yet he's ranked as one of the top baseball GMs, up there with Theo Epstein (good, but a bit overrated) and Omar Minyata (ditto). Billy Beane ranks highest, which is fine I suppose 'cause he IS good, but then again one could easily argue that Terry Ryan (Twins) is just as good and he ranks behind Mike Flanagan of the Orioles... the Os have been AWFUL for quite some time now (though admittedly Flanagan may not really be the guilty party) and have little excuse for that (they're not really poor).

Nonsensical, at least re: Baseball. I take it it's similar for the other sports.

-Arrian

[Sava]

How many World Series has Oakland won with Billy Beane as GM?

In fact, except for advancing past the Twins in the first round before getting blanked by the Tigers, has Oakland done anything except for getting knocked out in the first round year after year in the early part of this decade?

I think he's a good GM, but certainly not the best.

Good starting pitching and guys with high OBP wins games... WOW... he's such a genius for figuring that out.

Wake me when Oakland does something in the playoffs.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Lord Avalon
They have strange criteria, more business-oriented than sports. Holland was ranked low for having high payroll and low winning % improvement over predecessor. (So if you took over a team that was winning, you lose in the ranking formula.)

From a fan perspective long playoff runs and championships are bigger factors. There should be bonus points for those.

I wonder why they didn't just use improvement in value of the franchise rather than winning % improvement.

Forbes is a business magazine, aren't they?

[Lord Avalon]

Yeah, so? This is about sports.

OK, so they're taking a biz perspective. Still is strange to use winning % improvement. Also they don't seem to take into account long playoff runs, which mean more money coming in.

Injuries to key players could screw with the winning %, so that's another knock against that.