Official Armchair GM Thread 2014-2015 Leafs

[Corn Flake]

I think that if there's a further negative to the Clarkson contract, it's that some people won't put much value into the character/comportment of the prospective player anymore...and in my opinion, it's almost as important as their individual on-ice production capabilities.

Agreed 100%..... and I saw what you were doing there.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

I think that if there's a further negative to the Clarkson contract, it's that some people won't put much value into the character/comportment of the prospective player anymore...and in my opinion, it's almost as important as their individual on-ice production capabilities.

Agreed 100%..... and I saw what you were doing there.

The difference is that with an example like Ribeiro it's not something vague and undefinable that people are concerned about - there's stated incidents that he's been a problem for teams as recently as this past season and his team stated that as the reason they were getting rid of him.

To me there's a world of difference for armchair neckbeards like us to comment on a player's character when there is documented negative behaviour and wonder about how that would affect a team, versus what you see a whole lot more of - to take Clarkson again, that this guy is a character player, good in the room, etc.  We can't judge that, at least not accurately IMO, without some sort of evidence to back it up.  With Ribeiro? You have a leg to stand on at least, but I don't see how we can accurately do that on a consistent basis without it.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

I should add that I think there's even putting too much stock in that Ribeiro stuff.  There's just a lot of stuff that goes on that we just can't be accurate or comment intelligently on for lack of information.

 

[Corn Flake]

I think that if there's a further negative to the Clarkson contract, it's that some people won't put much value into the character/comportment of the prospective player anymore...and in my opinion, it's almost as important as their individual on-ice production capabilities.

Agreed 100%..... and I saw what you were doing there.

The difference is that with an example like Ribeiro it's not something vague and undefinable that people are concerned about - there's stated incidents that he's been a problem for teams as recently as this past season and his team stated that as the reason they were getting rid of him.

To me there's a world of difference for armchair neckbeards like us to comment on a player's character when there is documented negative behaviour and wonder about how that would affect a team, versus what you see a whole lot more of - to take Clarkson again, that this guy is a character player, good in the room, etc.  We can't judge that, at least not accurately IMO, without some sort of evidence to back it up.  With Ribeiro? You have a leg to stand on at least, but I don't see how we can accurately do that on a consistent basis without it.

Sure, we as fans can't judge it all the time, but certainly players, coaches and GM's will know a lot more about what a guy brings to the room in a good way or bad even if you don't have all this public knowledge like we do with Ribeiro.

What frustrates me on this topic is when a GM comes out and says there were "behavioral issues" that drove the decision to drop a player ..... aka: negative public commentary about why a move was made,  it's acceptable ; but if a GM signs a player and says "good character guy" aka: positive commentary, we guffaw at it. 

 

[Corn Flake]

I should add that I think there's even putting too much stock in that Ribeiro stuff.  There's just a lot of stuff that goes on that we just can't be accurate or comment intelligently on for lack of information.

Sure, but when a team spends what the Coyotes spent to buy him out, and they publicly say there were "behavioral issues" and the player himself comes out and basically confirms it, there isn't really much more that hasn't been said in this case.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

I think that if there's a further negative to the Clarkson contract, it's that some people won't put much value into the character/comportment of the prospective player anymore...and in my opinion, it's almost as important as their individual on-ice production capabilities.

Agreed 100%..... and I saw what you were doing there.

The difference is that with an example like Ribeiro it's not something vague and undefinable that people are concerned about - there's stated incidents that he's been a problem for teams as recently as this past season and his team stated that as the reason they were getting rid of him.

To me there's a world of difference for armchair neckbeards like us to comment on a player's character when there is documented negative behaviour and wonder about how that would affect a team, versus what you see a whole lot more of - to take Clarkson again, that this guy is a character player, good in the room, etc.  We can't judge that, at least not accurately IMO, without some sort of evidence to back it up.  With Ribeiro? You have a leg to stand on at least, but I don't see how we can accurately do that on a consistent basis without it.

Sure, we as fans can't judge it all the time, but certainly players, coaches and GM's will know a lot more about what a guy brings to the room in a good way or bad even if you don't have all this public knowledge like we do with Ribeiro.

What frustrates me on this topic is when a GM comes out and says there were "behavioral issues" that drove the decision to drop a player ..... aka: negative public commentary about why a move was made,  it's acceptable ; but if a GM signs a player and says "good character guy" aka: positive commentary, we guffaw at it.

I think by and large (at least based on those I follow on twitter) people tend to mock those GMs/writers who rip on a player once they've left town, but I can't discount the fact that there can be instances where it has an effect (Ribeio would seem to be one, Kostitsyn/Radulov in Nashville during that playoff series).

But again I think there are pretty distinct and tangible differences between a player missing meetings/showing up late/partying late on a game night/etc (aka these are pretty black/white things that break team rules) and 'good character guy' (what does that mean and how does it help? Could ask 100 people and might get 100 different answers).  I just think one is much more straightforward to comment on while another is much more of a grey area, especially when you're often hearing about it from the person/team that just signed the player.

That shouldn't be construed as me thinking good character and all that doesn't exist.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

I should add that I think there's even putting too much stock in that Ribeiro stuff.  There's just a lot of stuff that goes on that we just can't be accurate or comment intelligently on for lack of information.

Sure, but when a team spends what the Coyotes spent to buy him out, and they publicly say there were "behavioral issues" and the player himself comes out and basically confirms it, there isn't really much more that hasn't been said in this case.

Bake him away, toys.

 

[Corn Flake]

But again I think there are pretty distinct and tangible differences between a player missing meetings/showing up late/partying late on a game night/etc (aka these are pretty black/white things that break team rules) and 'good character guy' (what does that mean and how does it help? Could ask 100 people and might get 100 different answers).  I just think one is much more straightforward to comment on while another is much more of a grey area, especially when you're often hearing about it from the person/team that just signed the player.

That shouldn't be construed as me thinking good character and all that doesn't exist.

Fair, but do you not think that grey area is an incredibly large part of what makes up a successful team? It is very tough to determine, especially those of us on the outside looking in. 

All I know is that teams will tell you they do a lot of research on players, ask others in the business from GMs down to players, coaching staff, trainers etc.; what a guy is like on the ice, the bench, the room, and on his personal time. They do their best to gather as much info on the character stuff as they can before acquiring a player. They aren't doing that to find out how he performs on the ice or check his stats.

Not pointing at you specifically but I/we are generalizing that there are a good number of ppl who lol at any suggestion that character is of any significance to a team.  I saw a lot of it on twitter with people who were mad the Leafs weren't in on Ribeiro when it's incredibly obvious as to why this guy was a) dumped by the Yotes and b) not exactly in high demand despite being a very good point producer.  Then again, these people get mad at anything the Leafs do.  Rational is not a common trait of a good chunk of Leafs fans on twitter.

 

[bustaheims]

I think that if there's a further negative to the Clarkson contract, it's that some people won't put much value into the character/comportment of the prospective player anymore...and in my opinion, it's almost as important as their individual on-ice production capabilities.

I don't think teams ever should have put much emphasis on things like "being a character guy" or a "locker room cancer," because things like that just aren't tangible, quantifiable things. The difference here is that there are a number of clear, documented incidents that highlight Ribeiro's well-documented off-ice issues. This isn't a situation where people are taking rumours, speculations and fairly meaningless buzzwords and making a judgment about a guy. There's a detailed and well-documented history here. This isn't like people calling Phaneuf a locker-room cancer because of rumours of friction during his time in Calgary - rumours that all parties involved has called false. Rather, this is a situation where both sides have come out and confirmed most of what has been said to be true.

 

[Corn Flake]

I think that if there's a further negative to the Clarkson contract, it's that some people won't put much value into the character/comportment of the prospective player anymore...and in my opinion, it's almost as important as their individual on-ice production capabilities.

I don't think teams ever should have put much emphasis on things like "being a character guy" or a "locker room cancer," because things like that just aren't tangible, quantifiable things. The difference here is that there are a number of clear, documented incidents that highlight Ribeiro's well-documented off-ice issues. This isn't a situation where people are taking rumours, speculations and fairly meaningless buzzwords and making a judgment about a guy. There's a detailed and well-documented history here. This isn't like people calling Phaneuf a locker-room cancer because of rumours of friction during his time in Calgary - rumours that all parties involved has called false. Rather, this is a situation where both sides have come out and confirmed most of what has been said to be true.

What a team knows vs. what we know are night and day.  We know a fraction about what every player is really like. Teams know a helluva lot more. The team is going to know all about a player and what kind of "character" he brings, positively or negatively. How can you say that isn't important?

teams know all about what Ribeiro is like in the room.  the Leafs know whether Phaneuf is a great guy in the room or one that the players can't stand because he won't shut up or whatever it is.  He doesn't have to be a "cancer" to be a negative on the team.

It's like hiring anyone for any kind of job.. if the person is qualified via their resume but through interviews or checking references etc you find the person is a complete miserable jerk to work with who drags everyone down and impacts their performance, is it still a good idea to hire that person?  Of course it isn't. 

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

But again I think there are pretty distinct and tangible differences between a player missing meetings/showing up late/partying late on a game night/etc (aka these are pretty black/white things that break team rules) and 'good character guy' (what does that mean and how does it help? Could ask 100 people and might get 100 different answers).  I just think one is much more straightforward to comment on while another is much more of a grey area, especially when you're often hearing about it from the person/team that just signed the player.

That shouldn't be construed as me thinking good character and all that doesn't exist.

Fair, but do you not think that grey area is an incredibly large part of what makes up a successful team? It is very tough to determine, especially those of us on the outside looking in. 

All I know is that teams will tell you they do a lot of research on players, ask others in the business from GMs down to players, coaching staff, trainers etc.; what a guy is like on the ice, the bench, the room, and on his personal time. They do their best to gather as much info on the character stuff as they can before acquiring a player. They aren't doing that to find out how he performs on the ice or check his stats.

Not pointing at you specifically but I/we are generalizing that there are a good number of ppl who lol at any suggestion that character is of any significance to a team.  I saw a lot of it on twitter with people who were mad the Leafs weren't in on Ribeiro when it's incredibly obvious as to why this guy was a) dumped by the Yotes and b) not exactly in high demand despite being a very good point producer.  Then again, these people get mad at anything the Leafs do.  Rational is not a common trait of a good chunk of Leafs fans on twitter.

I don't think I can add much more, I think we're in agreement here.

 

[bustaheims]

What a team knows vs. what we know are night and day.  We know a fraction about what every player is really like. Teams know a helluva lot more. The team is going to know all about a player and what kind of "character" he brings, positively or negatively. How can you say that isn't important?

teams know all about what Ribeiro is like in the room.  the Leafs know whether Phaneuf is a great guy in the room or one that the players can't stand because he won't shut up or whatever it is.  He doesn't have to be a "cancer" to be a negative on the team.

It's like hiring anyone for any kind of job.. if the person is qualified via their resume but through interviews or checking references etc you find the person is a complete miserable jerk to work with who drags everyone down and impacts their performance, is it still a good idea to hire that person?  Of course it isn't.

Sure, but, we're really talking about a very small fraction of guys there. I mean, a lot of guys who seem miserable on one team become character types on others. It depends on how they fit in with the rest of the group - and that' hard to know without actually putting them in with the rest of the group, regardless of how much information you have about them. Personality conflicts can happen regardless of how well thought of someone was by their previous employer(s). In the overwhelming majority of cases where it comes up, this whole notion of "character" is very much a situational thing. Outside of the rare few that have consistently been miserable jerks or clear leaders, it's very much a malleable thing.

 

[BlueWhiteBlood]

But again I think there are pretty distinct and tangible differences between a player missing meetings/showing up late/partying late on a game night/etc (aka these are pretty black/white things that break team rules) and 'good character guy' (what does that mean and how does it help? Could ask 100 people and might get 100 different answers).  I just think one is much more straightforward to comment on while another is much more of a grey area, especially when you're often hearing about it from the person/team that just signed the player.

That shouldn't be construed as me thinking good character and all that doesn't exist.

Fair, but do you not think that grey area is an incredibly large part of what makes up a successful team? It is very tough to determine, especially those of us on the outside looking in. 

All I know is that teams will tell you they do a lot of research on players, ask others in the business from GMs down to players, coaching staff, trainers etc.; what a guy is like on the ice, the bench, the room, and on his personal time. They do their best to gather as much info on the character stuff as they can before acquiring a player. They aren't doing that to find out how he performs on the ice or check his stats.

Not pointing at you specifically but I/we are generalizing that there are a good number of ppl who lol at any suggestion that character is of any significance to a team.  I saw a lot of it on twitter with people who were mad the Leafs weren't in on Ribeiro when it's incredibly obvious as to why this guy was a) dumped by the Yotes and b) not exactly in high demand despite being a very good point producer.  Then again, these people get mad at anything the Leafs do.  Rational is not a common trait of a good chunk of Leafs fans on twitter.

I don't think I can add much more, I think we're in agreement here.

Yeah, I agree with that view also. While these things might be hard to quantify, for us at least, teams know full well before they go down that road, unless of course it's a new thing.

Even Shanahan has said already multiple times, that he checks with league sources on pretty much all the players. He seems to value character a whole bunch.

 

[Kin]

It's like hiring anyone for any kind of job.. if the person is qualified via their resume but through interviews or checking references etc you find the person is a complete miserable jerk to work with who drags everyone down and impacts their performance, is it still a good idea to hire that person?  Of course it isn't.

But that's what I'm saying in terms of good character vs. bad character.

Let's say, to use a hypothetical, that you have three candidates for a job. Candidate 1 is good at his job but brash and loud, always urging people to keep up with him. Candidate 2 is quiet, but no less good at her job, and just expects people to follow her example. Candidate three shows up to work drunk all the time, fights with people around him and could use a refresher course in personal hygiene.

Identifying that #3 shouldn't get the job is easy. Choosing between #1 and #2 isn't. Positive character, the often mentioned "leadership", is not easy to define and it's not easy to tell what personality type will work well with a group of players. How many times do we hear about a coach whose style clashed with his players? When those coaches were hired did their GM's not think they were making the right decision?

 

[Corn Flake]

I don't think I can add much more, I think we're in agreement here.

*cracks beer, hands to Potvin*

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

I don't think I can add much more, I think we're in agreement here.

*cracks beer, hands to Potvin*

*beer spills, blames Carlyle*

 

[Deebo]

It'll be nice to have most of the contract situations wrapped up early this year.

Franson will be settled one way or another by Monday and Reimer by the following Monday.

Gardiner will be the only remaining player to deal with before camp starts.

 

[Redleaf]

It'll be nice to have most of the contract situations wrapped up early this year.

Franson will be settled one way or another by Monday and Reimer by the following Monday.

Gardiner will be the only remaining player to deal with before camp starts.

And yet, something tells me Gardiner will be a hold out come the start of training camp.  :

 

[MetalRaven]

I don't think I can add much more, I think we're in agreement here.

*cracks beer, hands to Potvin*

*beer spills, blames Carlyle*

If the beer fell down...isn't it Clarksons fault?

 

[Tigger]

I don't think I can add much more, I think we're in agreement here.

*cracks beer, hands to Potvin*

*beer spills, blames Carlyle*

If the beer fell down...isn't it Clarksons fault?

"It's our huffin beer bottle, don't huffin touch it!"