Unofficial 2013-2014 Armchair GM Thread

[princedpw]

Best way to "change the culture" is get as good a team as possible and win.  You win, magically you have a good culture.  Don't make trades with culture specifically as a reason.

Exactly. This whole "changing the culture" stuff is such an empty phrase.

Not really.  I see it all the time at the gym.  A good cultures leads to good habits and then good results.  I see it all the time at the gym.  People that think they will just work-out for a month and get killer results never last long there and quit.  They have a bad mentality towards exercise and so won't be willing to do the things it takes to get results.  These people usually hang around other out of shape people which is where the bad habits start.  Contrast this with people that do get results in the gym, have good habits and usually hang out with other successful people. 

This is all true.  The thing is, there is no particular reason to believe that the Leafs have bad habits in the gym.  For all I know, Toronto is the #1 best team in the league when it comes to gym habits.

 

[Rebel_1812]

That is why alot of the losers on the team have to go.  Even though they might make a good play here or there, they aren't playing for the full 60 minutes.  We don't want the younger and impressionable players like Rielly to think this is ok.

Which player(s) are you referring to?

The ones we don't like.

The ones with horrible defense that were here for the last 3 collapses.  So Phaneuf is spared despite all the hate because he knows how to play in his own end.

 

[Champ Kind]

Best way to "change the culture" is get as good a team as possible and win.  You win, magically you have a good culture.  Don't make trades with culture specifically as a reason.

Exactly. This whole "changing the culture" stuff is such an empty phrase.

Classic chicken or the egg.  I think I know what you're getting at and generally agree, but making as good a team as possible means culture is being considered in the equation, isn't it?  If the Knicks teach us anything, simply bringing the best players together doesn't automatically mean success.

 

[bustaheims]

Classic chicken or the egg.  I think I know what you're getting at and generally agree, but making as good a team as possible means culture is being considered in the equation, isn't it?  If the Knicks teach us anything, simply bringing the best players together doesn't automatically mean success.

Personalities and chemistry are considered, but, "culture" isn't really a thing. What the Knicks and Rangers of the past have shown us is that bringing in good players without regard to the roles they're going to play doesn't make for a good team. It's not solely about bringing in the best players, it's about bringing in the best players for the roles they're going to play. Everything after that is increasingly less relevant.

 

[Highlander]

The old phrase "As above, so below" does hold water, we have seen this in the collapse of teams, countries, empires. If the leader is corrupt then all below will be corrupted, it is proven in history and it proves inside the mason jar as well.  If your leader is not corrupt, if he holds himself and his underlings to the highest standards, demands excellence of himself and all around him, then this is a culture.  This is something the Leafs have never had since Conn Smythe, except for a few exceptional coachs over the wilderness years, that assembled a few character players and demanded they play with excellence, Neilson, Burns for example, Quinn to  lesser degree.
If a player enters the new Leaf system (whatever that proves out to be), then they will understand that they must play impeccably.  This is what culture provides; a platform for excellence. And this is what Lewieke has stated as the mission of MLSE and that Shanahan has beeen brought in to create and instill. 

 

[Scot4bz]

This team needs to realize there is no "C" in Phaneuf and act accordingly. That would be first on my list for Shanny/Nonis. Firing the coach (and assistants) is next. Put everyone on notice that they mean business and there will be accountably. They need to get moving and set a new direction for the team. Spring cleaning time!

 

[nutman]

This team needs to realize there is no "C" in Phaneuf and act accordingly. That would be first on my list for Shanny/Nonis. Firing the coach (and assistants) is next. Put everyone on notice that they mean business and there will be accountably. They need to get moving and set a new direction for the team. Spring cleaning time!

Agreed, coaches fired as well as the capt striped of his "C". this will be a message to the team, that accountability is a must.

 

[Rebel_1812]

Classic chicken or the egg.  I think I know what you're getting at and generally agree, but making as good a team as possible means culture is being considered in the equation, isn't it?  If the Knicks teach us anything, simply bringing the best players together doesn't automatically mean success.

Personalities and chemistry are considered, but, "culture" isn't really a thing. What the Knicks and Rangers of the past have shown us is that bringing in good players without regard to the roles they're going to play doesn't make for a good team. It's not solely about bringing in the best players, it's about bringing in the best players for the roles they're going to play. Everything after that is increasingly less relevant.

You keep saying culture doesn't mean anything when the word clearly does have a meaning.  Culture is a set of values.  Those values lead to actions.  Caryle even said it himself, that he wanted the team to have an identity of being a team that's hard to play against.  That means blocking shots, finishing checks and etc.  That never happened.  The team has a culture that burke referred to as 'blue and white' disease.  Which means they aren't willing to do the tough things it takes to win. Therefore, the word culture does have a meaning; and it is part of the problem with the team.

 

[Kin]

If the Knicks teach us anything, simply bringing the best players together doesn't automatically mean success.

The Knicks were never the Heat though. Even this year it's unfair to look at the Knicks players and say that they were more "talented" than any of the teams that finished above them in the standings. Even the really bad Knicks teams of the past, I think, are more cautionary examples of how talent is a hard to gauge and volatile property than they are advertisements for the notion of chemistry or culture as a significant factor in what makes a team a success.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Best way to "change the culture" is get as good a team as possible and win.  You win, magically you have a good culture.  Don't make trades with culture specifically as a reason.

Exactly. This whole "changing the culture" stuff is such an empty phrase.

Classic chicken or the egg.  I think I know what you're getting at and generally agree, but making as good a team as possible means culture is being considered in the equation, isn't it?  If the Knicks teach us anything, simply bringing the best players together doesn't automatically mean success.

I should clarify that I think good and bad cultures/character or whatever do exist, it's just almost impossible to accurately identify and predict results on the basis of it, and a lot of time I find that references to good or bad culture tend to be reactive.

 

[Frank E]

Best way to "change the culture" is get as good a team as possible and win.  You win, magically you have a good culture.  Don't make trades with culture specifically as a reason.

Exactly. This whole "changing the culture" stuff is such an empty phrase.

Classic chicken or the egg.  I think I know what you're getting at and generally agree, but making as good a team as possible means culture is being considered in the equation, isn't it?  If the Knicks teach us anything, simply bringing the best players together doesn't automatically mean success.

I should clarify that I think good and bad cultures/character or whatever do exist, it's just almost impossible to accurately identify and predict results on the basis of it, and a lot of time I find that references to good or bad culture tend to be reactive.

I think a strong culture is the result of executing based on popular defined values and principles.  As fans, it's pretty tough to get inside real life as a member of the Leafs, so discussing what the culture is like is really just speculation based on the tidbits of half-truths leaked for media consumption?so I guess what I'm saying is that I agree, and we should probably stick to discussing things that are a little more quantifiable.

That's why I don't really have an opinion on who is and isn't a good leader, who should wear a letter, etc?I really don't know.

Same thing goes for culture or environmental issues?I don't really know if it's a culture problem, or simply a lack of execution on a pretty good plan. 

 

[Redleaf]

Classic chicken or the egg.  I think I know what you're getting at and generally agree, but making as good a team as possible means culture is being considered in the equation, isn't it?  If the Knicks teach us anything, simply bringing the best players together doesn't automatically mean success.

Personalities and chemistry are considered, but, "culture" isn't really a thing. What the Knicks and Rangers of the past have shown us is that bringing in good players without regard to the roles they're going to play doesn't make for a good team. It's not solely about bringing in the best players, it's about bringing in the best players for the roles they're going to play. Everything after that is increasingly less relevant.

You keep saying culture doesn't mean anything when the word clearly does have a meaning.  Culture is a set of values.  Those values lead to actions.  Caryle even said it himself, that he wanted the team to have an identity of being a team that's hard to play against.  That means blocking shots, finishing checks and etc.  That never happened.  The team has a culture that burke referred to as 'blue and white' disease.  Which means they aren't willing to do the tough things it takes to win. Therefore, the word culture does have a meaning; and it is part of the problem with the team.

Yeah. Agreed.

 

[Kin]

You keep saying culture doesn't mean anything when the word clearly does have a meaning.  Culture is a set of values.  Those values lead to actions.  Caryle even said it himself, that he wanted the team to have an identity of being a team that's hard to play against.  That means blocking shots, finishing checks and etc.  That never happened.  The team has a culture that burke referred to as 'blue and white' disease.  Which means they aren't willing to do the tough things it takes to win. Therefore, the word culture does have a meaning; and it is part of the problem with the team.

The issue isn't whether or not Culture, as a word, means something it's whether or not Culture means anything independent of how good a hockey team is and whether there's a means to address the issue short of simply making the team better.

 

[moon111]

I'd find it hard to take things seriously when management just signed David Clarkson's contract.  That's the culture of the Leafs.  Gong show.

 

[Rebel_1812]

You keep saying culture doesn't mean anything when the word clearly does have a meaning.  Culture is a set of values.  Those values lead to actions.  Caryle even said it himself, that he wanted the team to have an identity of being a team that's hard to play against.  That means blocking shots, finishing checks and etc.  That never happened.  The team has a culture that burke referred to as 'blue and white' disease.  Which means they aren't willing to do the tough things it takes to win. Therefore, the word culture does have a meaning; and it is part of the problem with the team.

The issue isn't whether or not Culture, as a word, means something it's whether or not Culture means anything independent of how good a hockey team is and whether there's a means to address the issue short of simply making the team better.

No Busta was clearly saying it was meaningless.  I think I summed up not only the meaning of the word; but also how it affects wins and losses of the team. 

 

[Champ Kind]

If the Knicks teach us anything, simply bringing the best players together doesn't automatically mean success.

The Knicks were never the Heat though. Even this year it's unfair to look at the Knicks players and say that they were more "talented" than any of the teams that finished above them in the standings. Even the really bad Knicks teams of the past, I think, are more cautionary examples of how talent is a hard to gauge and volatile property than they are advertisements for the notion of chemistry or culture as a significant factor in what makes a team a success.

I might concede that the Knicks might be more the product of poor talent assessment than a dysfunctional environment (although I'd say this is true of the Bargnani trade and much less so for the acquisitions of Stoudamire and Anthony, who were arguably the top players available at the moment they were obtained).    But I think the point stands that aggregation of talent alone does not necessarily produce winning results. 

 

[Rebel_1812]

If the Knicks teach us anything, simply bringing the best players together doesn't automatically mean success.

The Knicks were never the Heat though. Even this year it's unfair to look at the Knicks players and say that they were more "talented" than any of the teams that finished above them in the standings. Even the really bad Knicks teams of the past, I think, are more cautionary examples of how talent is a hard to gauge and volatile property than they are advertisements for the notion of chemistry or culture as a significant factor in what makes a team a success.

I might concede that the Knicks might be more the product of poor talent assessment than a dysfunctional environment (although I'd say this is true of the Bargnani trade and much less so for the acquisitions of Stoudamire and Anthony, who were arguably the top players available at the moment they were obtained).    But I think the point stands that aggregation of talent alone does not necessarily produce winning results.

Yes part of it is the roles the players play and how that meshes together.  But their personalities and habits and how those mesh is also important.

 

[Kin]

No Busta was clearly saying it was meaningless.  I think I summed up not only the meaning of the word; but also how it affects wins and losses of the team.

Well, I don't want to speak for Busta but I'm pretty sure his point wasn't that if you looked "Culture" up in the dictionary you'd find a big blank spot where a definition should be. As for your explanation, it was a pretty circular "it matters because people say it matters" which I don't find all that compelling.

 

[Kin]

I might concede that the Knicks might be more the product of poor talent assessment than a dysfunctional environment (although I'd say this is true of the Bargnani trade and much less so for the acquisitions of Stoudamire and Anthony, who were arguably the top players available at the moment they were obtained).

Well, except the Knicks did win with Anthony, Stoudemire and Chandler. From the point they fired D'Antoni, whose up tempo system couldn't have been more ill-suited to Anthony's game, to the beginning of this year the Knicks were 72-34 and won a playoff round. The Knicks were bad this year but Stoudemire and Chandler aren't the same players. 

  But I think the point stands that aggregation of talent alone does not necessarily produce winning results.

Well, yes and no. I'd probably agree that talent can be mismanaged to the point where results don't always correspond to talent exactly but I'd be very hard pressed to name a supremely talented team in just about any sport that didn't win.

 

[bustaheims]

Well, I don't want to speak for Busta but I'm pretty sure his point wasn't that if you looked "Culture" up in the dictionary you'd find a big blank spot where a definition should be. As for your explanation, it was a pretty circular "it matters because people say it matters" which I don't find all that compelling.

To me, culture is up there with things like intangibles when it comes to putting together a hockey team. They're terms that people use to justify decisions that don't necessarily correspond with the facts. They're also things that are in good shape when teams are playing well/winning and in poor shape when they're not, pretty much regardless of how the roster is shaped.