Fenwick and Philosophy
Matt Fenwick delivers up a post that provides some good advice to any wannabe owner of a sports franchise. He acknowledges that an owner – Darryl Katz in his case – never knows as much about the sport as Kevin Lowe or any other reasonable candidate. His answer to the dilemma is to hire somebody with a clear philosophy and give the manager absolute freedom to operate within that philosophy. The owner’s role is to ensure that all decisions are consistent with the declared philosophy. If Kevin Lowe could not explain how a given decision fit with the plan, Matt Fenwick wouldn’t let him do it.
I think this is exactly right – I’d operate this way if I were a rich man, too – but I also think it merely delays the real problem a beat. What philosophy can produce a winner in Edmonton under this CBA? What is the right philosophy for any team? What philosophy do I want to hear from a prospective general manager? “We have to build through the draft” is a tired cliche. All it really means is that the team will keep losing until – unless – it gets lucky with two or three top picks.
The only legitimate way to get better is to find better players who play better. Finding better players via a trade is very difficult these days and most teams can’t compete for the elite free agents. That leaves only the draft but most draft choices don’t pan out for years if they pan out at all.
Like Matt, I want my owner to make decisions consistent with a good strategy. I just don’t know what makes a good strategy in the current environment. I don’t think anyone else does either.
The only legitimate way to get better is to find better players who play better. Finding better players via a trade is very difficult these days and most teams can’t compete for the elite free agents. That leaves only the draft but most draft choices don’t pan out for years if they pan out at all.
…I just don’t know what makes a good strategy in the current environment.
Is this environment any different from any previous environment? There’s always been lots of teams who have trouble competing for eltie free agents (if anything this should be easier now), improving through trades has always been hard (the cap makes a bit harder but not that much), and the draft has always been kind of a crap shoot. Ultimately the magical strategy remains being better at valuing players than other teams. Is there anything really fundamentally different between this time or any other or do we just assume there is?
Is this environment any different from any previous environment?
I think so. I think there was a clear strategy under the old CBA. Once it became clear a team could not win, the correct strategy was to rebuild and keep on rebuilding. It waas possible to make excellent trades. Expensive (or about to be expensive) veteran stars – anybody over about age 29 – could be dealt for excellent prospects and picks. Signing free agents was a losing strategy because they were too old to help very much. Only teams that were already excellent could make good use of them. This was the basic strategy teams used before there was any free agency. Teams that could win loaded up to get over the top. Teams that couldn’t stripped winners of their prospects and picks. The first time I saw this trade made was when the Leafs gave up five young players for Andy Bathgate. They won a Cup with Andy but the five prospects set the Rangers up going forward.
Teams are trying the same game – I guess because it is the only game they know – but it doesn’t work any more because the only trades being made are of impending free agents without much value and because many teams can’t bid on the players because they have salary cap issues. As a result, the return is garbage. Teams that can attract free agents and have lots of money can find a strategy, I think, but I can’t see one for the teams this CBA is supposed to help.