Of course, this is based on a formula, but I thought it was hilarious that arguably the two worst GM's in the NBA actually were in the top 3 in the Forbes.com rankings. Here is how they came up with their list:<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>General managers were graded on two things: performance vs. the performance of their predecessor, and payroll relative to the league median when compared to their predecessor. Because winning is more important than payroll, Forbes.com double-weighted winning percentage to penalize a GM who cut costs but also hurt his team's winning percentage.</div>And, here is their top 20 (with NBA GM's in bold):1. Kevin McHale, Minnesota (NBA)2. Jay Feaster, Tampa Bay (NHL)3. Billy King, Philadelphia (NBA)4. A.J. Smith, San Diego (NFL)5. Lou Lamoriello, New Jersey (NHL)6. Don Waddell, Atlanta (NHL)7. Marty Hurney, Carolina (NFL)8. Jerry Angelo, Chicago (NFL)9. Bill Polian, Indianapolis (NFL)10. John Paxson Chicago (NBA)11. Geoff Petrie Sacramento (NBA)12. Glen Sather New York (NHL)13. Jerry Jones Dallas (NFL)14. Pierre LaCroix, Colorado (NHL)15. Joe Dumars, Detroit (NBA)16. Carl Peterson, Kansas City (NFL)17. Jim Rutherford, Carolina (NHL)18. Dave Taylor, Los Angeles (NHL)19. Rich McKay, Atlanta (NFL)20. Scott Pioli, New England (NFL)Source: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=2788149:HAHAHA:
Hahah yeah my friend showed me this in school today. First thing I said was "looks like the formula is wrong". Definitely plenty of worthy people there in the top 20, but McHale and King? Come on.
I seriously think Joe Dumars got screwed... Paxson to, they both got shafted! These two guys havent made 1 bad decision between them. Joe Dumars might have made one on draft night in 03 but they needed a PF at the time and they made the pick. But besides that little blunder he has been golden.
This list is horrible, pure and simple. McHale is the reason why the Twolves, despite having a HOF on their roster, suck so damned bad. He's made stupid signing, stupid trades, and lets not forget the Joe Smith fiasco; which is really the reason why they suck. King took a title contender and traded all the pieces away for Jerome Moiso and Matt Harpring. They shouldn't base this on what they did to their predicessor, they should compare it to how they have done. Dumars, Buford, West would all be on the tops for the NBA.
I don't know why you gets are flipping out at this list. It's based off silly statistical categories and obviously doesn't measure who the best GM's are. I listened to one of the authors of this list on FSN Radio just a few minutes ago and I just kept saying to myself, 'why did you waste your time with this list when it doesn't actually rate the best GM's.'General managers were graded on two things: performance vs. the performance of their predecessor, and payroll relative to the league median when compared to their predecessor. Because winning is more important than payroll, Forbes.com double-weighted winning percentage to penalize a GM who cut costs but also hurt his team's winning percentage. This is what they based it on and thats where they got the rankings....they aren't wrong based on the ratings because thats what the numbers came out to be...but the categories that they chose were silly...great GM's were ranked lower because the GM before them had a great team, therefor the new GM didn't 'improve' the team based on the numbers...thats why RC Buford was not high on this list. Bottom line, it's based off stupid numbers and whenever you do anything will numbers you miss the human element, which is the most important thing.
Scott Pioli 20th? Haha are you kidding me. This guy has refused to shell out money season after season yet the Patriots are continously contenders year after year. This is an absolute joke. I'm hearing this McHale #1 GM headline all over the radio and news, they should say "warning: this poll is a joke" before they say this headline. Man this pisses me off.
I don't know why you guys are hating on McHale and King. Forbes is recognizing them because they are great GM's. They are obviously better than any of you would be, and that is why they are getting paid so much.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>It's not a poll...it's based off certain (stupid) statistics.</div> Yeah but reguardless, the headlines are taken out of context and the general public doesn't know exactly what the criteria of these rankings are. It's just pisses me off when BILLY KING is 3rd on that list and a genius GM is rated 17 spots behind him. I know it's stupid and I know it doesn't mean anything I just hate the fact that it's all over the news.
The criteria for the ranking is the beginning paragraph of the story...but people simply look over that because they are lazy...
