<div class="quote_poster">SebP Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Yeah thats what I thought when I saw it, but then guys were commenting like it wasn't and I got confused. But where is the Clippers GM on there?</div>Baylor is at 46.
That doesn't really make sense then. Aside from a few cases where the GM is also the owner, a general manager's job is to build a winning team. There are other people around the organization who think about the financial aspects. The article acknowledges that it takes team success into account, but I think it does so in a very flawed way. It measures a team's success against the previous GM's record. That makes sense for the first couple of seasons, where the goal is to clearly improve upon the work of the predecessor. But eventually, the previous GM's work becomes irrelevant and the focus of all team's becomes on winning a championship. In McHale's situation, he has definitely improved upon the previous GM, but there's a reason that his consecutive first round exits are considered failures. At a certain point, the standard has to rise and he has yet to meet it.
<div class="quote_poster">Chutney Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">That doesn't really make sense then. Aside from a few cases where the GM is also the owner, a general manager's job is to build a winning team. There are other people around the organization who think about the financial aspects. The article acknowledges that it takes team success into account, but I think it does so in a very flawed way. It measures a team's success against the previous GM's record. That makes sense for the first couple of seasons, where the goal is to clearly improve upon the work of the predecessor. But eventually, the previous GM's work becomes irrelevant and the focus of all team's becomes on winning a championship. In McHale's situation, he has definitely improved upon the previous GM, but there's a reason that his consecutive first round exits are considered failures. At a certain point, the standard has to rise and he has yet to meet it.</div> Yeah thats why it makes no sense. Forbes should just stick to ranking the 100 richest people in the world and stuff like that. They over stepped their bounds on this one.
They way they look at it is that the GM is responsible for determining how the owners money is spent. Keeping your team's salary down while maintaining a good regular season record/good attendance makes for good business in terms of making a lot of money.
