honest question: why briere?

[aziz]

So long as the team is terrible, and nothing on the ice is really worth talking about, and the only thing that could change that is a new direction, the "who replaces fletcher" question is prominent.  And there seems to be a significant population of fans, and at least some management, looking at Danny B as the guy to take over.  And I don't really understand.  So, want to find out:  why would Briere look like a good call for the Flyer's next GM?

 

As I see it, here are his qualifications:

 

1.  Knows how hockey works, generally

2.  Has been actively involved in the game and the league since his retirement, so knows who the current players are, both on the team and around the league

3.  Used to play for the Flyers, and wasn't terrible

 

That doesn't really seem like a convincing Curriculum Vitae to me.  And, frankly, has the fatal point 3:  "Used to play for the Flyers, wasn't terrible", which has been the Flyers guiding light for 3 decades.  And a main reason everything has gone to complete crap.

 

I'm not arguing or disagreeing, but there has to be something I'm missing.  Those of you hoping for Briere in the GM's chair, can you tell me why?  "He isn't Fletcher" isn't an answer, because we live on a continent of some 400 million people that aren't Fletcher.  Need more than that.  But totally welcome more than that.  Please bring me up to speed on the thinking there?

[radoran]

1 hour ago, aziz said:

Those of you hoping for Briere in the GM's chair, can you tell me why? 

 

He's been... Trained by Fletcher?

 

[ruxpin]

2 hours ago, aziz said:

Those of you hoping for Briere in the GM's chair, can you tell me why? 

Because shiney.

For the same reason a huge population wanted Mayor Bloomberg for President until he actually ran and people realized there was nothing there.  A bunch of other examples along those lines.

 

People want someone new. They remember liking a guy play, he's recently returned, and they hear some others talk about him, so the mindless "Imhotep...Imhotep" chant begins.  They don't even know why. But i bet they get mad when questioned because they believe the consternation masks the ignorance.

 

Really nothing more. He has exactly no credentials other than working under Fletcher and Holmgren. It's like learning how to run a social platform by interning for Elon Musk.

 

I don't dislike Briere and liked him as a player.  He's not qualified.

Edited December 23, 2022 by ruxpin

[OccamsRazor]

11 hours ago, aziz said:

Those of you hoping for Briere in the GM's chair, can you tell me why? 

 

Because it would mean Chuck isn't GM.

 

All i got. When i can think of another reason i will be back...

 

[OccamsRazor]

9 hours ago, ruxpin said:

People want someone new. other than Chuck

 

FIFY

 

[mojo1917]

@aziz

Speaking for myself only, I am thinking his short time running the Maine Mariners may have inflated his worth.

It's a smaller operation but I would imagine he got some fantastic hands-on experience managing all facets of a professional sports team while there.

I remember the Habs were interested in hiring him for their front office, and that I think accelerated his ascension here.

 

I don't know if he will be allowed to be any different than Fletcher. 

The Machiavellian conspiracy theories that Robert Earle Clarke is the puppet master or even more farcical; the dumbest, least successful person in the history of sport (Paul Holmgren) is actually pulling the strings- never seem to stand up to more than 5 minutes of scrutiny.   

But I'll bet there is merit to the idea Dave Scott not knowing his lace count and relying on REC and Homer as his "hockey guys", I'm just not sure how much influence they actually have.

It would be great if in the hiring of Briere he is a known quantity to Scott, and Dave trusts him. Then maybe Daniel could be his own man and sell DS on his plan.

Dave not knowing the game has been bad for the organization. He's relying on proven failures to be his inner circle and they're turning out to be a circular firing squade.

Maybe Briere breaks the cycle of incompetence?

 

I like the Tortorella hire, it is a baby step.

 

Also, I'm glad to see you around the site again.

 

[radoran]

7 minutes ago, mojo1917 said:

The Machiavellian conspiracy theories that Robert Earle Clarke is the puppet master or even more farcical; the dumbest, least successful person in the history of sport (Paul Holmgren) is actually pulling the strings- never seem to stand up to more than 5 minutes of scrutiny.   

 

Why not?

 

To be clear, I don't think they are "pulling strings" but I do think they set the general tone for the organization to "make the playoffs and anything can happen."

 

That they don't ever need a "rebuild" and just need to "retool."

 

That chasing waning vets is the way to build a team.

 

I don't think that any analysis longer than five minutes shoots that down.

 

Because that's how Clarke ran the org. That's how Homer ran the org. And that's how ol' Fletch is running the org.

 

Pleased to be explaining the flaw in that analysis.

 

[ruxpin]

1 hour ago, mojo1917 said:

The Machiavellian conspiracy theories that Robert Earle Clarke is the puppet master or even more farcical; the dumbest, least successful person in the history of sport (Paul Holmgren) is actually pulling the strings- never seem to stand up to more than 5 minutes of scrutiny.   

 

No offense intended, I swear.   But the english here was difficult for me so just asking to be clear:   What doesn't stand up to scrutiny?   That Paul Holmgren is pulling the strings?

[ruxpin]

1 hour ago, radoran said:

 

Why not?

 

To be clear, I don't think they are "pulling strings" but I do think they set the general tone for the organization to "make the playoffs and anything can happen."

 

That they don't ever need a "rebuild" and just need to "retool."

 

That chasing waning vets is the way to build a team.

 

I don't think that any analysis longer than five minutes shoots that down.

 

Because that's how Clarke ran the org. That's how Homer ran the org. And that's how ol' Fletch is running the org.

 

Pleased to be explaining the flaw in that analysis.

 

 

Okay, you took it the same way I read it.

I don't think any amount of scrutiny -- even several years worth by forensic scientists -- undermines the claim that Holmgren pulls the strings at the very least in the way you just described it.

[SCFlyguy]

Briere’s on ice personality has a lot of similarities to Clarke/Holmgren’s GM style: impulsive, hot headed, dumb.

 

One positive is Briere won’t be able to be called for hooking penalties when he is in a suite.

[ruxpin]

30 minutes ago, SCFlyguy said:

One positive is Briere won’t be able to be called for hooking penalties when he is in a suite.

 

You sure?

[GratefulFlyers]

6 hours ago, OccamsRazor said:

Because it would mean Chuck isn't GM.

@aziz I know you’re looking for actual qualifications but I’m afraid he doesn’t have any so this will have to do. What rules him out for me is that the Flyers hired him to join the management team and that is emphatically not a plus, not a good recommendation. In fact it makes him suspect.
 

Still, ABF and the Flyers are immediately better. If “anyone” happens to be Danny Briere so be it. He cannot possibly do worse than Fletcher. 

[ruxpin]

19 minutes ago, GratefulFlyers said:

ABF

 

Great post , but this is my favorite.   I haven't seen this, so I was highly entertained by it.

[OccamsRazor]

32 minutes ago, GratefulFlyers said:

He cannot possibly do worse than Fletcher. 

 

That is where i am at.

 

It is basically like playing NHL 23 but it won't be on easy mode.

 

 

 

[FD19372]

Why? Even Forrest Gump would be a better GM than Chuckles. So, Briere almost certainly has to be a step up. Right......RIGHT?? That's why. Also, Briere might have brown-nosed Holmgren and Scott just enough during his time here, that the Flyers find him acceptable to their Alumni Management Club.

[LegionOfDoom]

We have to break this down into categories to be able to quantify this more.

We need to see how he handles:

 

Asset Management.                    Score: A/B/C/D/F

Contract Acquisitions.                Score: A/B/C/D/F

Contract Management.              Score: A/B/C/D/F

Scouting Results.                        Score: A/B/C/D/F

Player Fit.                                    Score: A/B/C/D/F

Spending Capitol Limits.            Score: A/B/C/D/F

Player Development.                  Score: A/B/C/D/F

 

What GM has nailed the majority of these categories?

What GM has the highest sustainable score?

Does it at the end matter when you one year win a Championship.

I think everyone here is in agreement, that we want to win a Championship.

[Digityman]

I am wondering what does make GM 'qualified' other than already being a GM previously.   Seriously, I'm wondering.

If Briere, who -  (1) Played in the NHL for 15 years (successfully and wasn't a goon)  (2) Rose the the ranks to GM a ECHL team (successfully - isn't qualified, which person is (assuming they weren't a GM previously. 

[mojo1917]

@ruxpin @radoran

I think Dave Scott's lack of hockey business acumen has been the problem. Full stop. 

 

I know more than one thing can be true, but the idea that people who were so inept continue to be heeded as magi is bewildering.  

 

Dave Scott.

He is the Alpha and Omega.

All this REC and Homer business is window dressing

 

Edited December 23, 2022 by mojo1917

[radoran]

6 minutes ago, mojo1917 said:

@ruxpin @radoran

I think Dave Scott's lack of hockey business acumen has been the problem. Full stop.

 

I in no way absolve Scott, but he learned everything he knows about hockey from...

 

Holmgren.

 

His obsession with "definitely a playoff team"; with "spending to the cap"; with "never rebuild."

 

That's ALL Holmgren and Homer is...

 

Clarke's protege.

 

So, a pox on all their houses. But if they don't fundamentally change their approach to the game, it's not going to get better.

[ruxpin]

20 minutes ago, mojo1917 said:

@ruxpin @radoran

I think Dave Scott's lack of hockey business acumen has been the problem. Full stop. 

 

I know more than one thing can be true, but the idea that people who were so inept continue to be heeded as magi is bewildering.  

 

Dave Scott.

He is the Alpha and Omega.

All this REC and Homer business is window dressing

 

 

I think you give Scott waaaaaaaaaaaay  too much credit.   He's the bean counter.  Full stop.   Everything he knows about hockey came from one source:  the average player turned terrible coach turned terrible GM turned terrible president turned terrible advisor.   With terrible bike rider in there somewhere.

Edited December 23, 2022 by ruxpin

[aziz]

1 hour ago, Digityman said:

I am wondering what does make GM 'qualified' other than already being a GM previously.   Seriously, I'm wondering.

If Briere, who -  (1) Played in the NHL for 15 years (successfully and wasn't a goon)  (2) Rose the the ranks to GM a ECHL team (successfully - isn't qualified, which person is (assuming they weren't a GM previously. 

 

That's a great point:  outside of experience specifically managing an NHL team, how do you even judge candidates for the GM position?  I'm not sure there's an answer.  I do know, however, that the two maybe-qualifications you mentioned don't impress me much.

 

Played in the NHL for 15 years.  Successfully and not a goon.  So what?  What skillset of a GM is in any way related to the skillset of a successful NHL player?  Yes, the GM needs to know the game and the nuances of what makes a team win consistently, and having played can give you some insight into that.  I rather think being an obsessive fan can, too, though.  None of the negotiating, financial management, building to a long term strategy, projecting how the league and the game will shift over the next ten years, none of those are things a good player needs to have.  A good GM does.  Eating a lot of food doesn't mean you can cook.

 

Became an ECHL GM.  Yes.  But.  That's like a pretend GM.  For the most part, the roster is given to you by the parent organization.  You aren't drafting, you aren't signing impactful deals, you aren't making trades.  You are basically the accountant for the farm team.  Heating up frozen meals also doesn't mean you can cook.

 

Of course, that kind of makes the whole thing a bit of a crap shoot.  The person should be smart, think long term, negotiate well, be open to new ideas but have a strong idea of the kind of team they are trying build.  And so on.  I guess you can pick up some of those things in interviews, or translate from other work they've done where there are similarities.  

 

I think the biggest anti-Briere thing for me has nothing to do with being unqualified, exactly.  I think the insistence on hiring former Flyers players for management and coaching positions is a big problem, and needs to end as soon as possible.  It's become laughable.  Or, it was.  Now it's just kind of pathetic.

[ruxpin]

2 hours ago, Digityman said:

I am wondering what does make GM 'qualified' other than already being a GM previously.   Seriously, I'm wondering.

If Briere, who -  (1) Played in the NHL for 15 years (successfully and wasn't a goon)  (2) Rose the the ranks to GM a ECHL team (successfully - isn't qualified, which person is (assuming they weren't a GM previously. 

This is fair.

 

I mean Yzerman retired got a front office job with the Wings and then took the Lightning GM role with no track record.  That turned out fairly well.  ( #fairly )

 

So maybe.

 

I'm just thinking that in his time here, he's learning from the wrong people.  But who's to say he's just keeping his head down, playing the game, surviving, taking notes and getting a pretty good idea of how NOT to do it?

 

Sometimes that works, too. Seriously.

 

And he has a pretty good case study right in front of him of the absolutely dumbest **** you can do as a GM.

[GratefulFlyers]

1 hour ago, ruxpin said:

And he has a pretty good case study right in front of him of the absolutely dumbest **** you can do as a GM.

 

ha! yeah he's got that going for him...firsthand, up close, here's exactly what you don't want to do.

 

Fletcher's trades - nearly every one and all the big ones - are an object lesson in how to sabotage a team.

 

I know I harp on it all the time but ... KevinFkngHayes - a $50mil contract - that alone is grounds for the rubber room.

[flyercanuck]

8 hours ago, GratefulFlyers said:

 

ha! yeah he's got that going for him...firsthand, up close, here's exactly what you don't want to do.

 

Fletcher's trades - nearly every one and all the big ones - are an object lesson in how to sabotage a team.

 

I know I harp on it all the time but ... KevinFkngHayes - a $50mil contract - that alone is grounds for the rubber room.

 

If you need me to take over....I've kind of kept my mouth shut about Fletcher and Hayes and Risto and every other trade/signing he's done all these years. 

[OccamsRazor]

20 hours ago, GratefulFlyers said:

Flyers hired him to join the management team and that is emphatically not a plus

 

Not so fast maybe he is learning first hand what not to fcuk ing do....we can't say he isn't...he damn sure is getting a lot of first hand look.

 

Can you imagine every morning having to look at Chuck and ask why you look so troubled every morning??