McHale named top GM in sports by Forbes. Also, Bill Simmons has coronary.

by user Tylersalt

• x-posted to Multivarious *

TWWL is reporting that Forbes.com has named Kevin McHale of the Minnesota Timberwolves the top general manager in sports, based on a simple formula taking into account, " performance vs. the performance of their predecessor, and payroll relative to the league median when compared to their predecessor."

Frankly, I give McHale barely any credit at all for the recent success (read: a few years ago, not now) that the T-Wolves have enjoyed. More of that credit belongs to Kevin Garnett, and McHale ruined the best team they had by getting rid of Sam Cassell and Latrell Sprewell a few years ago, not to mention the awful Wally Szczerbiak trade last season with the Celtics.

Other notable things about Forbes' list: no baseball GM was in the top 20, the highest being Oakland Athletics GM Billy Beane at 26th. Dallas Cowboys owner/GM Jerry Jones is 13th, Boston Red Sox GM Wunderkind is 30th, and New York Yankees GM Brian Cashman was 61st.

Three NFL GM's ranked at the bottom of the list, Matt Millen of Detroit, Mike Brown of Cinci and Michael Lombardi of Oakland Raiders Oakland.

I question the validity of any formula that puts McHale at the top of a GM effectiveness rating. Any thoughts on what could be a more effective formula to gauge this sort of thing?

Manny StilesAAA-er

590 days ago

Score 3

They did the ranking starting at tallest first... it's easy to see.

Permalink | Reply

BigPPupMajor Leaguer

590 days ago

Score 3

If only it had gone by weight... Matt Millen would have had a chance to something right for once.

Permalink | Reply

EnyboDiv-I Stud

590 days ago

Score 1

Maybe they mean the GM who has the best chance to win in a 1 on 1 basketball tournament?

Permalink | Reply

TylersaltAll-Star

590 days ago

Score 0

What about Isaiah?

Permalink

Davis21wylieAll-Star

590 days ago

Score 1

This list is completely insane. McHale #1? Billy King #3? WTF??!! And Glen Sather doesn't belong anywhere near the Top 20. Feaster, A.J. Smith, Lamoriello, Angelo, Polian, Dumars, etc. are all terrific, but Billy Beane needs to be ranked among the best. Basically, the way they've set it up, if the guy you replaced was pitiful (cough, Neil Smith), you can be ranked highly simply by being mediocre. Beane's predecessor was Sandy Alderson, who's an even better GM than Beane himself, so he's held to an impossibly high standard under this scheme.

Permalink | Reply

Davis21wylieAll-Star

590 days ago

Score 0

And Isiah's 82nd-ranked performance is that much worse considering that he is being compared to Scott Layden's reign of terror...

Permalink

Davis21wylieAll-Star

589 days ago

Score 1

As for improved methods, this awkwardly-named book takes a stab at GM evaluation by looking at the long-term and short-term contributions of the players that a GM acquires through trades and free agency. (It found Beane, Pat Gillick, Brian Cashman, Terry Ryan, and Theo Epstein to be the best GMs in 2003, by the way.) I think that's a better way than simply looking at win and payroll improvement over a GM's tenure, because a lot of external factors that the GM has little to do with (coaching, player development, etc.) can influence winning. The GM's job is simply to acquire players, so if we looked at each individual player acquired (and the alternatives they could have pursued), maybe it would paint a more complete picture of the GM's ability than Forbes' study did.

Permalink | Reply

DNLLegend

589 days ago

Score 0

I think this is the first time I've ever seen the Raiders' GM's name. I always thought Al Davis managed the front office. Seriously.

Permalink | Reply

Manny StilesAAA-er

589 days ago

Score 0

still doing a better job than the Arizona Cardinals' GM (since there isn't a Cardinals GM)

Permalink

TylersaltAll-Star

589 days ago

Score 0

there isn't a Redskins GM either, which frankly explains a lot about those two franchises.

Permalink

BarkingclamVarsity

589 days ago

Score 0

Frankly, I don't see how Bryan Colangelo isn't ranked #1, even going by their standards: He took a basement team, who won the #1 overall pick, into one of the best in the league almost overnight. He's cleared up cap space, cut dead weight (aka Hoffa) and picked up cheap, high reward/low risk players.

Permalink | Reply

Anonymous Fanatic #1

589 days ago

Score 1

colangelo has ony been there for a short amount of time. and baseball gm's get screwed in this ranking as baseball prospectus points out because the play so many more games. their winning percentages are worse in relation to other sports. a swing from .500 to .600 is a change of 20 games or so, while in football that same swing is an 1/8 of the season. therefore in basketball, football and hockey the winning percentages are all going to be better than those in baseball, at least for the good-decent teams.

Permalink | Reply