Originally Posted by wheels
I've always been in favor of that.
A GM has a vision, a reason for bringing in the players and if they aren't used properly, that vision can be wrecked.
I wouldn't trust anyone with my vision, especially when my job is on the line. If the manager doesn't like it, there's the door.
I can see that. I can also see the manager saying "if you want to make all the decisions, then put on the uniform and make them." It's a tough call. You've got to have a guy that will execute your vision. But thinking about the NFL, is there a coach worth his salt who would let the GM meddle in the Xs and Os? Can a team respect a manager if he's just a puppet who has to check everything with his boss first?
I liked Tim Green's analogy in his book "Dark Side of the Game." He compared a team to a restaurant and the owner/GM/coach to the owner/manager/chef. If the guy who decides what type of food it will serve and the guy who shops for the food and the guy who cooks the food aren't all on the same page, the place is doomed.
So to me, the key isn't for the GM to do the manager's job for him, it's to have the shared vision of what you're trying to accomplish.