Ross Tucker weighs in on Zorn

[firstdown]

WOW, that was insightfull.

[70Chip]

I hate it when people say things like "Dan Snyder is willing to do whatever it takes to win". Nonsense. He's not willing to hire a G.M. (a real one, not a Smithers), he's not willing to excuse himself from decisions, he's not willing to detox our cap process, he's not willing to eschew easy publicity. I could go on like this for days.

The other line we hear is that Dan Snyder really "wants to win". What the hell does that mean? Are there some owners that "want to lose". Because that would be a story: "Owner Finally Admits He Never Wanted To Win!" Billy Bidwell "wants to win". Let's stop equating this abstract desire for success with genuine competence, because they are entirely unrelated.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

I hate it when people say things like "Dan Snyder is willing to do whatever it takes to win". Nonsense. He's not willing to hire a G.M. (a real one, not a Smithers), he's not willing to excuse himself from decisions, he's not willing to detox our cap process, he's not willing to eschew easy publicity. I could go on like this for days.

The other line we hear is that Dan Snyder really "wants to win". What the hell does that mean? Are there some owners that "want to lose". Because that would be a story: "Owner Finally Admits He Never Wanted To Win!" Billy Bidwell "wants to win". Let's stop equating this abstract desire for success with genuine competence, because they are entirely unrelated.

I think most mean he'll do whatever HE THINKS he needs to do to win. And in the end there are some owners that winning is not their main priority. Bidwell for example. It is simply a business for them. I am pretty sure DS wnats to win more than he wants to make money. But he doesn't have to choose...he could do both and he tries.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

I hate it when people say things like "Dan Snyder is willing to do whatever it takes to win". Nonsense. He's not willing to hire a G.M. (a real one, not a Smithers), he's not willing to excuse himself from decisions, he's not willing to detox our cap process, he's not willing to eschew easy publicity. I could go on like this for days.

So he's not doing what you want him to do basically, and that makes it nonsense?

The other line we hear is that Dan Snyder really "wants to win". What the hell does that mean? Are there some owners that "want to lose". Because that would be a story: "Owner Finally Admits He Never Wanted To Win!" Billy Bidwell "wants to win". Let's stop equating this abstract desire for success with genuine competence, because they are entirely unrelated.

At the very least Snyder puts his money where is mouth is. You can't say that about every owner. I do think there are owners in this league that aren't 100% commited to winning and are content with just coasting.

[70Chip]

I'm just saying people should be more precise. Clearly, there are things Snyder is not willing to do in order to win. so, don't say that he is willing to do "anything". And when you say he "wants to win", think about how empty that statement really is. It's meaningless. It's boilerplate that sports media figures fall back on in a pinch. If you mean Snyder spends money freely, say that. If you mean he works tirelessly, say that. Spare us the cliches, though.