Thread: Post-Game Talk: So...you still wanna fire Homer?
View Single Post
Old
04-24-2010, 03:11 PM
  #84
xifentoozlerix
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: staten island
Posts: 792
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by chimrichalds18 View Post
Again, my biggest problem with Holmgren is his inability to see the big picture. Take the Eminger trade, for example. It was completely unnecessary, even baffling in that we have had pretty good success drafting in the mid-20s region. Now, if we were Steve Eminger/a depth dman away from winning the Cup, there's no problem with that trade. Yet that wasn't the case. It shows a level of impatience/lack of a plan (I remember several people here likening Holmgren's strategy that offseason to throwing **** against wall and seeing what sticks). That's not the kind of "plan" you want your GM to have, I'm sorry.
Holmgren made a mistake with the Eminger situation. No doubt about it. But this was still only a mistake in retrospect. The speed at which Eminger left the organization is evidence of that, but I will say that Matt Carle, for all his detractors, has been worth it. It is quite easy to look at some trade, after the fact, and decide who "won". The grass will always be greener on the other side, but "what if" is part of a losing mentality, IMO.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chimrichalds18 View Post
The same could be said about the Pronger trade this past offseason. I'm all for getting Pronger -- who wouldn't be? (though I don't like the 2 1st rounders). That being said, we were not a Chris Pronger away from winning the Cup with a ? in net coupled with losing Lupul/Knuble and a lack of a gameplan up front -- I'm specifically referencing the 7-8 capable top 9 forwards and our inability to field a true 3rd line.
This is premature. For all we know, we were a Pronger away from the cup.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chimrichalds18 View Post
Some of Holmgren's mistakes are more glaring in retrospect, but that's not always the case. Holmgren's plan hinges a lot on luck and chance (see Leighton, Michael). I can see aspects of the GM business being chance, but Holmgren relies way too much on it. I can't get behind that, and I can't get behind the organization's low valuing of draft picks.
In a cap world, you must ALWAYS take chances. You take a chance on cheap guys to fill holes which are unavoidable under a cap. Also, you take a chance on long term contracts to mitigate the affect on the cap. It is completely unfair to judge a signing years after the fact. It is completely unfair to judge a trade years after the fact. As for the draft picks, that is something which will always be an issue when you are charged with building a contending team year-in and year-out. Whether or not the organization should be trying to do so is another question, but Holmgren is doing the job Snider expects of him.

xifentoozlerix is online now   Reply With Quote