View Single Post
11-14-2010, 11:07 AM
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,215
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by DUHockey9 View Post
No I don't, I think I'm being perfectly objective in my analysis. Don't get me wrong, I'm not sitting here claiming Homer is a terrible GM. I don't think he's in the bottom 5 of GMs. I also don't think he's in the top 5. I'd say he's certainly in the top half. What is so wrong about wanting to see improvement? Why are so many people comfortable with the status quo? We should always be improving, GM included.

And I'm not discounting the many good things he's done either. But as Jester said, the man walked into a team budding with young talent, and a buttload of money to spend. Since that season (where he spent said money) he's been making moves, and then making secondary moves to fit the former move under the cap. A little foresight would go a long way sometimes.
While he benefits from an organization that has deep pockets he is also managing the the eye of a guy that wants to WIN NOW despite what he may claim (Ed Snider). Homer is far from perfect but I would say he is a top 10 GM that has a team on the cusp and is making moves to take advantage of it. I would rather have a GM that goes for the gold ring when he is close (Amaro, Homer) then one that is content just being competitive (Reid).

lancer247 is offline   Reply With Quote