View Single Post
12-01-2010, 05:19 PM
Sawdalite's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Girouxsalem
Posts: 5,457
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by DUHockey9 View Post
I don't think you can argue that.

In almost every Homer GM debate I mention that the debate rages on because there is a fundamental difference of opinion. You've touched on one of those opinions; the results based opinion. Others (such as myself), do not believe that the end always justify the means, and seek improvement where improvement can be made. It's very rare someone of one opinion will switch to the other, and neither side is more right than the other.
I would be so bold to suggest that five straight Cups won by a team and management would still leave much room for things that could have been done better. The dynasties of the Canadiens, Islanders and Oilers were not without decisions that were made where going another direction would not have netted a better isolated result... Trading a player that becomes a star for a flash in the pan for an example is a blemish on any GM, and every one has made them I'd guess.

With that in mind, I guess I don't really understand the ends does not justify the means in this case -- speak of the Eagles and I understand totally -- Are you saying that in management it is better to judge a GM on the day to day decisions that are not looked at in the Big Picture?

In my view we are looking at a new and fresh NHL with a whole set of new management rules... one where there is no history in many things (such as the Cap) and every GM is feeling it out without knowing long-term effects.

Fred Shero came into an expanded NHL and inserted assistant coaches, video, watching the Russians, etc. and was thought of as being odd... He had good results but an awkward manner.

Homer has made many mistakes and has been embarrassed by some things he's done... But look at Toronto, the Rangers, Boston, The Habs, Buffalo, etc. in the East over the same period... There has not been many GMs that have had as good a results AND I would say that no GM has had a smooth going in all their management decisions... not even Pittsburgh or Detroit.

Not trying to change your mind, but just curious what means to the end in the Flyers management brings down Homer as a top NHL GM? Sure he had to use tryout layers and move good players due to the Cap -- which GM hasn't moved players they didn't want to? Look at Chicago -- but he has this team poised for Cup runs this year and for a few down the road... Unless his signed core all go belly up, this will be a solid team for a good chunk of the decade; Cap troubles or no Cap. No too many Organizations can say that at this time.

With that I respect your opinion, just not sure I fully understand it. I believe we can and do argue all the decisions... and that is the right thing to do... But we must also acknowledge end results. And I guess until they win a Cup we can say that Homer has failed... I'm just enjoying the ride.

Sawdalite is offline   Reply With Quote