View Single Post
12-01-2010, 08:35 PM
Registered User
DUHockey9's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hogwarts
Country: United States
Posts: 4,472
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Sawdalite View Post
To me it is hard to understand where you are coming from -- not calling you a hater nor saying you are upset the Flyers are playing well -- Looking at a man who has a job to do... given that job by his employers to accomplish the goal... I fail to see how certain things he does well or doesn't do could take away from what he was put in place to do.

Now, the question is whether a GM is hire to win a Cup, or to give an organization an opportunity to win a Cup... Surely if he doesn't put them in a position to win a Cup he is on borrowed time, even if he has won a Cup for them earlier.

If an organizations sees a GM moving in the right direction but still not ready to be a contender, they can stay with him as he builds a team in the way it needs to be built... Conversely if a GM's team is having winning seasons but is not moving in the correct direction and looks to be a team that merely make the postseason, the GM may be axed and the team rebuilt or at least tweaked.

In that way I can say that making mistakes could lead ownership to determine that the team is not headed in the proper direction... that it will never win a Cup. But, is that what Homer has done with some very bad moves? Or is his mistakes the kind that any and every GM makes in his tenure multiple times?

If a GM is making the type mistakes that come with the job, isn't the question then whether the accomplishments are a measure of the GM's job?

What to you makes a GM a good GM? Is it he makes no mistakes? The best way to not make a mistake is to do nothing, or little... To make great gains much risk has to be taken; other GMs are not going to give away prime players for nothing... Signings are sometimes done on a scatter-shot basis where some signing hit dead center while others miss by a large margin.

I suppose a measure of a Gm being a good GM or an average GM may be subjective... and the objective part of it may not matter.

If you held Homer's job in your hand would you can him and bring in another GM? Keep in mind a new broom sweeps clean and in cleaning house much can change... Or would you allow Homer to stay and see how far the team he has built takes us?

If a GM is not a good GM it is best to remove him, is it not?

If it were me, Homer's job would be as safe as could be.
A couple things. One thing I want to make clear is I'm not saying Homer is "not a good GM". I feel like that's something people always jump to with me. I'm just saying he has his flaws, and IMO they are very big flaws. He's terrible at asset management. He sees talent and overspends to get it. He's like me buying whatever I want regardless of cost. It's just stupid, and I'm aware of it, but I do it haha. So again, I am not saying Homer is bad. I just don't think he's as flawless as some people make him out to be, because we're such a good team.

To your point about an employer giving his employees a job to do, I'm glad you made this analogy, because I made a similar one in the other thread. Yes, if I'm an employer, I want my employee to complete the project I give him. It is his ultimate goal. However, I want to know how my employee is completing that project. If he could be completing that project AHEAD of time, and UNDER budget, but isn't, I'm going to be upset. That is what I feel is happening with Homer.

Another analogy I've made in the past. If I'm in the market for a new car. And I walk into the dealer, point out the car I want, and get it...good for me right? I have an awesome car. Well, I paid like 5k more than I had to. So yes, I have an awesome car, but I was stupid about how I went and got my car. The end result (awesome car) does not mean I did well for myself.

A team with as much talent as we have, is going to have a VERY hard time keeping it together. Therefore, it's unbelievably important to be overly critical in every dollar you spend. Homer pisses away far too much money. 100k here, 300k there. It adds up quickly. Hell. Jeff Carter's "raise" for the next 10 years is only 270k. A mistake like Matt Walker, could pay for Carter's raise and someone like Powe/Nodl/Carcillo (and perhaps more) for the next 2 years. We had to trade Upshall and a 2nd for Carcillo for a couple hundred K in savings. Over and over we see TINY dollar amounts cause issues for us. I nitpick over such OBVIOUS mistakes because the are so easily avoided.

Don't even get me started on Randy Jones.

As for if I was owner, would Homer keep his job? I'd have to say yes. Partly because I'm not familiar enough with what alternatives are available haha. And again, he isn't terrible. I really want to stress that. If I were owner, I'd keep him, and keep my wallet close before he spends my money.

DUHockey9 is offline   Reply With Quote