View Single Post
10-12-2011, 10:24 AM
Registered User
Jester's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Giroux tha Damaja View Post
True enough, and a fair point. My original point about the Stanley Cup being the only metric for success still stands. It can't be as simple as pass/fail, cup/no-cup. And I'm not saying this because I think Paul Holmgren is a great GM either. To look at it so simplistically not only denies him his successes, but lumps his failure (i.e. simply not having a cup) in with the shortcomings of other, shrewder GM's. I guess what I'm saying in short is that it's not that simple.
I agree that the Cup is not the only metric for success... but not being one of the causes your team fails to achieve the Cup should be a metric for consideration of success... and Holmgren suffers considerably there. At the same time, winning the Cup does not necessarily mean you're a great GM. I think Tallon is a *ing idiot, but he built the Blackhawks that won the Cup.. he's also the reason they barely made the playoffs last year, and may not win another Cup in the foreseeable future despite being setup to be a dynasty a few years back.

It would be one thing if the Flyers had come up short and you couldn't pinpoint why on obvious problems that the GM failed to address... but with the Flyers, you can.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote