View Single Post
Old
05-12-2006, 03:13 PM
  #26
Quagmier
Registered User
 
Quagmier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,861
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jester099
Winning the cup is tough. It's not only talent, and grit, and everything. You can have the perfect team but fall short anyway... Truth is there are 30 contenders at the start of the season. And if you disagree with that statement, think about what chances you gave Carolina at the start of the season.

You have to get the good bounces from time to time.

Anygiven year, looking at the rosters at the start of the season, how many can tell who's going to win ? Nobody.

The Canucks are not a team I like particularly, but they had a very good team under Burke, and the GM put them in a position where they could win if they got the good bounces. They still have a very decent team, as I believe they were victim of injuries, unfortunate off-ice distraction and a very, very tough schedule. (8 games each against Colorado, Calgary and Edmonton is very tough... Even Min finished over .500)

In many of the last seasons, the west was very tough, with the Wings, the Stars, the Avs... Sometimes even those team didn't get through.

I think every year, Burke put the 'nucks in a position where they could go all the way, and it's really the only thing a GM can do.
If you consider the job a GM does based on that, then Gainey has definately out performed Burke.

While Burke assembled a team that was seen as a favorite early in the season for a number of years, they never really did damage in the playoffs and it was obvious the core wasn't getting it done for them.

Gainey on the other hand, assembled a Dallas team that was not only an early season favorite almost every year, but would consistently battle long into the playoffs before winning in 99 and then making another finals appearance in '00.

Gainey took over in the early 90s, took his time developing the talent he already had and making shrewd deals for players he thought would be useful long term (Nieuwendyk, Zubov) and eventually his patience paid off and Dallas became a force.

When you look at Burke's situation, it appears that the success of his teams are in large part due to getting great value from unexpected places. Neither Naslund or Bertuzzi were expected to develop into the dominating forces they became, but at the same time you have to give Burke alot of credit for finding gold where everyone else saw coal. As is the case with Beauchemin and Selanne on Anaheim.

I think both Gainey and Burke both illustrate that you can acheive success by being conservative or by making bold moves, as long as you've got a brain and a knack for the game.

Quagmier is offline