Thread: Homer's Odyssey
View Single Post
Old
02-11-2013, 09:49 AM
  #175
DrinkFightFlyers
Provolone & The Neck
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: Isle of Man
Posts: 18,542
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by BringBackStevens View Post
Holmgren is not a bad GM. He's also not a good one either. People are quick to pull up a list of moves he's made and pick through them. The problem with that is that it misses what he hasn't done, and it looks at things on a micro level. To me Holmgren has had 2 glaring issues as GM

1) He has done an overall fantastic job with our forward corp. He drafts great forwards, aqcuires great young forwards. However, holmgren has been an abject failure with the D. We have an OK D but are spending out the ears for it. And we have not developed or ever had a high end prospect outside of Sbisa.

2) On a micro level, a lot of the transactions have been great. But he is doing major overhauls every few years. The core keeps changing. On a macro level, what is the long term plan? Where is the patience? There seems to be a pretty clear lack of a big picture
I agree with #1, however I think he is a good GM and I don't agree with #2. I think the things pointed out in #2 show a clear indication that Homer is thinking big picture.

Let's just take the Richards/Carter scenario. He dealt two players who had long term contracts. You may look at that and think he was impatient and lacked big picture future plans. However, to me, these moves show the complete opposite. He dealt two established stars with long-term contracts to allow the team to get (even) younger and allow a guy like Giroux to develop into what he is now. This allowed money to sign a goalie and other peices to the puzzle. It is easy to point to things and claim they were impatient or questionable, but really what would this team look like right now without those deals? I know people hate this argument because I have made it before, but you don't make those deals that means you likely don't Bryz (I know this would make some people happy), no Couts, no Schenn, no Simmonds, no Voracek, maybe no Read, maybe no Talbot. Those are six to seven of the most important players on this team both now and long-term that I would rather have than Richards and Carter. Now, as I said there is no telling who would have filled int he roster, and perhaps it would be better, but it is just as likely that it would be worse. I fail to see his lack of patience and big picture thinking involved in this particular (and most drastic) overhaul which gave the Flyers the ability to develop a young core of players for the foreseeable future.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline   Reply With Quote