Good/Bad GMs on big $ teams
View Single Post
09-09-2013, 11:46 PM
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Saint-Hubert, QC
Originally Posted by
Much in the same way, focusing on one element for Sather or Holmgren (trades versus signings in New York, or Holmgren "almost" getting a ring versus trading off his two best players for a mini rebuild, or the Bryz fiasco, or any other negative element) as positives versus the Schneider/Luongo fiasco...or the Hodgson trade (remains to be proven yet), or Booth, or Ballard, or what ever negative...
If Homer gets a pass based on "almost" getting a ring, why not Gillis? If not for injuries, we could have/would have/should have and the team still got to game 7. Boston beat us, the Blackhawks beat the Flyers, for every ying, there's a yang. I've said I'd want Gillis in the "good" pile on different arguments, but if Holmgren and Sather, with the randomness of their successes and failures, I'd argue Gillis is at least as "good" as those two.
that's why i put Homer 'in between.' for all the bad things he's done, he's done a lot of good things too. maybe i'm wrong, but Homer doesn't waste his time with things he has a problem with. he didn't like how Richards and Carter acted off the ice - he dealt with them. Bryz was a bust? he dealt with it. he still got great value out of Richards and Carter... if i go by memory: B. Schenn, Voracek, Simmonds, Couturier...
Gillis' antics cost them Schneider because he wasn't satisfied ( for two years ) with what other teams were offering him for Luongo. Horvat looks good and all, but that feels like peanuts for what Schneider can do.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by sansabri