Good/Bad GMs on big $ teams
View Single Post
09-09-2013, 10:53 PM
Join Date: May 2010
Originally Posted by
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.
But that's what I'm getting at, Holmgren has had good and bad. So has Gillis. Not getting full value isn't the only red in his ledger, but what about the Ehrhoff trade? What about signing Garrison and Hamhuis way below market value as UFAs? What about keeping the core of our team (Kesler, Burrows, Bieksa, the Sedins, Edler, Schneider/Luongo) and even peripheral players (Higgins, Hansen) on this team with very shrewd signings? What about the overall success of the team? What about two consecutive President's Tropheys? Or individual successes our team have never received?
Again, playoff success has been about equal (one finals appearance a piece), and we haven't had to tank under Gillis like the Flyers have had to do one season, and have had more regular season success if that's the measurement.
As for Sather, if his trades get him out from his bad signings, wouldn't Gillis' great signings get him out of allegedly bad trades (all of which save the Ballard trade haven't unfolded IMO)?
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Cogburn