View Single Post
09-10-2013, 08:07 PM
Registered User
Cogburn's Avatar
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,174
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Hawkaholic View Post
Good: Holland, Chiarelli, Bowman, Lombardi
Average: Shero, Bergevin, McPhee, Gillis
Below Average: Nonis, Feaster
Terrible: Holmgren
Assuming the order doesn't determine rank, I think this is a solid way of breaking it down, with a few key GMs in the "big money club" missing/too new to show their stuff.

Originally Posted by FlameChampion View Post
I think its an interesting thought that it can be a bit harder to run a team when you are spending to the cap. It shouldnt really be the case but I think its just mainly because too many GM's hand out stupid contracts for UFA players or pay certain players more than what they are worth.

My opinion on Good who spend big ($) amounts on their team:

Pittsburg - I think Shero has done a good job for the most part. Always active with trades, brings in some good players. Dont think hes really signed a lot of brutal contracts (there are some bad ones but for the most part they pay their good players and not average players). However I am not sure trading all your draft picks for rentals is good for your future. (Pittsburg core is fairly young though and they do have quite a bit of defenseman in the system).

Boston - I think Chiralleli is one of the best. He is aggressive but he seems calm/controlled with his decisions. Boston has a solid roster with not a ton of bad contracts. I think they are bit more conservative too and dont give away as many draft picks.

Chicago - I am not sure we have really seen enough of Bowman to know. He inherited an already good team. But at the same time he hasnt really made any bad decisions either which should count for something. For a team thats right up at the cap, Chicago under Bowman seems to be a bit more patient than some of the other teams who spend $, which seemed to pay off for them this year.

Vancouver - I know alot of people seem to rag on Gillis. I am not sure how I totally feel about him but Vancouver has been pretty competitive for a number of years so that should count for something. He seems very good at contracts, not too many bad ones get signed. I dont think he has handled the goaltending situation very well though and I think Vancouver has been running too long with any new personnel really coming up and making an impression. The next year or two I think will really define how he is viewed in the hockey world.

Los Angeles - Lombardi just seems to really not make any poor decisions when it comes to contracts. He also is somewhat aggressive at pulling off trades. They also seem to do a decent job at bringing talent into their system. Their core of players are still fairly young and they now have a lot of experience.

San Jose - Wilson seems like hes always trying to do something to make his team better. San Jose has been competitive for a long time now. And even though they have never won they cup, they are a team thats been bringing in alot of playoff revenue for a very long time. Wilson doesnt seem to give out many bad contracts. The biggest fault I think with him is that he probably has sacrificed too much for the future. Like Vancouver, it will be interesting to see how the Sharks are in a few years time.

Detroit - Holland does a very good job. The team is always competitive and for the most part he is fairly active. I also think he is very patient as well. He doesnt seem to get caught much on bad contracts. That being said, I think he probably could have done more with the team the last couple years but thats being said, sometimes the decisions you dont make, turn out for the best in the long term. Will be interesting to see how Detroit does this year since they spent a little money and will be playing in the east.
Very solid list and explanations. I agree with almost all of it, and the rest I'd have to politely and respectfully just bow my head to. We need more posts like this.

Originally Posted by Lord Flacko View Post
That's 1 trade.

He got Ehrhoff for free.

Signed the Sedins, Kesler, Hamhuis, Edler, Garrison all to discounts.

Rebuilt our prospect pool and the only big name player he traded was Schneider.
And Burrows, and Hansen, and Higgins, and Lapierre (first contract here for Burr and Lappy anyway), and Schneider, and even Lu (in hindsight now, his cap hit is a blessing).

I'd also like to point out that players like Malhotra were brought in for key roles, and prior to his injury, Manny dominated the 3C position. It's the smaller pieces that sometimes make huge differences too.

Originally Posted by Ricky Bobby View Post
How was Garrison signed for a discount? 4.6 per year for 6 years for a Dman like that is hardly a discount.

Gillis inherited an excellent roster that was heading into its prime.

He is the same GM who traded Hodgson for Kassian, signed Luongo to that deal in the 1st place than cause a gongshow media storm by not handling the Luongo/Schneider situation well, traded a lot for Ballard, traded for Booth whose a bad contract.
Originally Posted by Darth Milbury View Post
I respect all your criticisms, but it is too early to conclude that the Nucks lost the Kassian trade. He could still develop into the better player (or at least the player who is a better fit for VCR).
Thanks for addressing the Kassian/Hodgson trade as a neutral party Darth. Couldn't have said it better myself.

As for Garrison, after a 17 goal season (which isn't why we had interest in him, it's his defensive and transition play), he could have named his price. Look at Green, look at Weber, look Karlsson, look at any other 15+ Goal defender. North of 5 easily, with rumours of upto 6 annually. Heck, Wiz got 5.5 from Columbus. And look at Gonchar's last contract. All huge too.

As for "inheriting" said roster, assuming this is true (it's not, big additions have been made and everyone that has changed took big discounts to stay), we also had 0 reasonable prospects. Tanev and Lack were brought in to salvage the draft year we didn't get them, Grabner, Schneider, the Sedins...these kinds of picks were few and far between. Gillis has set us up with youth and prospects ready to make an impact this year, next year, or in the near future. It would be like saying Nonis inherited his roster, as with few moves, it became a contender. But Ehrhoff, Sundin, Demitra, Samuelsson, Malhotra, Higgins, Lapierre, Hamhuis, Garrison, every star player signing below term, and even guys like's not been a stable roster with all of the Nonis/Burke era guys sticking around.

Cogburn is online now   Reply With Quote