Managers Address end of the year MacT
View Single Post
10-31-2013, 06:38 PM
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Originally Posted by
People make it seem like just because a player is available that we can get him.
We didn't get Bernier or Schneider, was that his fault? No the teams are in our division and there is no way LA or Vancouver trades them to us without major major overpayment.
He got the best players he could all things considered. This team has been a joke, we didn't have much money to work with so we couldn't really over pay for anyone. MacT was handed a train wreck and did what he could.
He got rid of Horcoff and his awful contract, and replaced him with someone younger, cheaper and does what Horcoff did but is imo a better player. He scored the best free agent defensemen who became our new captain, sure he isn't a #1 dman but he is easily top 4 and is a good guy to have around the team. He picked up Joensuu for almost nothing, grabbed a few ahl players (two of which made the team from day one). We traded Paajarvi for Perron which is a amazing upgrade. His biggest failure was Lolbarbera, but I dont think anyone expected him to be this bad.
The team started awful due to starting the year with our top LW playing center, our top two centers injured, and a goalie that was getting used to new pads and having a very rough time. Couple that with the team learning a new system and Yak being nowhere near as good as last year.
Could he have done better? Possibly if he was a more experienced GM he may know a few tricks or two to convince a guy but he didn't really make any wrong decisions.
A GM cant just come in and say, "I want 5 ferrarris and i am going to give you 10 Ford Fiestas for them!" and magically make it work.
Hard to say now but it's very possible that his worst move was firing Krueger to bring in Eakins.
Krueger had them fighting a lot more competitively and had some certain tactical elements down. That said, his neutral zone, face off, and possession tactics were BEYOND bad.
Now Eakins has his fair share of strengths where Krueger was weaker, but has totally butchered areas which WERE strengths. Moral of the story? Maybe that an NHL rookie coach required more than a quarter or half season behind the bench before everything clicks.
So, to my thinking, it probably would have been better to merely stay the course with Krueger and hire a strong systems coach to back him up once one became available (Laviolette?) and liked the fit. Or even hire Eakins as his associate.
But that's neither here nor there. Point is, stay the ****ing course for at least a year. It's impossible to know what you have and what you need when you constantly change it.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Horseradish