Thread: bobby clarke...
View Single Post
Old
02-15-2004, 06:44 PM
  #38
Pontifex Maximus*
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,098
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JCD
You are also being very selective in what you mention in trades. Example, Primeau cost us FAR more than just Pelletier. Amonte cost us FAR more than Lefebvre.
Well, Lefebvre, a 2nd, and a 3rd. The Primeau deal did cost more though, but it wouldn't have been done without Pelletier.


Quote:
Originally Posted by JCD
For everyone you point to as a 'Win', I can point to another as a 'Loss'.
I don't think it is 50-50. More like 75-25. Just take a look at how the team was assembled (draft picks and free agents not included):

Primeau - Even
Handzus - Win
Lapointe - Win
Amonte - Win
Recchi - Win
Radivojevic - Win
LeClair - Win
Kapanen - Win
Brashear - Win
Desjardins - Win
Ragnarsson - Win
Markov - Even
Burke - Win
Esche - Win
Quote:
Originally Posted by JCD
What stands out is the sheer volume of meaningless transactions.
If they are so meaningless, why complain about them? I don't these meaningless trades make him a bad GM.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JCD

Yes. Clarke is the equivalent of a CEO. If my CEO said half the crap Clarke did, he would be fired years ago. Clarke represents the Flyers. He represents them very poorly.
Clarke is not the equivalent of a Wall Street CEO. There, he would have been canned because maybe the stock went down a there was a lack a respect for the company. Does it really make a difference here? Every player that comes to this team wants to stay save a few misfits. Do we have problems signing free agents? How many players leave disgruntled?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JCD
Easy.

How many different 2nd line centers have we gone through? How many different 3rd line centers have we gone through? How many different starting goalies?

Clarke constantly tinkers with areas that don't need work. Back in 1997, we had an outstanding 3rd line, the Minnesota line. It was a stand-out defensive unit and great 'energy' line. For some reason, Clarke decided to break it up. We have had a different 3rd line center virtually every year since. None of them were a weak link, yet Clarke so fit to replace them just the same.
Would you take any of those lines over the ones we have now?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JCD
How about sending Montreal a 2nd for Chouinard only to trade him to Minnesota for a 5th a year later? What is the plan there?

Want a recent example? Why did Clarke pay so much for Comrie only to send him off a few weeks later? To get our 4th "starting" goalie in under a year no less.
Chouinard either turns out the way he is playing now or turns into a goal scorer. The chance of getting a player like that is worth the gambit of moving down 3 rounds in the draft.

As for Comrie, Clarke upgraded assets he was bound to trade later, and positioned himself for a better move.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JCD
Few teams are as active as Clarke is. Why? You look at teams that WIN Cups, they are not in constant flux like we are. They have consistency. When they put in new countertops on the kitcher, Clarke guts the 2nd story and builds and addition. Teams take time to gel. Clarke's impatience doesn't give them that time.



That is his plan this year and last. Can you say that was his plan under Barber/Ramsey/Nielson/insert-name-here?

What about when Clarke scoffed at the idea of depth and defense and kept loading up on forwards? Particularly weak defensive ones? What was his plan then?

Clarke doesn't have a model. Devils, Wings, Avs, Stars (under Gainey) all had an identity. They had the same faces, same style, same results. We are nothing like the team that went to the Cup in 1997. Our identity has changed almost every year. Heck, the one constant we used to have (going back decades) is that the Flyers were a tough, physical team that punished you. Even that has faded. IMO, that was in part neccesary to adapt to the modern league though.
I don't know about you, but I'd rather have this team than the 97 one. In fact, I'd take this team over any teams since perhaps the 80s. If Clarke didn't make the moves he did, we would be nowhere near as good as we are now.

To say Clarke isn't consistent is ridiculous. He consistently puts out a contending team.

I wouldn't mind seeing a new guy come in with a different approach, but I have to give credit where I think it is due. You can be critical of him, but take a look at the other GMs in this league. How many are better than Clarke? I think he is in the top 10 at least.

Pontifex Maximus* is offline