HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Best Executive in NHL History?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-29-2005, 04:56 PM
  #51
Hasbro
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Hasbro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: South Rectangle
Country: Sami
Posts: 29,571
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by salzy
The consensus among hockey people was that Aebisher didn't have the ability or the experience to take them anywhere in the playoffs - that a veteran contending team like the Avalanche needed a proven veteran goalie - like a Kolzig or Burke. They were proven right when Colorado flamed out in the 2nd round.
The consensus was to trade Tanguay for Kolzig or Burke, so that is a good trade not made.

Burke's got a 12-22 career playoff record had a lousy stint when he was expected to take Philly all the way (join the club) and is near death with a wonky back.

Kolzig, great run once, 20-24 record. Yeah I'd like to have him, but not at that cost and he's under contract for next year at $6 mill, 35, which would nesicitate starting the grooming process all over again.

Aebischer had a 6-5 record .922 Save pecentage and 2.08 GAA. Two of the losses were by one goal and he got pulled once. His opponent Nabakov who's turned into a great Goalie had a 2.61 and 2.75 his first two playoffs and a .904 .903 save pct.

Hasbro is online now  
Old
05-29-2005, 07:37 PM
  #52
salzy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Windsor
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,048
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 12# Peter Bondra
The whole team played badly, its not like Abei gave up soft goals during that series.
Fine, but it's not like Lacroix was vindicated in any way for not trading for a veteran goalie (as was implied).

salzy is offline  
Old
05-29-2005, 07:38 PM
  #53
salzy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Windsor
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,048
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by reckoning
I wouldn`t blame Aebisher for that loss. The only year Sean Burke made it past the first round was his rookie season in 1988. The only year Kolzig made it past the first round was `98. I don`t think either of those guys could be considered proven playoff goalies.
See reply above.

salzy is offline  
Old
05-29-2005, 07:47 PM
  #54
salzy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Windsor
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,048
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hasbro
And to be fair there a buttload of losing.

On the trades
Full trade was Blake, and Rhino for Deadmarsh, Miller, 1st in 2001 (Dave Steckle), Jared Aulin, and a 1st in 2003 (there was some trading so I'm not sure who came from that one). If Blake didn't resign with the Avs LA would have got the 2nd round compensitory pick inplace of the 2003 1st

The three named players in that deal all developed signifigant injury problems soon after the deal, so we're deffinately better off than having kept them. Steckle has a 5D rating right now and the other was a low first. A couple of leaky tug boats, and three row boats for a battleship.
No 1st Avs got Keane along with Roy. This was recognized as under payment at the time. How Montreal didn't take Deadmarsh with Thibault is still a mystery to me. Keane was a great checking forward for us
Not Yelle or a 1st. Theoren Fleury and Chris Dingman for Rene Corbet, Wade Belak, Robyn Regehr and Colorado's 2nd round compensatory choice (Jarret Stoll) in 2002.

Corbet was a good 3rd liner but by that point injury prone last I heard he was in the DEL, Belak became a 2nd rate goon in TO, Calgary had their pick of one prospect in the Avs system it boiled down to Regehr vs Skoula, they chose wisely. Like Blake it was the 1st or the compensitory. Fluery turned out to be a lemon, I've always been of two minds on him; on one hand thank good we walked away from that lemon, on the other I think things may have turned out better if he wasn't in the glare of New York (about the only worse place would have been Toronto.)

Dingman turned out to be a valueable throw-in, played absolutely out of his head in the 2001 Cup run, I wish we had kept him instead of Parker.
Ray Bourque and Dave Andreychuk for Brian Rolston, Martin Grenier, Sami Pahlsson and a 1st round selection (previously acquired, Boston selected Martin Samuelsson) in 2000.

Lacroix somehow fooled Sinden into thinking Pahlson was going to be something special, he unloaded him for Patrick Traverse at the next deadline. Grenier is an AHLer. Samuelson has a 7B rating. Rolston turned around in Boston. So Bourque for Rolston+Samuelson take it in a heart beat.

Avs needed a puck rushing Defenseman, Ozolinsh was inegral in the 96 cup. Scored the Goal that was the turning point of those play offs. Nolan had a couple of slump years soon after the trade.

Lesser names

Washington Capitals traded Steve Konowalchuk and a 3rd round selection in 2004 to the Colorado Avalanche for Bates Battaglia and Jonas Johansson.

Kono for Batters I'll take in a minute. Jury is still out on Johanson, but he's a late 1st in a crappy draft and injury prone. Lacroix said he wasn't going to sign him so the 3rd equals the compensitory pick, give that a wash.

Bates came for Vrbata, I still take Konowalchuk even up for Verb

For a 3rd and Cris Bahen who was in Germany when traded
The deals break down as
Calgary Flames traded Derek Morris, Jeff Shantz and Dean McAmmond to the Colorado Avalanche for Chris Drury and Stephane Yelle.A cadaver for Shantz was overpayment, McAmmond deserved a better shot (Granato ) Yelle needed a change, I'm sorry I know he was great in the cup run last year, but he had stagnated here. Had Morris not dropped off a cliff this year, I could have lived begrudginly with this, but Drury was everyone's favorite. Worst trade in team history.

Phoenix Coyotes traded Chris Gratton, Ossi Vaananen and a 2nd round selection in 2005 to the Colorado Avalanche for Derek Morris and Keith Ballard.

Still waiting on the 2nd (c'mon Peter Stastny!) I like Vaananen, but I suspect we'll end up a player behind in all this mess.

Gratton... well we got him cheap and didn't send four 1sts after citicising another team for being vultures.
Future considerations I believe a 3rd
Nikolishin came in a simular deal
Rhino was traded strait up for Ballard. Buffalo then made the deal with Calgary for Drury
3rd and a 5th, I believe we got a 3rd as compensitory for his free agent signing, good riddance. The 5th eventualy got traded back to the Avs who became Brad Richardson (he might turn out well)
Ville Nieminen and Rick Berry, yeah real Brinks Job by Pittsburgh Both players left for nothing from the Quinns (Yeah I know). Would have liked to hold onto Kaspar, but not for that contract.

Signed as UFAThat 29 other GM would have made and we're free of those contracts now, unlike other teams still paying off bad debt, see Rag$

Drafted
Abid was the 2nd rounder Tanguay, Skoula, Regehr, Parker were the 1sts. Aquiring the 1sts;

San Jose Sharks traded Shean Donovan and 1st round selection (Alex Tanguay) to the Colorado Avalanche for Mike Ricci and 2nd round selection (later traded to the Buffalo Sabres - Jaroslav Kristek) in 1998.In large part a salary move, but not a bad return. Donovan never turned out until last year.

Colorado Avalanche traded Landon Wilson and Anders Myrvold to the Boston Bruins for 1st round selection (Robyn Regehr) in 1998.Boston should stop dealing with Lacroix

Washington Capitals traded Keith Jones, a 1st round selection (Scott Parker) in 1998 and a 4th round selection (later traded back to Washington - Krys Barch) in 1998 to the Colorado Avalanche for Curtis Leschyshyn and Chris Simon.Simon was in the midst of a hold out, didn't like fighting anymore Leschy like him but nothing special. Jones later got swapped for Shjon Podien and soon after fell off a cliff, that turned out to be a steal. Podien got swapped in a lateral move for Keane and he's done unfortunately.

Colorado Avalanche traded Stephane Fiset and 1st round selection (Mathieu Biron) in 1998 to the Los Angeles Kings for Eric Lacroix and 1st round selection (Martin Skoula) in 1998.Fiset was a spare part who got replaced by Craig Billington on th waiver wire. Whole lot of nothing here. Works out to Kurt Sauer and Darby Hendrickson.


Yep and yep. Dave Draper found us alot of talent, them included he stayed on until 98. shame to lose him.
Which he picked.



I don't see Page anywhere now. Credit has to go to Gauthier and Draper for their scouting acumen, yeah Page insured they'd pick forth in 91-92 (Todd Warriner), but his predecesors got him the number 1's overall and Hockey Hershel Walker. Had a good draft in 93, I think you're overrating Page a tad.

You are completely missing the point on all those trades. Sure, many of them have worked out well for the Avalanche. The point is, because of the bulging cupboard left to him by Page, he was able to acquire EVERY single player he ever needed in order to win the Cups that they have won. I honestly don't believe any current NHL GM or Assistant GM (with the possible exception of Mike Milbury) would have achieved any less than 2 Stanley Cups walking into the same situation Lacroix walked into. It's not that I'm overrating Page - any of those GMs could also finish at or near the bottom as many times as Page did too.

salzy is offline  
Old
05-29-2005, 08:24 PM
  #55
ClassicHockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 591
vCash: 500
Expansion draft

In his book, Imlach says that the Rochester & Victoria teams were sold before the draft, yet some of those players were drafted from the Leafs and others were pulled back. This may seem trivial to most people but to a Leaf fan of that era, I was always wondering why the Leafs faired so poorly in the draft and their bad moves set the franchise back. And we all know what happened to the Leafs since the '67 Cup.

The Leafs lost Mike Corrigan, Larry Keenan, Bill Flett, Lowell MacDonald in the later rounds and all those young players could have helped the Leafs. It just astounds me that he pulled back players like Les Duff, Norm Armstrong, Stan Smrke among other Rochester players. Those players were never going to play in the NHL again.

I wonder if the Leafs had an agreement to keep those players in Rochester because of the conditions of the sale. Typically, the Toronto press at that time didn't question any of Imlach's strange moves.

[QUOTE=Lowetide]To the best of my knowledge:

1-Terry Sawchuk (pullback-Al Smith)
2-Gary Smith (no pullback)
3-Bob Baun (Murray Oliver)
4-Kent Douglas (Allan Stanley)
5-Eddie Joyal (no pullback)
6-Al Arbour (no pullback)
7-Brit Selby (no pullback)
8-Larry Jeffrey (George Armstrong)
9-Don Blackburn (Duane Rupp)
10-Darryl Edestrand (Darrly Sly)
11-Terry Clancy (Red Kelly)
12-Larry Keenan (Gerry Ehman)
13-Mike Corrigan (Dick Gamble)
14-Autry Erickson (Don Cherry)
15-Fred Hucul (Norm Armstrong)
16-Mike Laughton (Bronco Horvath)
17-Lowell MacDonald (Les Duff)
18-John Brenneman (Barry Watson)
19-Bill Flett (Stan Smrke)
20-Gary Veneruzzo (Milan Marcetta)

ClassicHockey is offline  
Old
05-29-2005, 08:25 PM
  #56
Hasbro
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Hasbro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: South Rectangle
Country: Sami
Posts: 29,571
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by salzy
You are completely missing the point on all those trades. Sure, many of them have worked out well for the Avalanche.
Why did you emphasise he had "OVERpaid"? And take issue with the trades half of which were incorrect under you analysis.
Quote:
The point is, because of the bulging cupboard left to him by Page, he was able to acquire EVERY single player he ever needed in order to win the Cups that they have won.
Page was hired in 1991-92 which came after Nolan, Sundin, Lindros, Foote, Kovalenko, Fiset, Leschy. So Thibault and Deadmarsh were his picks. Aubut had his hands in the Lindros trade, it was Gauthier that insisted Forsberg be part of the deal.
Quote:
I honestly don't believe any current NHL GM or Assistant GM (with the possible exception of Mike Milbury) would have achieved any less than 2 Stanley Cups walking into the same situation Lacroix walked into.
And Glen Sather is undefeated since he got the Rangers budget. History is litered with teams squandering resources and not putting it together. The Caps got 5 compensitory 1sts for Scott Stevens and now are picking first. Esposito got 4 1sts hand delivered to him and handed them strait back. Ottawa, on the verge, but who knows.
Quote:
It's not that I'm overrating Page - any of those GMs could also finish at or near the bottom as many times as Page did too.
Well they aren't.

ETA: If any Gm can do what Lacroix did, why did he come away with bourque when all the other contenders? And for a relatively small price?

Montreal only took offers for Roy from Colorado?

Same with Blake?


Last edited by Hasbro: 05-30-2005 at 06:06 AM.
Hasbro is online now  
Old
05-30-2005, 02:58 PM
  #57
Drury_Sakic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,256
vCash: 500
No one is saying PL did not have the resources to work with...


BUT..... its what he did with them that should give him his due....

You can say he had all that talent and stock to trade away..... but anyone else look at those trades and see that for the most part the stuff he cast off was crap or on a decline?

That is PL's skill...the ability to pass of junk as something worth having...

Again.. I am not saying PL is not overated in some ways... but gotta give credit where credit is due....

It really is too bad that last season did not happen... It would have been a true test for PL's teambuilding skills.... No Forsberg(though because of injurys that happens alot anyways..).... The team lost a few guys.... a new coach...... a fair amount of new 3rd/4th liners that were brought in on the UFA market that looked good and would have changed the makeup of the team.... It would have been a real test of PL's skills and settled the debate about his ability...

Drury_Sakic is offline  
Old
05-31-2005, 05:31 AM
  #58
tinyzombies
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Calif via Montreal
Posts: 11,363
vCash: 500
It's hard to measure guys like Lacroix and Holland because Holland has/had Bowman and both are under orders from their owners to buy a winner, and perhaps even a particular player. If left to their own devices, their teams would probably have looked a lot different.

Conn Smythe's name hasn't been brought up here either, probably because of the long drought the Leafs went through until Selke rehabilitated them. But Smythe was the guy who signed all the original Rangers (the core of which won two Cups) and the original Leafs. He also probably taught Selke a lot (though Selke was less of a gambler).

Selke never dealt with the entry draft or with draft picks, but it's not rocket science. I'm sure he would have mastered it just fine. I don't think Selke ever made a trade that backfired on him. Not that I can think of. The Habs almost traded Maurice Richard to the Rangers in the early 40s, but I think that was before Selke and that was because the Rocket kept getting injured.

tinyzombies is offline  
Old
06-01-2005, 01:32 PM
  #59
salzy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Windsor
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,048
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hasbro
Why did you emphasise he had "OVERpaid"? And take issue withthe trades half of which were incorrect under you analysis.[/i]
Because a) when you look at the trades in terms of present value when they were made (ie not in hindsight), I think he did overpay in a number of them and b) I don't believe I was incorrect on half of them - I was pulling them off the top of my head and had the jist of it right. In my mind, the precise details of each deal aren't so important - it's more important to look at the fact that he inherited the assets to go after and acquire each and every piece of the puzzle that struck his fancy without fear of being outbid.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hasbro
Page was hired in 1991-92 which came after Nolan, Sundin, Lindros, Foote, Kovalenko, Fiset, Leschy. So Thibault and Deadmarsh were his picks. Aubut had his hands in the Lindros trade, it was Gauthier that insisted Forsberg be part of the deal.[/i]
Again, I am not touting Page as a great GM either. I am saying Lacroix inherited a franchise that was so stacked that Stanley Cup success was virtually inevitable. Whomever you decide he inherited it from.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hasbro
And Glen Sather is undefeated since he got the Rangers budget. History is litered with teams squandering resources and not putting it together. The Caps got 5 compensitory 1sts for Scott Stevens and now are picking first. Esposito got 4 1sts hand delivered to him and handed them strait back. Ottawa, on the verge, but who knows.[/i]
Yes, Sather has the Rangers budget, but thanks to Neil Smith, he inherited an organization that was completely barren of even decent prospects. He had the cash, but not the talent pool. Apples-Oranges, my friend.

Yes, the caps got 5 firsts for Stevens but none of them were near the quality that the Nords picks were and they also didn't have the fruits of the Lindros trade (since they didn't finish last and draft Lindros). And with Abe Pollin as the owner, they didn't have the cash either. They had neither the prospects nor the cash. Apples-Oranges again. Actually, more like Apples-watermelons.

Yesm Espo got those 4 firsts (again, 4 late firsts) and was basically forced to hand them right back. Even if he didn't, he wasn't around long enough to use them. And they were nearly bankrupt, so they certainly didn't have the cash. Apples-oranges again.

But the Bolts are a good example of another team that, if you finish at or near the bottom often enough, you are nearly certain to climb to the top some day.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hasbro
Well they aren't.
Sorry, don't know what you mean there. I think you are under the misconception that I am trying to praise Page. I'm not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hasbro
ETA: If any Gm can do what Lacroix did, why did he come away with bourque when all the other contenders? And for a relatively small price?
It wasn't a small price and at the time (again, NOT in hindsight), it was thought to be a relatively large price compared to what Boston was thought to be seeking for Bourque. Some Boston fans were furious with Sinden for trading Bourque to Colorado and getting so much back instead of taking less in return and sending him to one of his preferred destinations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hasbro
Montreal only took offers for Roy from Colorado?
Read the thread. I already gave Lacroix due credit for orchestrating his former client's arrival in Denver. Of course they only took offers from Colorado - that's the only place he would go.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hasbro
Same with Blake?
Huh?

salzy is offline  
Old
06-01-2005, 01:37 PM
  #60
salzy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Windsor
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,048
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drury_Sakic
No one is saying PL did not have the resources to work with...

BUT..... its what he did with them that should give him his due....

You can say he had all that talent and stock to trade away..... but anyone else look at those trades and see that for the most part the stuff he cast off was crap or on a decline?

That is PL's skill...the ability to pass of junk as something worth having...
Is Regehr junk? Rolston? Miller? Deadmarsh? Ricci? Simon? Need I go on? He has made some good trades. He has had virtually a bottomless pool of assets to work with. No other GM has had such a luxury.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drury_Sakic
It really is too bad that last season did not happen... It would have been a true test for PL's teambuilding skills.... No Forsberg(though because of injurys that happens alot anyways..).... The team lost a few guys.... a new coach...... a fair amount of new 3rd/4th liners that were brought in on the UFA market that looked good and would have changed the makeup of the team.... It would have been a real test of PL's skills and settled the debate about his ability...
Exactly. This is what I want to see before I'm impressed with him. We've seen him take a nearly ready-made team to a couple Cups. We've seen him tear it down to a certain extent, albeit not all the way yet. Let's see if he can build it up again. My guess is he'll be moving on before that happens.

salzy is offline  
Old
06-01-2005, 07:40 PM
  #61
arnie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 520
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RMU2
No love for Craig Patrick? I dunno if he is the best but should atleast be mentioned.
Craig Patrick has be terrible the last 10 years. He walked into a team of all-stars, Lemieux, Barasso, Stevens, Recchi, etc and made one giood trade and one good draft pick in 1991. He's been living off of that for years. He's made some of the worst trades in history. What do the following players have in common: Larry Murphy, Markus Naslund, Alexei Kovalev, Jaromir Jagr, Patrick LaLime, Mark Recchi, Paul Coffe, Sergei Zubov, Stu Barnes, Darius Kasparitis, Glenn Murray and Scott Young. Answer: they are all players that Patrick has traded away for nothing. His drafting and choice of coaches has been just as bad.

arnie is offline  
Old
06-01-2005, 09:29 PM
  #62
Lowetide
Registered User
 
Lowetide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,281
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClassicHockey
In his book, Imlach says that the Rochester & Victoria teams were sold before the draft, yet some of those players were drafted from the Leafs and others were pulled back. This may seem trivial to most people but to a Leaf fan of that era, I was always wondering why the Leafs faired so poorly in the draft and their bad moves set the franchise back. And we all know what happened to the Leafs since the '67 Cup.
I think there are three main reasons:

1. They did have a lot of talent. That specific draft is something of a hobby of mine and Toronto had some terrific players at all levels. The list of names of defenseman for instance is very impressive. Aside from Horton and Hillman and Pronovost and Stanley, they also had Carl Brewer on the restricted list and lost Bob Baun and Kent Douglas. Both of them were quality.

The best defenseman outside the NHL that season was very likely Al Arbour, and his defense partner (Duane Rupp) was voted best AHL defenseman that season. That's almost two 5 man sets of NHL calibre Dmen playing in Toronto and Rochester. It's impressive.

They lost fringe NHLers like Autry Erickson and Fred Hucul, and a quality prospect in Darryl Edestrand (Scotty Bowman had inside knowledge of that player). They pulled back guys who could play (Darryl Sly, Don Cherry has said some nice things about him over the years).

2. They had alot of talent bubbling under so the idea of losing a few players was probably viewed as an evil that wouldn't cause any kind of free fall. Look at the list of their young Dmen:
  1. Jim McKenny who was a skilled two way defender. Had outstanding potential
  2. Jim Dorey, who was an impressive player. Tough, tough, tough.
  3. Mike Pelyk who was highly thought of
  4. Brian Glennie who I think was in the Olympic system but who could play
  5. Rick Ley who was in junior at the time of the draft but would arrive pretty quickly

3. Imlach. I think he always felt he could win, which is probably not what you want from your GM but is exactly what you want your coach thinking. Imlach probably pulled back Gerry Ehman because he thought Ehman could contribute more to a 1968 Cup win should he need to be re-called.

My two cents.

Lowetide is offline  
Old
06-01-2005, 11:53 PM
  #63
Hasbro
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Hasbro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: South Rectangle
Country: Sami
Posts: 29,571
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by salzy
Because a) when you look at the trades in terms of present value when they were made (ie not in hindsight), I think he did overpay in a number of them and
If you want to remove hindsight from the equation. Regher for Fluery et. al looks alot better Fluery was a big help beating the Wings that year which was almost as important as winning the cup (think if Ottawa could beat Toronto and lose in the finals) and Regher had his car accident soon after.

I never heard complaints about Nolan Ozolinsh until Ozo left town.

Drury-Morris doesn't look as bad. No one was happy, but Morris looked a hell of alot better than

Taken in context trading for the four firsts looks alot better. All four teams drafted in the top ten the previous year and weren't expected to make great turn arounds. The intention was to draft Lecavalier



Quote:
b) I don't believe I was incorrect on half of them - I was pulling them off the top of my head and had the jist of it right.
"Kaspar for alot" was missing the gyst. Most of the deals save Blake you have the Avs giving up more than they actualy did.)
Quote:
In my mind, the precise details of each deal aren't so important - it's more important to look at the fact that he inherited the assets to go after and acquire each and every piece of the puzzle that struck his fancy without fear of being outbid.
Well the Bourque deal works out to two players he drafted (Grenier and Pahlson) A first (mostl likely 24 or lower) and A player he traded for (Rolston) who he got for a player he traded for (Lemeiux) who he got for a player he traded for (Clark) who was part of a deal for an inherited asset.

Blake=2 1sts (again late in the first round) a player he inhereted and fought off advances for for years (Deadmarsh), A player he inhereted in (Aaron Miller) who was a throw in in 1991 and didn't make the team until 1996-97. Again consensus at the time was that LA exacted a fair price for Blake, but no one was expecting this deal because rumor had it they were deadset on a goalie prospect.





Quote:
Again, I am not touting Page as a great GM either. I am saying Lacroix inherited a franchise that was so stacked that Stanley Cup success was virtually inevitable. Whomever you decide he inherited it from.
The "virtual" is a pretty big qualifier. It's alot easier in theory than in practice and you always think you're going to get more than you do.



Quote:
Yes, Sather has the Rangers budget, but thanks to Neil Smith, he inherited an organization that was completely barren of even decent prospects. He had the cash, but not the talent pool. Apples-Oranges, my friend.

Yes, the caps got 5 firsts for Stevens but none of them were near the quality that the Nords picks were and they also didn't have the fruits of the Lindros trade (since they didn't finish last and draft Lindros). And with Abe Pollin as the owner, they didn't have the cash either. They had neither the prospects nor the cash. Apples-Oranges again. Actually, more like Apples-watermelons.

Yesm Espo got those 4 firsts (again, 4 late firsts) and was basically forced to hand them right back. Even if he didn't, he wasn't around long enough to use them. And they were nearly bankrupt, so they certainly didn't have the cash. Apples-oranges again.
My point is plenty of people talk a good game. and you can find just as many people who squander advantages as people who actualy do anything with them.

Quote:
But the Bolts are a good example of another team that, if you finish at or near the bottom often enough, you are nearly certain to climb to the top some day.
Trust me I was a Rockies fan, that isn't neccisarily the case. The Caps haven't, Canes/Whale, Winnipeg/Phoenix, Ottawa still might but hasn't yet.


Quote:
Sorry, don't know what you mean there. I think you are under the misconception that I am trying to praise Page. I'm not.
I gues this would be the rare case of success having no authors



Quote:
It wasn't a small price and at the time (again, NOT in hindsight), it was thought to be a relatively large price compared to what Boston was thought to be seeking for Bourque. Some Boston fans were furious with Sinden for trading Bourque to Colorado and getting so much back instead of taking less in return and sending him to one of his preferred destinations.
Here you are way off. When the Bourque lottery started the hang up with dealing him to Philly was that Sinden wanted Gagne and that Detroit was balking because Sinden wanted Fischer. A comprable asset from Colorado's stable would have been Tanguay, Drury, or Deadmarsh, I'll strech and say Skoula. Pahlson was not rated that highly, he came to camp, got rave notices, but was something short of a blue chip. Pahlson also went back to Sweden for the year so he wasn't of use for a cup run. Grenier was a 2nd from a crappy draft 99 and i remember ESPN joking he'd get 200 Pims in the AHL some day. Low first as always. So the only on roster asset traded was Rolston who had 8 goals and 10 assists in 50 games for the Avs. It was later that he turned his career back around. The risk for dealing fo Bourque was if they didn't win a cup would Bourque resing with a team in the west or go to one back east, which alot of pundits predicted would have kept Colorado out of the deal all together



Quote:
Read the thread. I already gave Lacroix due credit for orchestrating his former client's arrival in Denver. Of course they only took offers from Colorado - that's the only place he would go.
I believe Detroit made some well documented offers, there were 12 other teams in the west who could have chalanged or potetinaily presented a challenge for Roy. If Montreal didn't aproach the deal prentending as such they are beyond stupid. As it was they didn't need to trade Roy if they could have had a sitdown about the whole issue. When they did call Corey said he would only trade Roy if he could get Thibault. Yeah everyone makes that deal in a second, how could they not throw Deadmarsh on as part of the deal? And he got Keane as a throw in. Do I make Thibault and Deadmarsh for Roy? Yes I don't think anyone wouldn't, but Lacroix somehow kept his obvious prospect out of the deal.


Last edited by Hasbro: 06-01-2005 at 11:59 PM.
Hasbro is online now  
Old
06-02-2005, 08:09 AM
  #64
salzy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Windsor
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,048
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hasbro
If you want to remove hindsight from the equation. Regher for Fluery et. al looks alot better Fluery was a big help beating the Wings that year which was almost as important as winning the cup (think if Ottawa could beat Toronto and lose in the finals) and Regher had his car accident soon after.
Then by that same token, if you want to remove hindsight from the occasion, he gave up a hell of a lot in some of the other trades. You can't have it both ways - some worked out for them, some didn't. I was never interested in breaking down the trades one by one. I'm not sure how more emphatic I can be about this - He has made some good trades. He has had virtually a bottomless pool of assets to work with. No other GM has had such a luxury.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hasbro
I never heard complaints about Nolan Ozolinsh until Ozo left town.
Not complaining. Just saying he had enormous depth in the organization that enabled him to trade a franchise player for a pretty one dimensional defenseman.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hasbro
Drury-Morris doesn't look as bad. No one was happy, but Morris looked a hell of alot better than
So are we looking at this one in hindsight or not? How about we just don't look at it either way and just agree that he was able to make the trade because of the amazing depth the Avs had?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hasbro
"Kaspar for alot" was missing the gyst. Most of the deals save Blake you have the Avs giving up more than they actualy did.
Like I said, was pulling them off the top of my head. I don't have all the specifics of all of his deals memorized. I do know that he's made a lot of them and you might even be able build a cup winner with the talent that he's sent away. You are focusing on the micro details when it's the macro issue that is the point. Forget about the trees for a minute - look at the whole forest.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hasbro
Well the Bourque deal works out to two players he drafted (Grenier and Pahlson) A first (mostl likely 24 or lower) and A player he traded for (Rolston) who he got for a player he traded for (Lemeiux) who he got for a player he traded for (Clark) who was part of a deal for an inherited asset.

Blake=2 1sts (again late in the first round) a player he inhereted and fought off advances for for years (Deadmarsh), A player he inhereted in (Aaron Miller) who was a throw in in 1991 and didn't make the team until 1996-97. Again consensus at the time was that LA exacted a fair price for Blake, but no one was expecting this deal because rumor had it they were deadset on a goalie prospect.
If you are implying that Rolston and Miller aren't good players, I think you are really stretching. Regardless, I have to ask, has any other GM ever had the kind of depth that would allow them to make these deals? Of course not. That's why Lacroix is always at the middle of them. Yes, LA got fair value for Blake - Lacroix has pretty much single handedly established what fair value is for a UFA rental. More importantly, most other teams giving up 2 players of that quality would have gutted their team - or at least created 2 holes to fill a need in another area. Not the case with an organization that had built up that much depth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hasbro
The "virtual" is a pretty big qualifier. It's alot easier in theory than in practice and you always think you're going to get more than you do.
Yes, I agree - in the early 90s I thought the Nords/Avs would win more than 2 Cups in the next 15 years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hasbro
My point is plenty of people talk a good game. and you can find just as many people who squander advantages as people who actualy do anything with them.
And my point is you can't find a person who has squander the advantages that Lacroix inherited because nobody has ever inherited anywhere near the kind of advantages he has.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hasbro
Trust me I was a Rockies fan, that isn't neccisarily the case. The Caps haven't, Canes/Whale, Winnipeg/Phoenix, Ottawa still might but hasn't yet.
Thus the 'nearly'. In any event 2 of the franchises you mentioned have been to the finals in the last 10 years. Not even a storied franchise like Toronto has done that in the modern era, so it's not a small feat. The others, in my opinion, have had either not even time or other circumstances that interfered with their natural progression (ie - shaky ownership, moving cities, etc). Regardless, NONE of the teams you mentioned ever had the kind of organizational depth Lacroix inherited.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hasbro
I gues this would be the rare case of success having no authors
On the contrary, I would say it's the common case of success having MANY authors.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hasbro
Here you are way off. When the Bourque lottery started the hang up with dealing him to Philly was that Sinden wanted Gagne and that Detroit was balking because Sinden wanted Fischer.
I'm not way off. That's precisely why Boston fans were so hacked off with Sinden. Their preference was Sinden TAKE LESS and send their hero where he wanted to go. As is so often the case, Lacroix came in with his one time, take it or leave it best offer and got the player he wanted. Because he could.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hasbro
I believe Detroit made some well documented offers, there were 12 other teams in the west who could have chalanged or potetinaily presented a challenge for Roy. If Montreal didn't aproach the deal prentending as such they are beyond stupid. As it was they didn't need to trade Roy if they could have had a sitdown about the whole issue. When they did call Corey said he would only trade Roy if he could get Thibault. Yeah everyone makes that deal in a second, how could they not throw Deadmarsh on as part of the deal? And he got Keane as a throw in. Do I make Thibault and Deadmarsh for Roy? Yes I don't think anyone wouldn't, but Lacroix somehow kept his obvious prospect out of the deal.
I don't think there is any point in rehashing the Roy trade. It's a given that the had Montreal over a barrel and everyone involved - Roy, Lacroix, Corey, Tremblay, and everyone else - knew it. And if we're looking in hindsight, let's not forget many people thought (HORRIBLY INCORRECTLY) Roy's career was winding down. When you consider all those factor's, I'm pretty impressed with the return they were able to get for Roy. But again, for me this has nothing to do with each individual trade and who won and lost them - it has everything to do with one guy having a huge competitive advantage over every other GM in the league.

salzy is offline  
Old
06-02-2005, 10:39 AM
  #65
Trottier
Very Random
 
Trottier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 27,494
vCash: 500
I always get a good chuckle out of posters who deconstruct the trading history of a GM in order to condemn him. In this case, Lacroix.

A GM's job is not to make nice trades that look good on Fantasy boards to people afflicted with prospectitis.

His job is TO WIN STANLEY CUPS.

Player procurement is a means to that end, not an end unto itslef. Big difference. Hence hyper-analyzing each transaction alone (read: out of context) is worthless.

If a guy who has assembled a perennial serious Cup contender and a team that has won two Cups in over the last decade is overated, guess every other GM outside of NJ and Detroit are idiots.

And Lacroix has "advantages"? So what? So too do other franchise$ and they have won nothing (NYR, Toronto, etc.).

And the idea that he should be criticized for paying out big bucks in order to RETAIN to some of the very elite talent in the league - Forsberg, Sakic, Blake, Foote, Roy - is positively bizarre. What was he supposed to do? Let them walk and reeeeeebuild a superb team in mid-stream? (The favorite word on HF.) No, instead, he just keeps adding on, Colorado keeps producing winning, highly competitive teams...meanwhile in the bizarro-logic world of some HF posters, they should be slammed and bottom-feeders like Columbus and Florida should be applauded. After all, look at those teams' lineup of shiny prosssssspects and low budget. Exciting!


Last edited by Trottier: 06-02-2005 at 10:50 AM.
Trottier is offline  
Old
06-02-2005, 11:09 AM
  #66
GentlemanOfLeisure
Ride Space Mountain
 
GentlemanOfLeisure's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: East Windsor NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 5,960
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RMU2
No love for Craig Patrick? I dunno if he is the best but should atleast be mentioned.

here are two good stories about Herb Brooks, just seemed like a good place to put them... he was talking about this guy the pens had on the ice one training camp and said there is something about him, he can definately play... well as the story goes the pens waived him anyway but he cleared and started off as our 7th dman that year. That player was Dick Tarnstrom. The other is in every round after the first Herb tried to get the pens to draft Ryan Malone, well he fell far enough where the pens eventually took him. The one thing about herb is he saw something no one else could sometimes as a scout. RIP herbie
Craig Patrick should go in the NHL hall of fame as a GM for the Ron Francis trade alone.

But Lou Lamoriello is the best GM of all time.

GentlemanOfLeisure is offline  
Old
06-02-2005, 12:14 PM
  #67
salzy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Windsor
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,048
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trottier
I always get a good chuckle out of posters who deconstruct the trading history of a GM in order to condemn him. In this case, Lacroix.

A GM's job is not to make nice trades that look good on Fantasy boards to people afflicted with prospectitis.

His job is TO WIN STANLEY CUPS.

Player procurement is a means to that end, not an end unto itslef. Big difference. Hence hyper-analyzing each transaction alone (read: out of context) is worthless.

If a guy who has assembled a perennial serious Cup contender and a team that has won two Cups in over the last decade is overated, guess every other GM outside of NJ and Detroit are idiots.

And Lacroix has "advantages"? So what? So too do other franchise$ and they have won nothing (NYR, Toronto, etc.).

And the idea that he should be criticized for paying out big bucks in order to RETAIN to some of the very elite talent in the league - Forsberg, Sakic, Blake, Foote, Roy - is positively bizarre. What was he supposed to do? Let them walk and reeeeeebuild a superb team in mid-stream? (The favorite word on HF.) No, instead, he just keeps adding on, Colorado keeps producing winning, highly competitive teams...meanwhile in the bizarro-logic world of some HF posters, they should be slammed and bottom-feeders like Columbus and Florida should be applauded. After all, look at those teams' lineup of shiny prosssssspects and low budget. Exciting!
I think you need to go back and read the entire thread. Nobody has said Lacroix hasn't done a good job. Nobody has said he didn't do the right thing paying big bucks to retain the players he retained. In case you missed it, the thread is called "Best Executive in NHL History?" As good a job as Lacroix has done procuring players, with the competitive advantage he inherited in Colorado he has no business being part of the conversation.

salzy is offline  
Old
06-02-2005, 01:16 PM
  #68
StevenintheATL
Registered User
 
StevenintheATL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: The ATL!
Country: United States
Posts: 2,747
vCash: 500
Show PL some love. If he wouldn't have fired Bob Hartley, who knows who Don Waddell would have gotten to coach the Thrashers!


It's really hard to classify who is the best executive in NHL history due to the various eras of the league. But like it was mentioned earlier, Cliff Fletcher's name should be mentioned as one of the better executives of the modern era just by his time with the Flames alone.

StevenintheATL is offline  
Old
06-02-2005, 01:32 PM
  #69
Trottier
Very Random
 
Trottier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 27,494
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by salzy
...with the competitive advantage he inherited in Colorado he has no business being part of the conversation.
The old "he is put in a good position, so he doesn't deserve as much credit" rationale.

Yep, and Gretzky played with hall of famers, so his numbers are diminished. (Likewise, his linemates simply "leeched" off of him, so it is suggested. ) And Brodeur and Roy play(ed) on great teams, so they are not as good as their records suggest. One reads such logic on these boards frequently.

And here, the GM who happens engineer two Cup winners and counting "has no business being part of the conversation" by virtue of his enormous advantage$.

Sorry, weak excuse, IMO. Life's unfair, you know? Some are put into better situations than others. Regardless, being out in a favorable situation and optimizing it are two different things. You make it sound like anyone could have managed Colorado to equivalent success the last 10+ years.

No argument here that he is not in the company (yet) of Pollack, Torrey and the like, all-time. Among contemporaries, he unquestionably is near the very top.


Last edited by Trottier: 06-02-2005 at 01:43 PM.
Trottier is offline  
Old
06-02-2005, 01:49 PM
  #70
salzy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Windsor
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,048
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trottier
The old tired, "he is put in a good position, so he doesn't deserve as much credit" rationale.
If it's tired and old it's probably because it is used so often. If it's used that often, it's bound to me correct at least a portion of the time, wouldn't you say? And there's 'being put in a position to succeed' and 'being put in a position where you can't fail'. I'd say Lacroix walked into the latter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trottier
And here, the GM who happens to succeed "has no business being part of the conversation" by virtue of his engineering Cup winners. Fascinating.
...
No argument here that he is not in the company (yet) of Pollack, Torrey and the like, all-time. Among contemporaries, he unquestionably is near the very top.
So are you disagreeing with me or agreeing? He's either not part of the conversation or he's in the company of Pollack, Torrey, etc. Among contemporaries, I need to see what he can do now that it's been torn down to a certain extent. He's still got the nucleus, so he's not starting from scratch. Let's see what he can do before we rank him with Lamoriello.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trottier
Sorry, weak excuse, IMO. Life's unfair, you know? Some are put into better situations than others. Regardless, being out in a favorable situation and optimizing it are two different things. You make it sound like anyone could have managed Colorado to equivalent success the last 10+ years.
"Life's unfair"? Try telling Lacroix that! I'd say life has been pretty fair to Pierre. As for the success they've had the past 10+ years - I'm glad I'm making it sound that way because that's exactly the point. Like I said before - anyone (with the exception of Milbury) could have managed less than 2 Cups with the huge inheritance Lacroix came into. I don't feel he "optimized" it whatsoever. If you told me 15 years ago that franchise was only headed for 2 Cups in the next 15 years, I'd have certainly thought that estimate a little on the low side.

salzy is offline  
Old
06-02-2005, 02:09 PM
  #71
Trottier
Very Random
 
Trottier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 27,494
vCash: 500
I respect your POV, just disagree with it.

I don't view Lacroix as an under-achiever, and do not pass off as lightly as you his body of work over the last decade. As in: "Yeah sure, but now let's see what he can do!?

Winning a single Cup is a terrific achievement, IMO, and shouldn't be disregarded. Has the Av's franchise under-achieved? Well, as long as they possess their current core, the verdict is still out, and I'll grant you that the expectation here was/is for 2+ Cups over this period of time (and I'm not even an Avs fan).

And no, as you suggest, he does not rank with Lamariello, whom I consider by far the best executive/manager in all of professional sports, along with Bill Bellicheck and Gregg Popovich.

But the extent to which you belittle Lacroix's accomplishments is odd.

Regardless, my overall point was that judging a GM by Cups won is a lot more germane than subjectively looking at individual trades on a standalone basis.

Just my opinion.

Trottier is offline  
Old
06-02-2005, 02:30 PM
  #72
salzy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Windsor
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,048
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trottier
I respect your POV, just disagree with it.
Good, same here!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trottier
I don't view Lacroix as an under-achiever, and do not pass off as lightly as you his body of work over the last decade. As in: "Yeah sure, but now let's see what he can do!?

Winning a single Cup is a terrific achievement, IMO, and shouldn't be disregarded.
I agree 100%. But even that has been done over a hundred times, so that alone is not enough to nominate you as the best exec in NHL History. It's a pretty old league. And in fairness, if you read what I originally said, I'm really not trying to take away from his accomplishment. I said something along the lines of "if anything, I could be convinced 2 Cups is an UNDERachievement". ie - if someone asked me "would you consider 2 Cups with what he inherited an overachievement or an underachievement?" I would lean towards underachievement. Like most things though, it's not black and white - somewhere in the middle.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trottier
Has the Av's franchise under-achieved? Well, as long as they possess their current core, the verdict is still out, and I'll grant you that the expectation here was/is for 2+ Cups over this period of time (and I'm not even an Avs fan).
Very good point - they might very well still have a Cup or 2 in them. If they were to squeeze out another one, I'd say that would definitely be an impressive accomplishment and I would change my position from leaning a little to the underachievement side of center to a little the other way. 2 Cups is very very impressive. 3 Championships, in this day and age of sport, is a dynasty IMO.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trottier
And no, as you suggest, he does not rank with Lamariello, whom I consider by far the best executive/manager in all of professional sports, along with Bill Bellicheck and Gregg Popovich.
Very nice list. Joe Dumars needs a little more time and he might make that list too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trottier
But the extent to which you belittle Lacroix's accomplishments is odd.
I honestly don't mean to belittle his accomplishments at all. I just think he's a little overrated and even at least one Avs fan has agreed with me on that. It was Holland who I really took issue with being mentioned. I really should not have allowed myself to get involved in the microscopic examination of individual trades. Those were red herrings that really distracted from the more general point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trottier
Regardless, my overall point was that judging a GM by Cups won is a lot more germane than subjectively looking at individual trades on a standalone basis.
Yes, I agree - but you can't simply look at the list of Cup winning GMs. You need to also examine the circumstances of their tenure and most importantly, the tools and assets they were given with which to work their magic. Personally, I am much more impressed with Jay Feaster's single Cup than the 2 won by Lacroix. Just my opinion too.

salzy is offline  
Old
06-02-2005, 02:38 PM
  #73
norrisnick
Registered User
 
norrisnick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 16,243
vCash: 500
Don't forget that even with great expectations for Lacroix and the Avalanche that the Wings and the Devils had a hefty stake in that department as well. Of the three I'd argue that the Wings ought to have more cups than they do moreso than the other two. And even then for a 9 year span only those three and Dallas managed to win a cup. Those three franchises ensured that none of them would be hailed as a dynasty though all had worthy teams to become one.

norrisnick is offline  
Old
06-02-2005, 03:14 PM
  #74
salzy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Windsor
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,048
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by norrisnick
Don't forget that even with great expectations for Lacroix and the Avalanche that the Wings and the Devils had a hefty stake in that department as well. Of the three I'd argue that the Wings ought to have more cups than they do moreso than the other two. And even then for a 9 year span only those three and Dallas managed to win a cup. Those three franchises ensured that none of them would be hailed as a dynasty though all had worthy teams to become one.
I think the definition of a dynasty is a lot different now than it was during the Habs and Islanders era, the Cowboys & Yankees of the 70s, the Lakers and Celtics, and so forth. I think in the modern era of professional sport, where money plays such a huge role that it's really an accomplishment just keeping a team together, if you can win 3 Cups in 5 or 6 years and be at or near the top of the standings for 10 years plus, to me, that's a dynasty. I agree with you that the Wings should have won more Cups. They were just a bit too slow getting started, but they definitely fit the description - 3 Cups in 10 years, mostly with the same group of guys. To me, they have been one of or the favourite every year going back to 93-94. Went to the finals another year, the semis a couple more and one of the years they didn't even make the finals they set an NHL record for wins. The Devils have been red hot some years and icy cold others. They missed the playoffs that one year, and there cups have been spread over a longer period, but still, you gotta recognize what they've done. Colorado still has a couple miles to go before I put them in with those 2 teams.

salzy is offline  
Old
06-02-2005, 04:07 PM
  #75
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,017
vCash: 500
Sam Pollock people no contest. After the Habs won all those Cups in the 50s under Frank Selke ( a good choice too) Pollock arrived in the fall of '64 and the Habs never stopped losing. Other than the '67 blemish to the Leafs they would have won 5 Cups in a row. Pollock groomed the likes of Savard, Lapointe, Tremblay, Lafleur, Dryden, Shutt, Lemaire, Robinson etc. He ended up with the greatest team of all time in '77. From '64 to his departure in '78 he won nine Cups!

Big Phil is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:59 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.