HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Nashville Predators
Notices

David Poile, from good to stagnant (long)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-17-2010, 12:31 PM
  #101
triggrman
HFBoards Sponsor
 
triggrman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Nashville
Country: United States
Posts: 16,717
vCash: 500
Poile's problem is also his greatest asset. He's safe. I mean let's face it, trading 2 draft picks for Steve Sullivan wasn't hard to do.

I think the Forsberg deal was pushed more by Liarpold as it was completely away from Poile's norm...

triggrman is offline  
Old
03-17-2010, 12:38 PM
  #102
nine_inch_fang
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Spring Hill, TN
Country: United States
Posts: 1,506
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to nine_inch_fang
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viqsi View Post
LA is over 350 miles away from the Bay Area. (It's almost the same distance between Nashville and Columbus, amusingly enough.) But your other point stands just fine.

(And yes, I remember that largely because of one memorable idiot who seemed to think that Wayne Gretzky was the only reason "southern" markets survived, and that was his justification for the Bay Area. He didn't take it well when I pointed out how close Nashville is to St. Louis... )
Oh i realize the distance and other comparable distances but they are in the same state at least. I would even say if Atlanta would have been able to hold on to the Flames and wound up with Gretzky the effect in Nashville would have been major. Though not in the same state it's a comparable distance and a southern city that Nashvillians can relate to. Just look at the love affair with the Braves in middle tn.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dulzhok View Post
I'll admit, I can't really speak from the where the bulk of SJ's in-house is coming from. But it really doesn't matter. Only reason I brought it up is b/c some of people clamoring for an example of an expansion team that did better than us in the 1st 10 years.

I think the Preds have the potential to fill the barn on a nightly basis-- see our first two years here. But the fickle Nashville crowd, combinded with a non-traditional market, will make it hard if we don't anything in the playoffs.
I guess for me the problem is still market size....the Sharks were never afraid to spend money because of market size and the ridiculous amount .com/tech money flowing through that city at the time.

nine_inch_fang is offline  
Old
03-17-2010, 01:20 PM
  #103
dulzhok
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,528
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by glenngineer View Post
I'm not bashing these markets at all, I'm just refuting what you have been saying that if you make drastic moves, people will come to watch.
I never said making dramatic moves would increase attedance. I said making playoff noise is a sure-fire way to increase attendance. And I don't think you make playoff noise without making the right bold moves, and I'm not neccasily saying that means trading for a big-time player.

TB was virtually sold out the year after they won the cup, in a much bigger arena than us. Unfortunately, they went from being the best team in the league to one of the worst, and they lost all a lot of momentuem due to poor mgmt. Last year, even totally sucking, they average about 2K more than us.

Actually, I did answer your CBJ question. They suck. And if you want to take all pride in being better than them, you can. Yor point to the talent pool being smaller-- well we were the first team to come into the league of the 4, so in theory, we had to 2 years to gobble up all this talent before CBJ came into the league.

But again, I'm not here to compare. I'm here to look at the results, and what it's going to take to make us a competitive team in the playoffs. So I don't want to talk about Columbus again.


Last edited by Seth Lake: 03-17-2010 at 01:38 PM. Reason: Attack the argument, not the poster...
dulzhok is offline  
Old
03-17-2010, 01:28 PM
  #104
dulzhok
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,528
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by predeuce777 View Post
2008 offseason - First offseason under the new ownership. Trying to work out the budget, and with this ownership's goal being to break even, he knows that he can't go out there and get some ridiculous free agent.
I actually think the 2008 offseason was the worst in Poile's history. He did sign some ridiculous contracts-- Legwand, Dumont, and Erat. And those contracts are handicapping us right now from adding additional salary. We've got 20 million/yr tied up in 2nd/3rd/4th tier offensive players.

Additionally, the whole Radulov situation. I won't lay blame on Poile, but I will speculate that a more assertive/proactive GM could've step in and prevented the problem. When you lose your best offensive player for nothing, it's going to hurt.

dulzhok is offline  
Old
03-17-2010, 01:30 PM
  #105
glenngineer
Registered User
 
glenngineer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Spring Hill, TN
Country: United States
Posts: 3,883
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dulzhok View Post
I never said making dramatic moves would increase attedance. I said making playoff noise is a sure-fire way to increase attendance. And I don't think you make playoff noise without making the right bold moves.

TB was virtually sold out the year after they won the cup, in a much bigger arena than us. Unfortunately, they went from being the best team in the league to one of the worst, and they lost all a lot of momentuem due to poor mgmt. Last year, even totally sucking, they average about 2K more than us.

Actually, I did answer your CBJ question. They suck. And if you want to take all pride in being better than them, you can. Your point to the talent pool being smaller-- well we were the first team to come into the league of the 4, so in theory, we had to 2 years to gobble up all this talent before CBJ came into the league.

But again, I'm not here to compare. I'm here to look at the results, and what it's going to take to make us a competitive team in the playoffs. So I don't want to talk about Columbus again.
Your arguments and point of view may have some legs but the way you take all this stuff personally and lash out at others will make any of your points moot as no one around takes kindly to that.


Last edited by Seth Lake: 03-17-2010 at 01:39 PM. Reason: Keep it on-topic, attack the argument, not the poster...
glenngineer is offline  
Old
03-17-2010, 01:35 PM
  #106
dulzhok
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,528
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by triggrman View Post
Poile's problem is also his greatest asset. He's safe. I mean let's face it, trading 2 draft picks for Steve Sullivan wasn't hard to do.

I think the Forsberg deal was pushed more by Liarpold as it was completely away from Poile's norm...
I would agree with this.

And I agree that is is very bad asset manager. I can't really think of a good asset trade, where he traded a roster player or prospect or pending UFA for good value (Dunham is the only one I can think of) . If we don't make the playoffs, and we lose Hamhuis for nothing, it's going to add to this. We could've gotten a lot for him over the offseason, and counteracted the loss by signing a guy like Skrastins or similar.

I think "safe" is going to result in more of the same-- competitive for making the the playoffs, and a lot of first rd exits, which is his MO.


Last edited by dulzhok: 03-17-2010 at 02:04 PM.
dulzhok is offline  
Old
03-17-2010, 01:45 PM
  #107
dulzhok
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,528
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by glenngineer View Post
I hope you get banned for the personal attack. You calling me a liar is uncalled for. Your arguments and point of view may have some legs but the way you take all this stuff personally and lash out at others will make any of your points moot as no one around takes kindly to that.
You said I didn't compare our first 10 years to SJ when I clearly did. You said I failed to talk about CBJ when I clearly did. You said

Again, I'm not here to compare us to others, but you keep insisting that I do. I've humored you and have done it, then you come and say I didn't do it. Maybe lying was harsh... I guess you just over looked it?


Last edited by dulzhok: 03-17-2010 at 02:14 PM.
dulzhok is offline  
Old
03-17-2010, 02:09 PM
  #108
CloakroomCrusader
Registered User
 
CloakroomCrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Ohio St or Nashville
Country: United States
Posts: 931
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dulzhok View Post
I actually think the 2008 offseason was the worst in Poile's history. He did sign some ridiculous contracts-- Legwand, Dumont, and Erat. And those contracts are handicapping us right now from adding additional salary. We've got 20 million/yr tied up in 2nd/3rd/4th tier offensive players.

Additionally, the whole Radulov situation. I won't lay blame on Poile, but I will speculate that a more assertive/proactive GM could've step in and prevented the problem. When you lose your best offensive player for nothing, it's going to hurt.
Dumont (41 points) cap hit: 4 mil
Erat (44 points) cap hit: 4.5 mil
Thomas Vanek (44 points): 7.1 mil
Ryan Malone (44 pts): 4.5 mil
Olli Jokinen (44 pts): 5.25 mil
Ryan Smyth (42 pts): 6.25 mil

Legwand with only 36 points is having admittedly more of a down year, but lets face it look at his line mates. Not much to work with. Also, he does SO much more than just contribute on the offensive side of the ice.

CloakroomCrusader is offline  
Old
03-17-2010, 02:18 PM
  #109
dulzhok
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,528
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by predeuce777 View Post
Dumont (41 points) cap hit: 4 mil
Erat (44 points) cap hit: 4.5 mil
Thomas Vanek (44 points): 7.1 mil
Ryan Malone (44 pts): 4.5 mil
Olli Jokinen (44 pts): 5.25 mil
Ryan Smyth (42 pts): 6.25 mil

Legwand with only 36 points is having admittedly more of a down year, but lets face it look at his line mates. Not much to work with. Also, he does SO much more than just contribute on the offensive side of the ice.
So does Ryan Malone and Ryan Smith.

Pulling comps of other guys who aren't pulling their weight is faulty logic, IMO. I can pull a lot of comps of guys producing much better at those pay rates. Guys like Vanek and Jokinen are getting paid more than they should be, based on this years production.

Most teams have a bad contract or two. The problem is we have atleast 4 guys not living up to their big contract right now- Legwand, Dumont, Arnott, Sullivan. Erat-- we'll see how he ends the season. It's definitely the best year of his big contract.

When you are cash strapped team, having these big under performing contracts is going hurt you. It'll hurt any team, but especially a low budget team, because we don't have the ability to spend anymore.

I think another scary part is we just gave Rinne a 3 million dollar raise. We going to owe Hornquist atleat a 2m raise. We are going to owe Suter and Weber a 3 million dollar raise soon. And if we keep Hamhuis, that's another 2 million raise. That would put us right against the cap-- and that's just to maintain the status-quo of fighting for the 8th spot.


Last edited by dulzhok: 03-17-2010 at 02:26 PM.
dulzhok is offline  
Old
03-17-2010, 02:51 PM
  #110
lugnut76
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Detroit, Michigan
Country: United States
Posts: 157
vCash: 500
For poops and giggles, what do these "overpaid" players need to do to be worth their pay? If your arguement is that everything is about getting out of the first round of the playoffs, then shouldn't we wait to 1). see if nashville makes the playoffs and 2). judge their contracts based on getting past the first round of the playoffs. Recent history would suggest that these players won't get nashville out of the first round, but if they got past the first round this year, would that be enough for you? How many years can they afford to only make the second round before some complain about only getting to the second round of the playoffs with these overpaid players? I think my questions seem more sarcastic than I intended.

lugnut76 is offline  
Old
03-17-2010, 04:46 PM
  #111
BigFatCat999
I love GoOoOlD
 
BigFatCat999's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Campbell, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 9,857
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PredsV82 View Post
Are you kidding me?

Poile didnt move hamhuis because the things we got offered werent good enough to offset the downgrade this years team would have incurred. Same thing with Ellis i am sure. Poile knows that we need to make the playoffs THIS YEAR even if it means we lose hamhuis and Ellis for nothing.

people say he doesnt manage assets well because they perceive a glut of defensemen in our system but guess what? Having two or three young, and therefore cheap, defensemen on the roster every year is Poile master plan... its what allows us to have money to pay goalies and forwards.

I think its ludicrous to give poile crap because he didnt trade our non-succcessful prospects(replying to Enoch here).... heck, im sure every team has plenty of prospects that dont ever make it and in retrospect they would have liked to have dumped, but thats how it works.
And I agree. What's the point of having 8 billion 4th liners?

BigFatCat999 is online now  
Old
03-17-2010, 08:55 PM
  #112
MarkMM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Delta, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 940
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PredsV82 View Post
I dont necessarily WANT poile to be that guy, because more often than not, those bold moves dont work out.

On XM radio the Phoenix GM said they werent going to move Mueller unless they got basically a similar asset in return. So we'd have had to probably trade Wilson or Hornqvist for Meuller. Not going to happen, and wouldnt have solved anything. And I am certain that Colorado wasnt going to trade Wolski for picks or prospects when Mueller was available.

There are times in a franchises histroy when trades would be nice but arent crucial..... during those times you make the deal if it makes sense but you dont get foolish. Then there are times when a team really needs a trade..

Looking back on the history of the franchise, there were really only two times when the team truly NEEDED a trade. One was trying to get over the hump for that first playoff spot. And Poile got Sully for 2 2nd rounders... a steal..

the second was when we looked like we had a legitimate shot at the cup... and he made the deal and got forsberg. didnt pan out, but he still got the deal done

At any other time in the teams history, a well timed trade might have made us slightly better, but there really hasnt been an opportunity to make us a "next level" team, most recently because we have spent the last 2 years recovering from the fire sale.
This makes the most sense to me. A number of things have to align for it to make sense to do a trade, otherwise you're just trading for the sake of trading. First, there has to be an upside that justifies the downside of the trade, and the downside is more than just you get the worst end of the deal. When you've got a good team chemistry that's performing for you, then you'd better be sure that not only will the trade make you better (if you're losing a roster player), but that it will positively affect the lockeroom.

If you're trading picks/prospects for a rental, then you have to be happy that you can afford the loss of depth and for teams that are on a tight budget (like Nashville) then you have to be sure that the trade won't cripple you in the years ahead.

Third, in the cap world, the salaries have to work out, that's part of what holds back a lot of trades and will affect Nashville worse than most others (for example, Vancouver got Erhoff and Lukowich for two prospects that had flat out failed because San Jose was looking to dump salary; we picked up about $5M worth and dumped Lukowich in the minors because we could afford to; it helps when you can make up for bad drafting with billionaire owners who are happy to throw away millions).

And it has to make sense for both teams; Wolski and Mueller were traded by teams who were looking for roster help in return, so they weren't interested in picks/prospects because they were in a playoff hunt same as you. Kessel, as has been pointed out, had a sweet spot for Toronto (God knows why). So I just don't think there were that many dance partners for DP to play with.

And finally, it has to make sense in the team's organizational development. With all the risks and headaches to make a trade work, it has to be at a point and time when it's WORTH "going for it", the year you guys went for Forsberg made sense, it didn't work out but it showed that when it makes sense to, DP will make an "aggressive" move. The reason I think he hasn't since is simple...there hasn't been a window where it made sense to. Though to be fair, holding on to Hamhuis and Ellis when he knew he could have gotten assets for them in return could be interpreted as an aggressive move to help this year.

MarkMM is offline  
Old
03-17-2010, 11:55 PM
  #113
glenngineer
Registered User
 
glenngineer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Spring Hill, TN
Country: United States
Posts: 3,883
vCash: 500
I think that not making moves are just as good as the moves you can make. Trading Hamhuis at the deadline I think would've been a mistake unless we got a player in return that could've helped right now. Philly was offering picks and we wanted Coburn and possibly Parent. Parent alone wasn't worth it but if we landed Coburn it would've made sense but since Philly didn't want a rental for a RFA of theirs, the deal didn't happen. The time to trade Hamhuis was before the season started but in doing so, we would've had to rely on Franson and Sulzer as a third pairing and used Klein and Bouillon as our second pairing. That would've made our depth very shallow as Yonkman, Blum and Laakso would've been the only three ready to go. We added Grebeshkov at a small cost and in reality, is Hamhuis's replacement if he decides to leave. Grebs is restricted so we really have the choice of what we do with him. If he's re-signed or Hamhuis is, we have one hole on the blue line to fill with Sulzer and Blum ready to duke it out or we end up keeping both of those guys and we have depth.

Poile took a risk in keeping Hamhuis but he also stated, he's in it this year to win in the playoffs and by keeping Hamhuis, he knew we stood a better chance of making it to them first and then having a shot at winning once we're in. He said, Dan, we win, we will have the funds to keep you. Well, if Dan and his wife really love it here, his play I bet is going to pick up some because, one, he wants to win and two, he wants to stay here. By keeping Ellis, he also knew that he would lose him in the offseason but reality is, Rinne is the goalie for the next 2 years after this one is up. He had to make a choice between Ellis and Rinne and chose Rinne. If Ellis leaves as a free agent, I wish him the best and he's been a great team guy for us here and I hope he gets to start somewhere. He's a very good goalie. The other reality is, you will lose guys to free agency every year. It's part of the way the NHL is made up but we also have the ability to sign free agents as well.

Last year we lost Nichol, Fiddler, Ortmeyer, Bonk and deVries to free agency, retirement or going overseas. We picked up Goc and Bouillon. We have added Hornqvist and Wilson thru our farm system. Our penalty kill has suffered because of their losses but at the same time, I think our even strength play is much much better and we have the ability to run 4 lines on any given night. If we lose Ellis, Dekanich may be given a shot to be the back up or we bring in a veteran back up cheap next year and give Rinne the bulk of the work load. I'm ok with that. If Hamhuis leaves, Grebs is probably re-signed. If Hamhuis is re-signed, Grebs is probably gone in a trade or we may re-sign him too. Who knows. Bouillon may leave as well. I think one of those three if not 2 of them are back. If 2 are back, we have our top 6 for next year with the elite pair, Klein and Franson as the other two. If only one is back, Sulzer, Laakso and Blum fight it out for the 6th spot next year. I am comfortable with any of those possibilities too. Turnover is part of the team. I'd love it if we could keep Hamhuis around for a long time. He's a solid player that eats up a lot of minutes, has been durable throughout his career and is good at going up against the top lines night in and night out. He's also a home grown product and you hate to see your boys go to another team.

Does Poile play it safe, sure he does. Does he keep the team competitive year in and year out, sure does. Would I like to see us do more damage in the playoffs, I would love it. Deals have to make sense to both sides involved. I just don't think there were that many deals to be had this year that would've worked for us. I remember looking over rosters before the deadline and possible partners and honestly, most of the deals made no sense to me if we were to trade Hamhuis or Ellis. I just didn't see how any move involving either of those two would've made us better without making us worse at the same time in some other aspect of the game. Poile sent a message to his team with the moves he made. They weren't big or bold but they were solid moves in building depth for this season and beyond.

glenngineer is offline  
Old
03-18-2010, 09:03 AM
  #114
PredsV82
Puckaroni and cheese
 
PredsV82's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Outside
Country: Scotland
Posts: 12,149
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by dulzhok View Post
I would agree with this.

And I agree that is is very bad asset manager. I can't really think of a good asset trade, where he traded a roster player or prospect or pending UFA for good value (Dunham is the only one I can think of) . If we don't make the playoffs, and we lose Hamhuis for nothing, it's going to add to this. We could've gotten a lot for him over the offseason, and counteracted the loss by signing a guy like Skrastins or similar.

I think "safe" is going to result in more of the same-- competitive for making the the playoffs, and a lot of first rd exits, which is his MO.
I completely disagree. its a short sighted, tunnel vision view if you think that every time you lose a player via free agency that you could have traded that it is "bad"

We are (knock on wood) looking pretty good for the playoffs right now. if we make it, and especially if we manage to win a round, then keeping Hamhuis will most likely be part of the reason.

If we had traded hammer and missed the playoffs because our defense was downgraded (and with the injuries we had if we had traded him we'd have been playing Franson, Sulzer and Yonkman or Blum) then how useful would that draft pick we got for hammer be?


you say you dont remember a good asset trade other than Dunham?

Would you care to cite a bad one?

PredsV82 is offline  
Old
03-18-2010, 09:17 AM
  #115
PredsV82
Puckaroni and cheese
 
PredsV82's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Outside
Country: Scotland
Posts: 12,149
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkMM View Post
Though to be fair, holding on to Hamhuis and Ellis when he knew he could have gotten assets for them in return could be interpreted as an aggressive move to help this year.
this is a point that seems to be lost on many people.

we basically "traded" those future draft picks/prospects that we could have got for Ellis and Hamhuis in exchange for keeping them for the stretch run... and make no mistake thats all we would have been given for them.... getting the mythical "scorer" would have cost us some of our own assets, not UFAs. I am just bewildered by the people who suggest we could have traded two pending UFA's and received a roster player forward, who can score, in return.

PredsV82 is offline  
Old
03-18-2010, 10:21 AM
  #116
jlsg
Registered User
 
jlsg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 473
vCash: 500
Bad asset manager? Looking at the transaction history I see some really good deals. And the most important ones would be draft picks we received and what we were able to do with them. Sure there were some that didn't work out, but there were also some really nice ones that did.

jlsg is offline  
Old
03-19-2010, 12:41 PM
  #117
dulzhok
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,528
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PredsV82 View Post
you say you dont remember a good asset trade other than Dunham?

Would you care to cite a bad one?
Sure, there are more bad ones-- 3 first rounders for Forsberg, Witt, Ronning, Walker, Zidlicky etc.

The biggest problem is there are no good ones, outside of Dunham. The times he has traded a roster player (Walker, Zidlicky) it hasn't amounted to anything worthwhile.

He hangs onto roster players and prospects like no other GM in the league, for better of worse.

As one example, Arkhipov scored 20 goals in the rookie campaign, his value was pretty high. Over the next 2 years, we saw his value go to nothing.

I think Hamhuis will be another example. It's safe to say he's good as gone, and it was evident this day was going to come well over a year ago. An asset manager GM would've stepped in traded him in the offseason for good value, knowing he was going to lose him for nothing. Then, truned around a signed / traded-for a decent vet dman to help replace him.

He has never stepped in and said, "I don't think this guy is going to be a key part of future, so I'm going to trade him while he's got decent value." What Phoenix just did with Mueller. What SJ did with Brad Stuart. What CBJ did with Leclaire. What SJ did with Matt Carle. etc. Like I said, he hangs on to roster players and prospects, for better or worse.


Last edited by dulzhok: 03-19-2010 at 06:28 PM.
dulzhok is offline  
Old
03-19-2010, 07:08 PM
  #118
glenngineer
Registered User
 
glenngineer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Spring Hill, TN
Country: United States
Posts: 3,883
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dulzhok View Post
Sure, there are more bad ones-- 3 first rounders for Forsberg, Witt, Ronning, Walker, Zidlicky etc.

The biggest problem is there are no good ones, outside of Dunham. The times he has traded a roster player (Walker, Zidlicky) it hasn't amounted to anything worthwhile.

He hangs onto roster players and prospects like no other GM in the league, for better of worse.

As one example, Arkhipov scored 20 goals in the rookie campaign, his value was pretty high. Over the next 2 years, we saw his value go to nothing.

I think Hamhuis will be another example. It's safe to say he's good as gone, and it was evident this day was going to come well over a year ago. An asset manager GM would've stepped in traded him in the offseason for good value, knowing he was going to lose him for nothing. Then, truned around a signed / traded-for a decent vet dman to help replace him.

He has never stepped in and said, "I don't think this guy is going to be a key part of future, so I'm going to trade him while he's got decent value." What Phoenix just did with Mueller. What SJ did with Brad Stuart. What CBJ did with Leclaire. What SJ did with Matt Carle. etc. Like I said, he hangs on to roster players and prospects, for better or worse.
So he was supposed to trade a guy off a 20 goal season? If we were trying to get better as a team why would we trade off a guy who looked like a decent player? If Poile knew that he was going to get worse as he played more in the NHL, of course he would've traded him and gotten value for him but since he spent a 2nd round pick on the guy, he figured he'd be part of the future. It didn't turn out that way. I had high hopes for Arkhi as well and he got worse, it happens.

So by your accounts, we should trade away Hornqvist because he's played great this year, scored 27 goals and he might suck the next 2 years?

Would you say him bringing up Wilson for the stretch run was a good move? If so, that was like trading for a proven scorer. I guess since Wilson has been pretty much averaging that since his call up that was a bad move too? He's built this team well thru the farm system and we finally have some guys that are coming up like Wilson that are going to be solid NHL players.

That second round pick you mentioned in the Zidlicky trade was used to select Charles-Olivier-Roussel. Last time I checked he's rated pretty highly.

We got back the first rounder we gave Philly for Forsberg when Poile was forced to trade off Timonen and Hartnell and which we used to select Jonathan Blum, another solid prospect who will probably be on the blue line next year.

The Witt move was essential at the time as we were trying to add toughness, grit and experience to the blue line. It didn't work out. If he didn't make a move that year, you would've complained he didn't do anything. He did something and you complain about it. He could acquire Parise, Kane and Luongo for a bag of pucks and you'd find something to complain about.

The bottom line is, for an overall job, good, bad and indifferent, Poile has done a solid job as a GM. I would grade his job as a B. He has his faults but it's outweighed by all his good moves over the last 11 years.

glenngineer is offline  
Old
03-19-2010, 09:50 PM
  #119
dulzhok
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,528
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by glenngineer View Post
The Witt move was essential at the time as we were trying to add toughness, grit and experience to the blue line.
I have given Poile plenty of credit in the past. I don't think he's the guy to take us to the next level, for various reasons I've already talked about. I've heard what you have to say. I've got nothing more to say to you.

dulzhok is offline  
Old
03-19-2010, 09:56 PM
  #120
predfan24
Registered User
 
predfan24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 3,113
vCash: 500
Bottom line is anybody who isn't happy with what Poile has done is simply spoiled by his ability to take a team with one of the lowest payrolls in the league and keep them competitive.

I realize everyone is different and has different expectations but I will take being competitive consistently over some who is a risk taker where it's either boom or bust. This franchise is too fragile to bust. It could possibly mean the move of the team.

predfan24 is offline  
Old
03-19-2010, 10:04 PM
  #121
glenngineer
Registered User
 
glenngineer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Spring Hill, TN
Country: United States
Posts: 3,883
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dulzhok View Post
I have given Poile plenty of credit in the past. I don't think he's the guy to take us to the next level, for various reasons I've already talked about. I've heard what you have to say. I've got nothing more to say to you.
One last question, do you feel Poile has done more good or bad for the Predators?

glenngineer is offline  
Old
03-19-2010, 10:06 PM
  #122
dulzhok
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,528
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by predfan24 View Post
This franchise is too fragile to bust. It could possibly mean the move of the team.
So could staying stagnant and never winning a playoff round.

I also believe Ray Shero played a huge role in the first 7 years of running this franchise. They were a good tandem.

dulzhok is offline  
Old
03-19-2010, 10:09 PM
  #123
dulzhok
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,528
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by glenngineer View Post
One last question, do you feel Poile has done more good or bad for the Predators?
First 6-7 years.. good.

last 3 years... mediocre to below average.

dulzhok is offline  
Old
03-19-2010, 10:17 PM
  #124
nine_inch_fang
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Spring Hill, TN
Country: United States
Posts: 1,506
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to nine_inch_fang
so about the time he had to let everyone go because of the sale and had a serious pair of handcuffs put on him by the new owners. essentially needing to rebuild the team through the farm which had just been ***** because Liarpold wanted to go for broke......



And here i am thinking he's done a great job keeping this team competitive and now possibly turning the corner.

nine_inch_fang is offline  
Old
03-19-2010, 10:44 PM
  #125
PredsV82
Puckaroni and cheese
 
PredsV82's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Outside
Country: Scotland
Posts: 12,149
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by dulzhok View Post
First 6-7 years.. good.

last 3 years... mediocre to below average.
nice contradiction.

all of the "bad" moves you claim he made happened during those first 6-7 years. (and I wont even bother refuting most of those, even though I could)

no "bad" moves these last 3

I know 9" already said it but do you not even have the intellectual honesty to admit that poile has been operating in some pretty tight constraints since Leipold pulled the rug out from under him??

PredsV82 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 06:45 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.