Quote:
Originally Posted by etdpratt
ok, I stand corrected with Brodie, but given 5 or 6 years as GM, two decent players don't cut it.
|
To judge a GM's ability at drafting, you have to see what moves he made within the organization to become better at drafting.
For instance, when Sutter took over as GM of the Flames, I believe there was 1 full-time scout and 2 part time scouts. No development program to speak of. Well, the drafting was atrocious.
Over the years, Sutter convinced the owners to invest more money in this area, and as time wore on, the drafting did improve, without question. Was it 'great'? Nope, but it was headed in the right direction.
I have absolutely no idea what was going on in Tampa's drafting and development department when Feaster was there. Was he making moves (or at least pushing that ownership group) to better the scouting? How many scouts were around? What was their experience? Etc.
I think too much negativity and too much positivity is shown for GMs with regards to drafting. I think one has to look at the scouting departments, and what happens within them.
I think Columbus will be an interesting case over the years. Their new GM is apparently a big 'scouting' guy, as is the President. One would expect much more money funneled into the drafting and development programs there.
I really wish we could hire someone like Jankowski (NYI old head scout) as he found a lot of diamonds in the rough, and whose team is on the smaller side due to budget constraints there.
Feaster sees the importance of drafting, so to me he is a 'positive' drafting GM, regardless of track record. He took over that aspect from Sutter, and managed to even grow it further.
Both of them were considered 'horrible drafting guys', but you have to look at the whole circumstance surrounding it, as well as take into consideration the number of years they were present, in order to really qualify "bad" or "good" when looking at a GM's drafting 'ability'.