My answer to this poll would be really quite dependent on something definitive around the offer sheet fiasco, and nobody knows enough about the cases on either side. That aside, I understand the moves that have been made and they have generally made sense.
Langkow for Stempniak gained cap spaced and they still have a valuable asset. But the hold at center that remains is glaring.
Regehr made sense as his stock was down. Butler is serviceable and got a rough ride last year. He is more of a 3-4 than a 1-2 and he and Bouw were a terrible 1-2. Their weaknesses were magnified. Coaching error or GM? He fit the profile agewise and had upside. Plus the cap relief. But Regehr was important for a different reason. And this comes down to Iggy's style of leadership. He was less of a guy to call out teammates and more of a guy to step his game up. Regehr and Warrener would cue off of that, Butler and Bouw would not. Ference would, Stuart would not so much. That is where chemistry is important. Guys playing for each other. Sutter got that when he was coaching and lost it a bit when he stepped upstairs to do only one job.
I like the drafting so far. I understand the trades given their context. The returns for Bouw and Iginla were just fine given the situation.
There is definitely some weakness in identifying and closing the real gaps, but other GMs recognize these pieces and are not giving them away. Chicago's third line is built to do exactly what it needs. But they aren't offering up Bolland, Staalberg and Bickell for Flames players that don't fit their needs.
It is tough being a GM and retooling given the cards you are dealt.
I admire the effort reconciling the difficult mandate and difficult situation. And I understand Feaster's communication about the philosophy. You can't declare that it is ok to not be competitive, that would be slammed as badly or worse than outlining that it is unacceptable.
And most importantly, rebuilds take time. More than one GM has spoken in terms of a 5 year plan, and getting our panties in a bunch 2 years in to a tenure and mere weeks in to an accepted change in philosophy does not make sense. That is barely any time to see how the draft picks pan out, and no chance to measure success.
And I also have no trouble in spending thoughtfully on FAs. If they want to bring in more youth, great, but why leave 20.M sitting on the shelf for 2 years when short term commitments could plug a couple of huge holes and make the team more competitive while the prospects develop?
Too much knee jerk reaction. There are a lot of moving parts and the job to create room to have optionality has been done, and not too poorly.
|