Quote:
Originally Posted by Flash Walken
The current group bought out Shane O'Brien instead of trading for him...
|
Then gave Engelland $2.9M per.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phanuthier
Generally speaking, I would define better to be one that has more success (playoffs, championships, etc). This is likely more often then not defined by players he acquires (via trade, draft/develop).. but not limited to.
Also generally speaking, I don't believe better success to be defined ability to lock up the least number of bad contracts, or ability to acquire top draft picks due to your teams place in the standings, as "success."
|
I agree. I'm just saying you can't in one breath say Feaster was a travesty and turn around and try and tell me that the current management group is so much better.
I'm happy with who we have, but Bollig and Engelland so far look to be questionable moves. They may be great, and I hope they are, but current management have proven nothing so far.
For arguments sake, as I am very happy with Treliving and Burke taking the helm, let's look at some moves we can criticize them for just the same:
Letting Cammalleri walk, and getting nothing for him
Signing a German face-puncher
Engelland making as much per season as most people assumed he'd make on a 3 year contract
Trading pick 83 for Bollig
Kevin Westgarth.
Un-addressed RW and D weakness
Hiller on the goalie pile
And I'm sure there's more.
TO BE CLEAR, so I don't have to defend a position I don't necessarily hold... these are moves that SOME (not necessarily me) could criticize management for. How are these moves better than anything Feaster had done? It's a part of being a GM and building a team. Some pieces won't work out, some roster moves need to be made to meet certain needs. Slamming him and picking each and every single moment apart is asinine and irrelevant.