Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason14h
C was average historically speaking. However, now some people see a C as a failure.
I think he has been average. He has had great, good, bad, and terrible moves.
We don't know how the Hamilton deal turns out, but I think it was a good gamble to take.
We don't know how the Gio contract will play out.
However, we DO know how Bollig and Raymond signing's worked out. I don't care if they don't hurt us in 2017. They were bad moves/failures.
The goalie situation is a failure. We are one of the weakest teams in net.
The team still can't win faceoffs or kill penalties. This area's were not addressed in the offseason (Partially because of dead weight cap players I'm sure)
Since I think he has been overall average, I will score a C+. I understand grades up to a B, but how he can be graded an A for a team that is 26th overall and still spending to the cap is beyond me.
An argument could be made he hasn't even made better moves then Feaster......
|
C+ is reasonable though based on your explanation. I'm not irked by C+, but C and below, I shake my head. I honestly think we're pretty much on the same page, but perhaps differ in the weighting on the score/how to score him. So I'm cool with that.
If we rate him based on what he has done, sure, you could probably say average, but IMO, the job he inherited was beyond the hopelessness and scope of an average GM's situation IMO. But I think a HUGE point most fans forget, he was a rookie GM in year 1.
He's fixed many things and still has a ways to go. But IMO I give him a higher mark because he's been on the job 1.5 years and year 1 was his first year.
Now if it were some established GM, yeah, I probably wouldn't question people saying he gets a C.