Quote:
Originally Posted by JiriHrdina
I think Brouwer has been fine - one of the more consistent forwards.
As I've said before, I think one of the hallmarks of good organizations is consistency. The organizations that lose perpetually (including this one) have constant turnover at key positions and within management.
Re-building an organization, that has been woefully thin on assets, doesn't happen over night.
Firing a GM every 3 years is a basically a guarantee that you will go nowhere forever.
He has shown to be a shrewd trader, good negotiator and overall has made more good moves than bad.
Give the man time.
Or fire him, bring someone new in and fire them in 3 years. Rinse and repeat. Like every other loser organization out there.
|
I agree that constant turnover is not a recipe for success.
That being said, even if one is to take a long term approach, i would imagine signs of progress of the organization are vital. We can look at positive events, or certain areas that the organization has qualitatively done well in (shrewd trader, good negotiator, etc) but in order to judge actual progress i would imagine looking at the quantitative results is a major indicator.
That's where i am currently at with Treliving and team. I don't really hate or disapprove many of his moves (there are the few that i do, but this list is definitely shorter than the ones i do approve of i think). However, if we ignore the high pick assets picked up due to the suckage, has his management brought this franchise closer to being a contender?
On the day he was hired, if we were told that 20 games into his 3rd season at the helm, the flames would be the 30th place team (point % wise) would we be comfortable to call it a success?
I like the GM, but my confidence level in his ability to build an NHL roster is definitely not rock solid. I am extremely curious on how he plays out this season.
If this team is unable to go on a massive run to get themselves firmly into the playoff picture, does he just ride this roster out, cut losses with the obvious UFAs, take the high pick, and essentially go into next year with the same core (using the freed up $ to manage the goaltending, and depth D that will be lost in engelland, wideman)? Or will he look at his core and vets (giordano, brodie, brower, frolik, backlund) and do something more dramatic be it add more 1st round picks/prospects to load up on the rebuild path that we are clearly in the middle of, or will he try to use these peices to sub in new core vets to get this to a competitive team next year.
What i'm looking for is (ugh feaster term coming) some intellectual honesty from our management. If the team isn't really ready to take the next steps, and is likely to flounder in mediocraty again next year, then why not go heavy on acquiring more high picks or developing top prospects of other clubs.