Quote:
Originally Posted by activeStick
It's deals like this that make me wonder why some people feel that losing Treliving wouldn't be a big deal. Guy comes out top of the vast majority of his deals.
|
Losing Treliving would set this franchise back several years. He doesn't panic, all of his moves seem meticulously thought out.
Does it suck that Elliott isn't as good as we hoped? Yes. Treliving had the chance to get a goalie who'd put up eye popping numbers for the better part of five years. He didn't have to give up Matthew Tkachuk (which he would have in order to acquire Bishop), and he then didn't compound the mistake by extending Elliott after a great preseason.
Brouwer is barely off his career norms and a slight downturn in production has to be expected in year one of a new deal on a new team. Frolik was lamented most of his first year too.
You can criticize him for not addressing certain faults, but from where I'm sitting, he's had to prioritize. Maybe he should have gone after Martin Jones last year instead of Dougie. But that wasn't an obvious decision at the time and it's not much clearer 18 months later. Dougie has been the best D on the team most of the year. Sure it'd be nice not to have a tire fire in net, but there's only so much Brad can do at once.
He's a steady hand guiding the ship. What else do you want from your GM? If you designed one in a lab, how much would you really deviate from Treliving beyond 'genius who hits on all his draft picks'?