Quote:
Originally Posted by Flash Walken
This is not giving poile enough credit, and also is exemplary of what Jiri is saying.
Washington Capitals under Poile:
The caps hadn't made the playoffs in over a decade since entering the league when they hired Poile. Poile's caps then make the playoffs for the next 13 years in a row. 6 of those years they advance to the second round or better. The Caps make the Finals for the first time the year after Washington lets him go and then miss the playoffs in 4 of the next 8 years, basically until Ovi arrives.
He then goes to an expansion franchise in a non traditional hockey market with severe budget restrictions. They've made the playoffs 10 out of 18 years as an expansion team, winning 6 rounds of hockey and one trip to the final.
Nashville came into the league in 1998. Since Nashville has been in the NHL, as an expansion team, the Flames have made the playoffs 7 times with one trip to the final and 4 playoff round wins.
Since 1998 the Preds have had one GM, the Flames have had 5.
|
David Poile is a good GM in my opinion. But using him as a reason for why changing GM's is a bad idea doesn't work for me.
Many shorter tenured GM's have had more success. Meanwhile, some other historically long tenured GM's, like Darcy Regier and Larry Pleau have not gone as well.
If you think Treliving is a good GM, or can grow into the job, that would be a good reason to keep him. Not because David Poile.