Quote:
Originally Posted by Pointman
Bad GMs rarely look like flat out idiots. For example, if you make me GM, I would try to address scoring issues and depth issues, I would trade one of the D for some RH top six RW and bring some depth energetic guys for cheap bottom six. See, I am already looking halfway competent. The nature of GMs job is that the overall general plan is so obvious, that even an average fan like me can make moves that would, at worst, make sense. If I sign Brouwer, I would say - well, the team did need a top-six RW, didn't it, and Brouwer was the best available option. If I trade for Elliott, I would say, we the team needed a starting goalie, and Elliott's numbers were pretty good. If I draft Bennett, I would say well, all the draft experts had Bennett around 4th overall, the pick made sense at that point.
The difference between good GM and bad GM is execution. Making moves that make sense us fairly easy. You rarely see GMs making moves that look stupid from the get-go. Even Hall for Larsson deal actually made sense for Chiarelli.
|
Great post and to add to that, new GMs that have plans that run contrary to prevailing wisdom such as Sweeney, Kekaleinan, and McPhee in his Vegas role often turn out to be among the best.
Homer evaluations of the GM, too much like wishful evaluations of the Flames' advanced stats, is too much based on what fans think should have or wished had happened instead of the actual on-ice product and results.
There are many different ways to be a fan. Demanding better from the organization does not make you a fairweather fan.