Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
I think both positions are fair.
If you see this as a build issue then you probably want a different guy doing the building. I get that.
If you see this as an execution issue, and think the team that was built makes sense to some degree then it's a different take, and also an acceptable view.
I don't see managing hockey teams as a 100% profession. They all make mistakes. They all draft a guy not as good as they could have drafted. Make bad UFA signings, and have deals not work out.
With Treliving I personally see a guy that has improved the drafting, the development, has been great on RFA signings and has a decent trade record.
Would love to go back and strike Brouwer and Neal from the record like everyone, and hope he's taken steps to rectify this area going forward.
So I keep him.
But just my opinion, I see the other side too.
|
I do not understand which RFA signings are great outside of Lindholm. Great seems to imply that you are getting more value than other GM’s are getting for similar signings. Monahan signed a similar deal to every other RFA that year. Gaudreau lacked leverage in his negotiations they reduced his ability to get more money but that contract could easily be put in the good category that summer. Hamilton and Hanifin were basically going each at the going rate at the time. Hamilton has proven to outperform his deal but Hanifin has not done that at this stage. Tkachuk was the exact same deal as most other RFAs this offseason with no noticeable savings. Rittich was signed to take him right to UFA at 2.75
Other RFA contracts include Bouma’s 3 year 6.6 million, Bennett’s 2.55 million a year, Ferland on a two year deal, Lazar’s two year deal.
Out of all of those deals I see one great deal, a bunch of deals that are average or the same as any other GM signed that offseason, and a stinker in Bouma. It seems like a pretty average record in my opinion. I would say that Cheveldayoff has a much better record on RFA’s for instance.