Quote:
Originally Posted by Strange Brew
Why is this?
IMO seven years is more than enough time to evaluate a GM's performance, he is now one of the longest tenured GM's in the league.
I wouldn't expect a new GM to yield immediate results, I just want someone to get us going in the right direction. I don't agree with those who add up Treliving's moves and then use that as a basis to evaluate his performance. Because just as important are all the things that he hasn't done during his tenure.
As other have said very well, he stepped into a healthy situation for a new GM. And the lack of progress for the big league club over seven years speaks for itself.
|
I have said for some time now that I think the turnover of GMs in the NHL is too high, and I think you answered your own question: Seven years is definitely enough time to evaluate, and to judge whether the Manager has the team moving in the right direction. I guess where you and I differ is in our evaluation vs. results: they are not there on the ice, but I like what Treliving has been working toward. It is happening slower than I would have hoped, but I think he sees pretty clearly the problems with the team, and I like the way he has tried to address these issues; I like the way that he evaluates players, and I tend to like the players that he targets; I like that he owns his mistakes and works to correct them.
And this is the bottom line I keep coming back to: who is the best person to improve the team? Right now, I don't see a better option than Treliving for the Flames. While I am not convinced that high-profile figures like Lombardi and Rutherford are realistic options, I also don't believe they provide any improvement.