Quote:
Originally Posted by Strange Brew
These few examples just kind of prove that the number of newly hired GM’s who inherit worse situations is a lot longer.
Just seems like the arguments I’ve seen supporting Treliving’s work lack substance and support. Saying most new GM’s inherited a better situation is just wrong.
|
Depends on which basis you evaluate.
Cap space: Sure.
No pressure: Maybe. Based on what? What was the pressure from ownership. We don't know. Just because we felt on this site there was no pressure for an accelerated re-build doesn't mean that's the case.
Some talented players: Yup agreed here but lacking elite talent as it turns out.
But he also had
- A weak prospect base (if I'm looking at the right year it boasted the likes of Emile Poirier, Sven kicking around, Markus Granlund, Bill Arnold, Morgan Klimchuk, Corban Knight...they then added Sam, Mason McDonald, Hunter Smith, Brandon Hickey - in the 2014 draft.) Hardly a stellar group
- No #1 goalie. The previous year had Ramo, Ortio, MacDonald and Berra. Yuck.
- A leading scorer the previous year that had 54 points in 75 games.
- A top goal scorer the previous year with 26 goals in 63 games, who walked as a UFA.
Again he had some young talent coming for sure. But the most important thing is the assets to work with. A proper evaluation would be to look at the overall depth and quality of organizational assets that the GM had coming in. Would be a lot of work.
But to say that someone's opposing view is just "wrong" is just so binary.