Quote:
Originally Posted by mikephoen
I could quibble with the rest of your post, but I feel like we would just be going around in circles. I 100% agree with your last point though. Although I think we're mostly going to feel negative effects from the post-Burke transactions and very few positive ones.
|
I don't disagree; there have been opportunities to adjust course, but the mandate has been to keep the pedal to the floor.
As long as the mandate is 'get in and anything can happen' I don't think it really matters who is in charge. Flawed as he is, I think BT is good as anyone to steer us through the next 1-3 years of hail-mary before the very likely actual rebuild.
I'd make changes to the roster for the sake of change at this point. I wouldn't change the GM for the sake of change (and to end up with fewer on-ice changes).
Quote:
Originally Posted by GioforPM
The only real blunders I ID are Hamonic and Neal, which I don’t even see as mistakes from a team building perspective as opposed to a player identification perspective (in other words, a top 4 D and top 6 RW were good targets, just not those guys).
GG was the old “new blood versus retread” argument heard on this site all the time back then. Peters was one I didn’t like because I didn’t think he searched enough, but then they had a great season under him. Ward was tough - he arguably salvaged a season and it was probably tough to make a hire for the COVID season. I’m not convinced Ward is a terrible coach anyway. He had a limited camp and his players didn’t perform.
I think Treliving had almost no space to negotiate Tkachuk’s deal. It’s not like he’s bad at RFA deals, so you know Chuckie had leverage in that one.
|
Hard to ignore Brouwer, though it may not have even been one of the worst 5 UFA signings that year. Ripple effects to player development (Bennett).
Elliott to me might be the most unforgivable.
I also wonder if we would all hand-wave the Hamilton trade as a win if Barzal/Conner/Chabot were selected with the actual pick we traded. Ripple effects to our salary composition, even though we ended up with great value in Hanifin and Lindholm. Might we otherwise have turned Ferland and Fox into other assets? Or hung on to Ferland and not signed Neal? A lot of butterfly effects from an initial transaction that may seem like a win on paper.