Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
I literally said in my post that it would make more sense to me if those that were upset with the guy felt the process was flawed, but to attack the idea that there is one seems silly.
|
The process as best I can tell is a complete focus on immediate help to the detriment of long term growth. He burnt through draft picks at a higher rate than every NHL team between 16-18. He managed to build an average NHL team. He was one of those rare rebuilding teams who trades high draft picks for immediate value to the detriment of long term benefit that would most likely occur between 2021-2025. Most of the immediate help in those years outside of Hamilton being mediocre. Since 2018 the process seems to be a version of maintaining the status quo in terms of draft picks and adding longer term UFA contracts that should provide immediate value but hurt the team in the backend years (2024-2026). The process as best I can tell is to either sell long term assets for short term gain or sign assets that should provide short term help with the acceptance that they will be detrimental at the backend of the deals. In the end it is really a version of the same process or plan, try to turn an average team into a contender overnight and accept that those moves you are making to try to accomplish that (however unlikely to success they may be) may be detrimental in the long run but could pay off immediately.
That would be my criticism in response to the drive-by comments that we should just give Brad an indefinite period of time to be GM because you need stability in that position.