Quote:
Originally Posted by The Original FFIV
Tell Dylan Larkin that Yzerman is patient. He sat on his hands last deadline and pissed off his #1 C by not doing anything. Getting John Gibson and Tyler Myers is marginal help at best.
Yeah, thought about Dallas and Rantanen and Nill did put it out there last year. But he’s low balled us on Tanev and didn’t play ball on Andersson despite needing an obvious need on rhd. I hope that comes back to bite him. He’s playing it cautious again and worried about spending futures, when he really doesn’t have to worry about futures as he has a built in advantage with his team in a low tax state and able to attract prime talent in free agency as a result.
Guerin took big risks getting Parise and Suter off the books. And was able to get the second best defenseman in the league (while Yzerman watched him do it). We as fans should applaud this approach as it makes the game fun. GMs who are Riverboat gamblers and gunslingers making deals creates excitement. Having dull GMs like Yzerman and Cheveldayoff is bad for the game.
|
Definitely! I don’t disagree with you on the last piece. I love watching GMs get aggressive and crazy with their teams, unless it’s the Flames’ gm and in desperation mode (like the end of treleving’s term).
There have been a few comments on here about wishing nhl GMs were more like nba GMs. But I think the two major differences there are that hockey is a much bigger team game. While you can get a game breaking talent (McDavid), you still need to have a number of other stars to win. In basketball, teams can win with one or two superstars and a decent supporting cast—so GMs can throw the farm at one guy. (This is also why tanking is so much more common and concerning in the nba)
NBA also has shorter contracts and a lot more movement, which allows for (and probably requires) teams making more moves.