serge, on Thursday, April 12th, 2012, 11:22 AM, said:
Do you judge a GM on what he has done? Or do you judge a GM on a 30 game catastrophic collapse?
Well, obviously 30 games isn't a big enough sample to be mathematically significant, just like 52 games isn't a big enough sample. And even 82 games isn't.But the reality, is that in 4 seasons, have the Maple Leafs really improved their situation all that much? They added Kessel, who has been great, but at great expense. The farm system is still middle of the pack, and the team is still missing the playoffs, and isn't really showing that much promise the be a lock to make it anytime soon.And like, I dunno, I think Burke is ok, and I find him entertaining (which means absolutely nothing as far as being a good GM goes), but I don't get why he purposefully handicaps himself in this game. He says he's not going to free agency. At all. Ever. Ok, like, I get that you think everyone just gets overpaid as UFAs, but to completely close it off as an option? It's just asinine. He says he's going to improve his team solely through trades. That's all well and good, but it's not exactly the easiest thing ever to do when you're giving up assets to get assets. It's not like you can just fleece every other GM. Burke isn't that good, and most NHL GMs are pretty competent.What are the Leafs primary needs? How can these be upgraded via trade, and where exactly do you have a surplus of talent that you can afford to give up in a trade?Like, you're not going to be trading Mike Zigomanis for a top end center or anything.Honestly, now, I know this is revisionist history here, but honest, what would really have helped the Leafs, would be a couple FREE top end potential players coming out of their last few drafts. Like, if they had someone better than Kadri from that draft. If they held onto their last 2 picks and had Seguin and Hamilton or whoever they'd have drafted.Then Burke can go out and make his trades, go out and make signings, etc, and you're just that much better because you added pieces from the draft.Just seems like a lot more likely way to get better. There are no guarantees your strategy is going to work no matter which way you go about it, so don't sit there and tell me draftees are no sure thing. Nothing is, but a top 3 pick has a lot higher probability of being successful and helpful.Now, Edmonton is an interesting example to bring up here. They're stockpiling these top forward picks. I don't think they needed to stay bad for this long, but it's mostly happened because Tambellini is kinda terrible as well, and failed to shore up the rest of the team. But after getting Hall and RNH, and now probably Yakupov, they'd be wise to trade from a position of strength (young, extremely talented forwards) in order to shore up their biggest weakness, defense. And go from there. Like I said about Pittsburgh, it's more than just drafting the best player available for a few years.