Do you want a new GM?
- Thread starter Ducks in a row
- Start date
When firing someone at those positions the first thing that needs to be confirmed is that there is someone better on the market.
With Carlyle I can see it, with murray that is a tougher sell.
I understand this argument, but I don't agree with it. For one, we don't do the same thing with coaches. Bruce>Carlyle IMO. Second, I think McNabb would be who replaces him, and we can't say if he'd be better or not.
mightyquack
eggplant and jade or bust
- Apr 28, 2010
- 26,405
- 5,156
Outside of RC v2 what's he done wrong on the coaches front?
Fired RC with the team in a huge hole on the back of a poor showing in the playoffs. Granted BB fell into his lap, BB was a great hire at the time (granted it fell into his lap) and while I my personal opinion is he should have gone after getting outcoached again in the playoffs (not for the first time in Anaheim) in that disastrous Chicago series, I think any GM struggles to fire a coach on the back of a Conference Final appearance but BB's time was 100% up after the next season so I don't have an issue with that. Bringing RC back was a horrible decision after firing BB, but that's the only bad decision I see that he's made on the coaching front.
Assuming he does the smart thing and fires RC after this season, he get at least another coach tenure first I think.
Dr Johnny Fever
Eggplant and Teal
The Midnight Burrito
True Fan
He's only ever fired two. That's because the team he built has been one of the best teams in the league throughout his tenure, he rebuilt the cupboard and kept it full even while the team has been in competitive/contender status. It's no secret the owners' plan and budget is to just compete and hope for the best. I wish he'd go all in, but I really don't think we have the ownership for that. There's no way they'd risk a lengthy rebuild.
He's made some errors, waiting too long to get rid of Boudreau and then re-hiring RC being one of the most glaring, Bieksa's sight unseen contract being another. Certainly not enough to outweigh the job he's done here. We've been fortunate. I wonder if people have forgotten what the first decade of being a Ducks fan was like.
And look how that worked out. Would you like to keep making the same mistake?
The Midnight Burrito
True Fan
The Midnight Burrito
True Fan
The Ghost. Boy he sure handled that Pavel Trnka holdout with gusto. What a warrior.
Dr Johnny Fever
Eggplant and Teal
No. I agree RC needs to go first. But if Henry or Schulman really wanted to fire Bob I do think McNab could slip right in and not be an RC kind of mistake. And that's if there aren't supposed better outside candidates. I'm not so much screaming for Bob's head as just not making excuses why we can't let him go.
I think the problem with Murray is he lacks the guts to make the big move. He is very good at keeping the team competitive and with RFA's, but won't pull the trigger on the deal that would put this team over the top. It seems like he prefers to be conservative in all of the deals he makes, never taking a huge risk.
He did trade for giguere though, I'm sure to bring more french Canadians into his bubble.
Can't believe Disney bought into that guy twice.
It's not necessarily about what he's done wrong for me. I think Bruce was a great hire. However, he made an AWFUL decision in hiring Carlyle again. It was/is no secret that our core's window was shrinking. Hiring the dinosaur, in Carlyle, pretty much helped slam it shut. He gave Kesler and Getzlaf way too many minutes last year. I know both were tops in forward ice time last year, and both were way older than anyone else near the top. My issue is that he fired Bruce despite a ton of success because he wasn't satisfied with being really good. He wanted "great". Well, why are the expectations different for a GM? You at least gave an answer though in that last line.
I agree about the Bruce part though.
What people have said mcnabb is right though, he doesn't want it and is in record about that.
If we do fire Murray it will take a stroke of great executive scouting to find someone better, and of that I have zero faith in ownership to pull off.
The Mighty Duck Man
R-E-L-A-X
A lot of great points. It's pretty impressive what he did his first five or so years here. I've noticed Vancouver has more or less been trying the same thing and it's been going kind of terribly. It might even turn out great for them long term, but aside from the first year they've been nowhere near the playoffs without trying to finish low. Murray keeping this team fairly competitive while rebuilding the league's worst farm system is pretty cool stuff.
Certainly wouldn't mind a situation where Murray's promoted and is there to guide a successor, but outright firing him and starting over has a pretty decent chance of ending badly.
It's kind of amazing that it worked out this way. He has made three really big deals in the time he has been here, and hit on two of them for sure:
The Bobby trade was right on time and I think is a clear win even if Ritchie turns out to be a 40 point guy.
The Kesler trade was a clear win all around. No negatives in my opinion when setting the extension aside as a separate event.
The pronger trade didn't really work out but that less to do with the value he got, which was the same value we traded away for pronger three or four years earlier, then how the prospects and picks ultimately worked out.
I really only have a couple issues with Bob, and that would be letting muffins walk away for nothing, the entire bieksa garbage, and letting beauch walk the first time to toronto.
The palmieri thing was the right thing to do at the time even if his BS explanation wasnt truthful. Palms sucked during the playoffs, didn't bring it often enough, and it took a trade to open his eyes. Sometimes that is what it takes, and Murray was on the receiving end of one such deal with Pat maroon (eyes not opened enough, unfortunately).
In the entire length of this stay there are just way too many positives in relation to negatives to move on from Murray, even if I feel like his grip on old time hockey may be a little tighter than I'd like at times.
Dr Johnny Fever
Eggplant and Teal
It may be true McNab doesn't want it. But it could be more that he doesn't want to leave the area. Who knows.
Bob's done a lot of good things here and deserves credit for them. But at some point, chasing your tail and making the same mistakes shouldn't be acceptable. And I really wonder how much of the shit show that preceded him was the fault of having Disney as an owner with a totally non hockey focused agenda. They got out of sports ownership the minute their plans to launch their own sports cable channel collapsed. On ice performance always took a back seat to marketing.
Henry appears to know how to hire good people and let them do their job. When it's time for a change I think he will know how to hire the right person. Bob shouldn't be kept for fear "it could always be worse".
Paul4587
Registered User
- Jan 26, 2006
- 31,163
- 13,179
I think the ownership argument is overblown at times. Not saying it isn't valid, but the past few years? It's obviously a variable, but I'm not sure Murray performs much better with a higher budget. I think it's just as likely that his weaknesses become more of an issue. Look at last season. The highest cap/budget team in Ducks history. We were way over the cap. We almost traded Fowler the offseason before that because of it. Now, maybe more $ helps him in other years, but I think it's just as likely that his poor tendencies just become even more of a problem. Where to put most of your cap, infatuation with shitty, old defenseman, etc.
Now, I will say that I do agree about the going "all in" comment, to an extent. I'd say that's just as much because of the small market than ownership though. Let's face it, Anaheim fans suck in general. They (we) just do. If the team struggles, most of the fans here will turn it's back on them. It's not uncommon elsewhere, but obviously they aren't going to get the support other markets will. That's where I think the "budget" comes into play. He's not going to be in a position to deal a large portion of his futures. However, I do think he's been too passive at times. IMO, he waited too long to start being aggressive or willing to part with some of his futures. Why wait until last season to pay the highest rental price ever in your tenure? Where was that aggression when the team, IMO, was closer. The year we lost in the WCF stands out. So yeah, I agree that the budget is a factor, but I think many (not saying you do) use that as a crutch or out for Murray too often. Last year kind of showed, somewhat at least since it's a small sample size, that being a cap team isn't going to make things better for us.
Please understand that in no way am I saying Murray hasn't done a fabulous job overall. He has. However, when you fire a coach because "really good" isn't good enough; well, IMO, the standards for the GM go up as well. Yes, Bruce royally f***ed up against Chicago. He got outcoached, badly. However, I also think Bruce had our team performing much better than their roster indicates several of those years (I know not everyone shares that opinion). If you fire a coach because you want the cup and aren't satisfied with being close, eventually you have to be evaluated on same principles IMO. It's not possible to compare "apples to apples", but Murray's leash has been much, much longer than the coaches he's had so I think it's fair to start thinking his time is almost up. I want Carlyle gone, yesterday, and if he's fired and Murray isn't, I'm not going to go crazy. For one, I think the roster is one of the better ones we've had in recent memory; but like I said: how many coaches or years does he get with not winning a cup before he goes?
This has been frustrating but I think allocating cap/budget money to certain parts of your roster over others has been a bigger issue. I don't think guts are the problem. He's made some pretty major moves. I think his problem on that topic is when to make them. His comments after the Eave's trade was something like "We felt this team has cup potential and wanted to improve those chances. that's why we traded what we did". Where the f*** was this thinking for the WCF team?
I agree with all of this aside from the Palmieri comment. Palms had a lot of problems, but one thing that was clear when he was here IMO was that he was much better on his natural side. If he ever got top 6 minutes, it was on the left side. I didn't like that trade to begin with, but when I think that we FINALLY had the spot for him since it was decided that Perry and Getz would be split up, I became infuriated. We needed a top RW for Getzlaf. We had to put Mike f***ing Santorelli there because we didn't have one. We literally dealt Palms when we had the perfect spot for him.
I agree, but couldn't you say the same thing about Bruce? I know he's a coach, but are we going to accept "he's been really good overall" for a GM but not a coach?
The Mighty Duck Man
R-E-L-A-X
Better than yours. Seriously, those seasons were phenomenal? Three forwards were the main reasons for success on a team that allowed 200 goals(with the implication that the offense bailed out the D when it's closer to the opposite). That any team was lucky to face Edmonton last year? Come on, man, that was awful.
In my opinion there were three occasions that the GM put the correct pieces, or enough of them, on the board to win, and three times the players and coaches coughed it up.
I place that much more in their laps than Murray's.
The job our role players did when we had the injuries was awesome. Grants has exceeded many expectations and has been great. But a lot of players really stepped up, especially Gibson and Miller
I’d imagine a lot of guys have injury issues like Kessler. Probably rushed back to help knowing the window isn’t very long for this group. But hopefully not long term risk
Our defense has regressed in my opinion. And I mean team defense. The coverage in our zone and ability to clear the zone isn’t very good
Personnel wise our d seems worse too. I think we’ve got an amazing core still but for whatever reason it’s not gelling. I’d roll hard with two pair and play Bieksa and whoever is stuck with Hume like Dioenta and Huskies were used. Maybe our core four guys would find themselves not being saddled with an anchor
I’d imagine a lot of guys have injury issues like Kessler. Probably rushed back to help knowing the window isn’t very long for this group. But hopefully not long term risk
Our defense has regressed in my opinion. And I mean team defense. The coverage in our zone and ability to clear the zone isn’t very good
Personnel wise our d seems worse too. I think we’ve got an amazing core still but for whatever reason it’s not gelling. I’d roll hard with two pair and play Bieksa and whoever is stuck with Hume like Dioenta and Huskies were used. Maybe our core four guys would find themselves not being saddled with an anchor
