I just put him up as an example. do you really want me to start naming names and stir that up? lets just let it go, pal.
You're the one that brought it up. If you're going to keep making accusations about people then don't be surprised when you're asked to back up what you say. Especially when you're criticizing people for repetitive, habitual, unsupported generalizations and you're doing it yourself. Pal.
Back to what you said:
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=87713361&postcount=259
forever here we read constant ridicule of George McPhee for his risk aversion and his unwillingness to make bold moves. Had MacLellan been on the job for 5 years and the team struggling these would have been dubbed desperation/save his job moves.
The problem with hypotheticals is they can often become strawmen. What was done in those 5 years? With GMGM we know exactly what the track record was for over three times that span, and we know with certainty what his philosophy toward big splash moves was. As stated before, and with nobody I can see disagreeing, GMGM would never have made this deal for Orpik based on those factors. With almost all new coaches, possibly new philosophies and not a single game played yet we don't know how this will play out. But we do know it's not business as usual and not a GMGM move, and we can look around the league at COMPARABLES and suspect as most in the hockey world do that it is on its face an overpayment with dangerous term.
by their nature, bold moves are going to be controversial. if everyone thought they were good moves, they wouldn't be bold.
You seem to think everyone was begging for big splash at any cost and therefore "bold" moves that, once made, can't be questioned in any way. There is a difference between risky bold, stupid bold, and uncharacteristically bold but sound. Stepping into traffic is bold, but risky and probably stupid. Betting all your money on a lame horse is bold but flat out stupid. Taking that money instead and betting for the first time in your life on the prohibitive favorite is uncharactaristically bold, less risky, and less stupid.
Do you understand the differences? Do you get that all risk and controversy (differene of opinion, really) is not the same?
I am afraid that Niskanen was a flash in the pan last season and that Orpik is running out of gas. But MacLellan and Trotz seem to think Niskanen just needed the chance and that Orpik is a major missing cog in the wheel. I am fine waiting to see how it works out.
Some of you guys seem to be so used to whining and moaning and sniping at McPhee that when you finally get a GM that embraces risk and makes bold moves that you can't get off that negative track and just have keep throwing barbs.
Who here is seriously advocating anything other than seeing how it works out while offering analysis of the deals? You yourself express "negativity" toward the moves but you give yourself permission to do so while making a generalized attack on people for hypocrisy you can't even prove.
It seems you're hell-bent on again trying to have it both ways. When it suits you, GMGM was bad and you told everyone it COULD get worse. When you see an opportunity to save some face over your previous stumping for management you flip the script and defend GMGM and company yet again.