Joe Sakic - Record as Colorado Avalanche GM - Part III (Updates in First Post)

[Pokecheque]

You're getting too hung up on my use of the word advisor. As I said, I only used that term in the sense that he's advising Sakic, just like everyone else below the GM advises him. He obviously had a big seat at the table, which is what he wanted.

This isn't that unique. Brian Burke would lean on his AGM Dave Nonis all the time. Delegating a ton of duties, and listening to him on all sorts of decisions. A lot of Burke's personnel decisions were Nonis ideas. This is essentially the same role Roy was in.

You're insisting that Sakic would never tell Roy no, but like I said, this is just speculation. Which is fine, but it's not fair to act like that's been proven in any way. It hasn't. It's also contrary to everyone's assumption that Sakic did say no quite a few times to Roy about what he wanted to do.

An early Duchene trade with Ottawa for Chabot and Zibanejad. We heard that Roy was unhappy they couldn't come to a deal with ROR. We've heard he wasn't a big fan of the Jost pick, with some rumors saying he wanted to trade up for Sergachev. The MacFarland addition as well as hiring Pratt to be a second defensive coach he was rumored to have not been a fan of. Biznasty said Roy wanted to trade Barrie instead of going to arbitration, but Sakic said no to that and kept him.

There almost assuredly were a bunch of other smaller things that they disagreed on, and Sakic had his way with.

The organization wanted to bring in Roy earlier on, but they wanted him as coach. They didn't want him in management, that was the role they were saving for Sakic, and what they were grooming him for. They couldn't come to terms on money, and they brought in Sacco instead.

A few years later, Sakic was brought in to be the defecto GM, even though they let Sherman keep that title for a year. It was then Sakic's decision to hire a coach. Noboody was telling Joe Sakic he should hire Roy. He talked at length about why he wanted Roy to be the coach at their first press conference.

Roy wanted more of a voice in personnel decisions, and Sakic agreed to this. He wasn't given the same control over personnel decisions as Sakic, that would be a ridiculous power structure. They both said Sakic had the final say, and that's how it played out. This is why Roy ended up leaving, they disagreed on some of the decisions and that's because Sakic had the final say.

It should be obvious that there's different levels of influence. You can't just say Hartley and Green had influence on their GM's, so therefore Roy didn't just have influence. Of course he did. He just had more. It doesn't mean he had the final say.

I don't think the 2016 trade deadline had anything to do with Roy leaving. I believe the main reason was that Sakic's rebuild was going too slowly, and there were more aggressive moves to improve the blueline that Roy wanted to make, but Sakic didn't. So Roy was about to go into another year with a stop gap roster, which was gonna have another poor season, and he wasn't going to be re-signed anyway.

You're also assuming that Sakic and Roy weren't on the same page early on. This is what I believe was the case, and something nobody ever brings up as a possibility. I think Sakic is a lot closer to Roy in terms of philosophy then people realize.

For starters, I never actually said Sakic was afraid to or didn't say no to Roy. He very obviously did at some point. What I said was that Roy wouldn't just sit there, shrug his shoulders, and say "okay" and quietly go back to game-planning, not if it was something big. That's not Patrick Roy. You know that, I know that, everyone knows that. But I also said that it wouldn't matter if Roy was as even-keeled as Sakic, the arrangement was never, ever going to work. And it didn't, and that's why Roy is gone from the Avs and the NHL.

And I don't get the part in here about influence. Where did I say Roy didn't have influence? I'm just saying that's a mischaracterization of the actual power he held over roster decisions. He had much more than that. Sakic still had final say but he couldn't just sit there and dismiss the coach's ideas on personnel and do his own thing, which a guy like Lacroix or Benning could/can do. It's way more than "influence" when you have contractual power in personnel decisions.

I also didn't really say that Sakic was ever against or for Roy being hired, in fact I'm sure he was on board with it. Just saying that the Avs hiring him was an inevitability, and that inertia was in place before Sakic hung 'em up and went upstairs.

Also, never said that Roy and Sakic weren't initially on the same page, only that at the end they weren't, and there was no way in hell both guys in such a situation would remain that way. They obviously were on the same page after that spectacular debut season, which is why they proceeded to fall flat on their faces that offseason in 2014, signing a bunch of marginal players to multi-year deals and screwing up horribly in free agency. Sakic changed, Roy didn't.

The 2016 debacle was the end result of two people running the show who had diametrically opposed ideas on which direction the team needed to go. They really didn't have a very realistic chance at a playoff spot, but they went ahead and made some rental deals, but also didn't call up Mikko Rantanen. It was a half-assed attempt to try and make the postseason that cost them what little they could have recouped from that horrid 2014 draft. That is quite clearly indicative of some sort of compromise between conflicting philosophies, and there's a reason you don't see crap like that from other teams. If you think that didn't play a part in the eventual divorce proceedings, I think you're kidding yourself.

Exactly. Sakic had the responsibility for the decisions that were made by the organization.

Even if Sakic made the choice to abdicate his responsibilities to Roy, he is still responsible for that choice.

Again, this is a cop-out and an attempt to oversimplify a complex situation. It just wasn't that cut-and-dried.

 

[Foppa2118]

Sorry to break this down piece by piece, but I think it just makes it easier to give my take on each of the topics you brought up.

For starters, I never actually said Sakic was afraid to or didn't say no to Roy. He very obviously did at some point. What I said was that Roy wouldn't just sit there, shrug his shoulders, and say "okay" and quietly go back to game-planning, not if it was something big. That's not Patrick Roy. You know that, I know that, everyone knows that. But I also said that it wouldn't matter if Roy was as even-keeled as Sakic, the arrangement was never, ever going to work. And it didn't, and that's why Roy is gone from the Avs and the NHL.

I understand, but don't see a big issue with the way you described it. You're essentially saying that Roy wouldn't have been stoked when Sakic said no to him. I think that's likely true, but I think a lot of what you're saying is relying on the assumption of what level of discontent Roy would have after being told no. Nobody likes having their ideas turned down, but Roy is a grown man in his 50's. He managed to last three years without wrecking an office that we know of.

Obviously there's a limit to how long Roy would be ok with Sakic making decisions he disagreed with, and I think that's why he eventually left. But the main point I think we're disagreeing on, is whether Sakic should be judged on the entirety or his tenure or not, and whether Sakic was the ultimate decision maker the whole time.

I don't think the idea that Roy would have been less happy than most after Joe saying no to him, is evidence to the contrary on those things.

And I don't get the part in here about influence. Where did I say Roy didn't have influence? I'm just saying that's a mischaracterization of the actual power he held over roster decisions. He had much more than that. Sakic still had final say but he couldn't just sit there and dismiss the coach's ideas on personnel and do his own thing, which a guy like Lacroix or Benning could/can do. It's way more than "influence" when you have contractual power in personnel decisions.

You mentioned in your last post that to whittle down Roy's role to just influence is flat out wrong. Then cited Hartley and Green having influence with their GM's, and said Roy didn't just have influence he had say so.

That's just different levels of influence. Roy didn't have equal say as Sakic in personal decisions. We know that because we pretty much all agree there were multiple things Roy didn't get his way on.

I also didn't really say that Sakic was ever against or for Roy being hired, in fact I'm sure he was on board with it. Just saying that the Avs hiring him was an inevitability, and that inertia was in place before Sakic hung 'em up and went upstairs.

What I was saying with that is that the organization didn't have plans to bring in Roy for a management role, they wanted him as coach. They couldn't agree to money the first time. Then the second time he floated the idea of taking on a bigger role at a meeting with Kroenke and Sakic, in return for them getting his asking price, and they eventually agreed.

I thought you were saying the plan was to put Roy into a management role the whole time, and that wasn't their original intention. My mistake if that's not what you were saying.

The 2016 debacle was the end result of two people running the show who had diametrically opposed ideas on which direction the team needed to go. They really didn't have a very realistic chance at a playoff spot, but they went ahead and made some rental deals, but also didn't call up Mikko Rantanen. It was a half-assed attempt to try and make the postseason that cost them what little they could have recouped from that horrid 2014 draft. That is quite clearly indicative of some sort of compromise between conflicting philosophies, and there's a reason you don't see crap like that from other teams. If you think that didn't play a part in the eventual divorce proceedings, I think you're kidding yourself.

I don't see those deadline deals as very meaningful in the context we're talking about. They traded Colin Smith and a 4th for Matthias. Traded a 3rd for Gelinas. And traded Tanguay, Bleackley, and Wood for Boedker.

Those aren't major additions or major assets thrown away. They were most definitely still in the playoff hunt at the time, and ended up finishing 9th just on the bubble of making the playoffs.

Keeping Mikko in the AHL is just what this team likes to do with prospects like him at his stage of development. They did the same with Kaut, and I think they'll likely do the same with Bowers.

So I don't view those deadline additions as any different than moves that any team makes at the deadline when they're trying to make the playoffs. It wasn't a compromise with Roy. The organization wanted to get that young team some playoff experience, and they wanted to do at least something to help them get there.

The off-season moves were by far a much bigger factor in Roy leaving.

Also, never said that Roy and Sakic weren't initially on the same page, only that at the end they weren't, and there was no way in hell both guys in such a situation would remain that way. They obviously were on the same page after that spectacular debut season, which is why they proceeded to fall flat on their faces that offseason in 2014, signing a bunch of marginal players to multi-year deals and screwing up horribly in free agency. Sakic changed, Roy didn't.

My point there was that I believe a lot of the personnel decisions like Stuart and Iggy that some like to pin on Roy, Sakic was probably in favor of as well. Sakic played against Stuart multiple times in the playoffs and knew how tough he was to play against, and Iggy was one of his good friends. Both could even have been Sakic's idea to begin with.

I think additions like that make some want to make two different categories of Roy and post Roy to judge Sakic on. This is the main point that I've disagreed with. For lots of reasons, including just the general idea that I think AB was trying to say, in that Sakic's the man at the top, and ultimately he's responsible for all the decisions. But also because I think Sakic was more on board with those early moves than people realize. I don't think it was just Roy suggesting them, and Sakic just catering to his ideas and saying ok.

I also think that the reason we've seen Sakic change a bit in his philosophy isn't necessarily because Roy isn't here, it's because he slowly realized how much the game was changing to more of a possession game that relied a lot on speed to compete.

I think some want to make two different categories of Roy and post Roy because they believe the early period it was Roy having influence on the roster, and then the post Roy success was because Sakic wasn't listening to him anymore

I don't think this is the case at all. I think they probably agreed on most decisions, especially early on, but then disagreed on a few other decisions towards the end. I don't think that includes the bad contracts and additions that people want to pin on Roy. I think that includes moves the Sakic didn't want to make in favor of being "patient." Roy eventually lost patience, because he was the guy getting blamed for all the teams problems, and he didn't want to go through another season of that, after seeing another off season of stop gap additions.

 

[Pokecheque]

I understand, but don't see a big issue with the way you described it. You're essentially saying that Roy wouldn't have been stoked when Sakic said no to him. I think that's likely true, but I think a lot of what you're saying is relying on the assumption of what level of discontent Roy would have after being told no. Nobody likes having their ideas turned down, but Roy is a grown man in his 50's. He managed to last three years without wrecking an office that we know of.

Right, he just wrecked part of the bench area his first official game as head coach.

You mentioned in your last post that to whittle down Roy's role to just influence is flat out wrong. Then cited Hartley and Green having influence with their GM's, and said Roy didn't just have influence he had say so.

That's just different levels of influence. Roy didn't have equal say as Sakic in personal decisions. We know that because we pretty much all agree there were multiple things Roy didn't get his way on.

I realize this is coming down to semantics, but I just can't characterize that as "influence." He had actual front office power, influence means the GM can listen and maybe make some decisions based on what the coach wants, but he can just as easily make other moves that fulfill his wishes or he can flat-out refuse. I just don't think that was the setup in Colorado.

What I was saying with that is that the organization didn't have plans to bring in Roy for a management role, they wanted him as coach. They couldn't agree to money the first time. Then the second time he floated the idea of taking on a bigger role at a meeting with Kroenke and Sakic, in return for them getting his asking price, and they eventually agreed.

I thought you were saying the plan was to put Roy into a management role the whole time, and that wasn't their original intention. My mistake if that's not what you were saying.

No, you weren't mistaken. We all know Lacroix offered full team control (GM and coach) to Roy the first time around. He refused. When they came back, I don't believe for a second they just offered coach and not managerial power. If they did, Roy likely very quickly said NO and it evolved from there.

I don't see those deadline deals as very meaningful in the context we're talking about. They traded Colin Smith and a 4th for Matthias. Traded a 3rd for Gelinas. And traded Tanguay, Bleackley, and Wood for Boedker.

Those aren't major additions or major assets thrown away. They were most definitely still in the playoff hunt at the time, and ended up finishing 9th just on the bubble of making the playoffs.

Keeping Mikko in the AHL is just what this team likes to do with prospects like him at his stage of development. They did the same with Kaut, and I think they'll likely do the same with Bowers.

So I don't view those deadline additions as any different than moves that any team makes at the deadline when they're trying to make the playoffs. It wasn't a compromise with Roy. The organization wanted to get that young team some playoff experience, and they wanted to do at least something to help them get there.

The off-season moves were by far a much bigger factor in Roy leaving.

I tried to rationalize that decision as well, and was successful for a time, but I keep falling short. They gave up the last chances to recoup anything from that horrid 2014 draft for what exactly? A bubble playoff run they had virtually no chance of getting? And they targeted some truly mediocre players to boot. None of those guys was gonna move the needle, and then on the other side of things they didn't call up Mikko and burn his ELC. It was half-assed and you can disagree all you want, but to me that is endemic of the chasm that was opening between GM and coach/GM. On top of that it was a very poor assessment of where the team was and a poor assessment of which players to bring aboard. It was dumb, unnecessary, and to me spoke to larger issues in the organization. Was the last straw? No. But it played a part. To say it wasn't a factor just doesn't jive with me, and that's MHO.

My point there was that I believe a lot of the personnel decisions like Stuart and Iggy that some like to pin on Roy, Sakic was probably in favor of as well. Sakic played against Stuart multiple times in the playoffs and knew how tough he was to play against, and Iggy was one of his good friends. Both could even have been Sakic's idea to begin with.

I don't just pin those on Roy either. What I do pin on Roy, if I pin any single personnel decision on him, is Beauchemin. And I don't care if Sakic still had to sign off on it, the blame doesn't just by default go to Sakic. By all accounts Roy exclusively negotiated that deal, that is NOT what an "advisor" or "influence" does.

I think additions like that make some want to make two different categories of Roy and post Roy to judge Sakic on. This is the main point that I've disagreed with. For lots of reasons, including just the general idea that I think AB was trying to say, in that Sakic's the man at the top, and ultimately he's responsible for all the decisions. But also because I think Sakic was more on board with those early moves than people realize. I don't think it was just Roy suggesting them, and Sakic just catering to his ideas and saying ok.

I think he was too, but I also think later on there were moves he was not entirely on board with, but again, Roy wasn't just a guy who had the GM's ear. He was more than that. He attempted compromise at that 2016 draft and the results were terrible. Thankfully Sakic dodged a bullet by letting all those goofs walk.

 

[Pokecheque]

Bottom line, I just can't boil it down to "It's all on Sakic in the end." Because that's not the way it was set up. Similarly, I can't blame everything that went wrong under Sherman and Giguere entirely on them because I don't think either guy enjoyed a free hand in shaping the roster. That said, I do think those guys can still be assessed on their own merits to a degree and that's why I believe both guys are not involved in hockey management any longer.

 

[Foppa2118]

I realize this is coming down to semantics, but I just can't characterize that as "influence." He had actual front office power, influence means the GM can listen and maybe make some decisions based on what the coach wants, but he can just as easily make other moves that fulfill his wishes or he can flat-out refuse. I just don't think that was the setup in Colorado.

I don't want to draw this out too much with another lengthy post, since I think both of us made our points already. I think this part illustrates our disconnect though, because I think we pretty much all believe that was the setup in Colorado later on. We all believe there were moves that Sakic both wanted to make and didn't want to make, that Roy had the opposite stance on and didn't get his way.

So if that was the setup later on, there's no reason to believe it was different early on. Especially when Roy and Sakic kept telling us Sakic was the ultimate decision maker. They just agreed more early on. The only thing that was different IMO was there were some aggressive moves they disagreed with later on, and the team was still losing, so that brought things to a head.

Sakic was making the final call the entire time, so therefore all the decisions are his responsibility, and fair to judge him on. I get back to my previous point that we can't put the Roy years in a seperate category, any more than we can put the MacFarland years in a seperate category.

I mean look at all these additions from CBJ that MacFarland had a big hand in. These aren't all Sakic's ideas. Not sure any of them were. But we judge Sakic for them just like any other move. Credit to @Tommy Shelby for compiling the list.

Cody Bass
Francois Beauchemin
Derick Brassard
Andrew Bodnarcuck
Rene Bourque
Matt Calvert
Ian Cole
Blake Comeau
Kevin Connauton
Marko Dano
Justin Falk
Curtis Glencross
Cody Goloubef
Jack Skille
Jeremy Smith
T.J Tynan
Fyodor Tyutin
Trent Vogelhuber
Jared Bednar
Nolan Pratt

 

[Pokecheque]

See, again, we know Roy spearheaded the contact/negotiations with Beauchemin, so I still can't just put that on Sakic. And I just don't think you can detangle that situation on one hand and say it ultimately rested on Sakic and on the other hand acknowledge that Sakic didn't have full control on personnel decisions. That's fine, we can agree to disagree there, but I refuse to say it's all on Sakic. Roy was not merely someone in the room who made suggestions as most head coaches might.

 

[ThatAvsGamer]

He’s done a pretty good job. Just didn’t like the O’Reilly/Barrie trades and a few signings The biggest one being the iginla signing. He’s gotten lucky with a few high round picks. It’ll be interesting how he fills in the slots around the talent.

The real test is now.

 

[Auston mcdavid]

He’s done a pretty good job. Just didn’t like the O’Reilly/Barrie trades and a few signings The biggest one being the iginla signing. He’s gotten lucky with a few high round picks. It’ll be interesting how he fills in the slots around the talent.

The real test is now.

He’s done a pretty good job. Just didn’t like the O’Reilly/Barrie trades and a few signings The biggest one being the iginla signing. He’s gotten lucky with a few high round picks. It’ll be interesting how he fills in the slots around the talent.

The real test is now.[/QUOTE for me his grade is a 5 he never made that iginla signing Greg Sherman did as soon as joe sakic toke over he’s rebuilt the whole team built a top 5 farm system and the Tyson barrie trade allowed them to get a their second line center in kadri that they have needed for a long time and the Ryan o Reilly trade gave them long term pieces in compher and zadorov the team looks amazing and sakic is the reason why he’s easily a top three or top 5 gm love to hear your opinion or thoughts on that

 

[Pokecheque]

for me his grade is a 5 he never made that iginla signing Greg Sherman did as soon as joe sakic toke over he’s rebuilt the whole team built a top 5 farm system and the Tyson barrie trade allowed them to get a their second line center in kadri that they have needed for a long time and the Ryan o Reilly trade gave them long term pieces in compher and zadorov the team looks amazing and sakic is the reason why he’s easily a top three or top 5 gm love to hear your opinion or thoughts on that

Uh...no, Sakic was the GM when Iggy was signed. Sherman's role was drastically reduced once Sakic was named the official GM.

The only bad signing I don't lay at Sakic's feet is Beauchemin. That was Roy's move.

 

[Auston mcdavid]

Uh...no, Sakic was the GM when Iggy was signed. Sherman's role was drastically reduced once Sakic was named the official GM.

The only bad signing I don't lay at Sakic's feet is Beauchemin. That was Roy's move.

Interesting iggy was signed in July’s June’s or June of 2014 where sakic was named gm in September 2014 so it had to be Sherman but even if it was sakic what are your thoughts on where he would rank among gms in the nhl ?

 

[Pokecheque]

Interesting iggy was signed in July’s June’s or June of 2014 where sakic was named gm in September 2014 so it had to be Sherman but even if it was sakic what are your thoughts on where he would rank among gms in the nhl ?

Well, you’re right about the timing but it didn’t *have* to be Sherman. He may have still been the “official” GM of record but make no mistake, Sakic and Roy were running the show the moment Roy joined up. Iggy should be attributed to them. The only Sherman “influence” I can observe is that a bunch of contracts the Avs signed that offseason were three-year deals. Sherman loved those for some weird reason.

All that said, I’ve always said that Sakic appears to have learned from his mistakes and is a better GM for it. I rate him highly but I’m not entirely certain I’d give him the highest grade possible. That’s sort of the debate that’s been raging on here for the past few weeks.

 

[Auston mcdavid]

Well, you’re right about the timing but it didn’t *have* to be Sherman. He may have still been the “official” GM of record but make no mistake, Sakic and Roy were running the show the moment Roy joined up. Iggy should be attributed to them. The only Sherman “influence” I can observe is that a bunch of contracts the Avs signed that offseason were three-year deals. Sherman loved those for some weird reason.

All that said, I’ve always said that Sakic appears to have learned from his mistakes and is a better GM for it. I rate him highly but I’m not entirely certain I’d give him the highest grade possible. That’s sort of the debate that’s been raging on here for the past few weeks.

Thanks for replying do u think he would be up there with Yzerman and Chevy and poile or shero ?

 

[Pokecheque]

Thanks for replying do u think he would be up there with Yzerman and Chevy and poile or shero ?

Oh man...hard to say. I tried ranking the GMs of the league about a year ago, and I think I'd already do some serious revision to my list (not to mention a bit of turnover since then).

I'm not sure how I'd rank the GMs now. I suppose Yzerman remains the gold standard even though he's already made some curious moves in Detroit. Poile has also done some weird things in Music City, and I ranked him #1 on my list a year ago. Chevy is starting to look kinda indecisive nowadays. And Shero is a guy I simply can't figure out.

So, long-winded answer...yes, I'd rank him pretty high, but I just don't know who else I'd rank with him. I just know the bottom of my list would probably consist of Jim Benning, Chuck Fletcher, Bob Murray, and Jason Botterill (not necessarily in that order).

 

[cgf]

"up there with...Chevy"?

 

[CobraAcesS]

Oh man...hard to say. I tried ranking the GMs of the league about a year ago, and I think I'd already do some serious revision to my list (not to mention a bit of turnover since then).

I'm not sure how I'd rank the GMs now. I suppose Yzerman remains the gold standard even though he's already made some curious moves in Detroit. Poile has also done some weird things in Music City, and I ranked him #1 on my list a year ago. Chevy is starting to look kinda indecisive nowadays. And Shero is a guy I simply can't figure out.

So, long-winded answer...yes, I'd rank him pretty high, but I just don't know who else I'd rank with him. I just know the bottom of my list would probably consist of Jim Benning, Chuck Fletcher, Bob Murray, and Jason Botterill (not necessarily in that order).

I think ranking the GMs is one list I'd never complete if I started it. It would change daily or weekly at times lol. I could see groupings like Good, mediocre, and bad. Maybe even a train wreck category.

 

[Auston mcdavid]

I think ranking the GMs is one list I'd never complete if I started it. It would change daily or weekly at times lol. I could see groupings like Good, mediocre, and bad. Maybe even a train wreck category.

So do u think sakic is the next Yzerman in terms of building a roster and developing players whether it be through signings and trades ?

 

[Hennessy]

No, it is not just my speculation. It’s a known fact that Roy entered into a protracted negotiation with the organization to set terms not just on his salary and term but on the level of power he held on personnel decisions. He was not just an “advisor.” Whenever media types spoke of coach’s salaries and compared them they specifically excluded Roy’s because he wasn’t just a coach. We also know he was allowed to contact agents and negotiate contracts independently of Sakic and anyone else. “Advisors” don’t do that. Sakic may still have had to sign off on the final deal, but again, if you think Sakic could flat out tell Roy “no” without any sort of fallout then the Patrick Roy we know and (mostly) love was a complete myth.

I also don’t buy the narrative that Joe Sakic decided to bring Patrick Roy in. That was something that the organization was eventually going to revisit following their first attempt to do so immediately following Granato’s firing. The course was already set, the only thing that would’ve derailed it is if Greg Sherman had been an outstanding GM.

To try and whittle Roy’s power down to “influence” is just flat-out false. Hartley had influence on Lacroix’s decisions in shaping the Avs roster at the time. Green clearly has influence on Jim Benning’s decisions in Vancouver. Roy did not just have “influence” on decisions. He had actual say-so in the operations of the club, it was on paper, and it was factored into his salary. That’s not to say it was necessarily Roy’s fault it didn’t work, such a jumbled setup was doomed to fail no matter who the players were. It was bound to lead to disruption and bad decisions. Those terrible 2016 trade deadline deals were a last attempt at some sort of compromise, it obviously didn’t work, and Roy left not long afterward.

I’ve maintained I can’t really fault Roy specifically for bad personnel decisions the team made between 2013 and 2016, but I can’t make some blanket statement that “Sakic was the GM of record” because that’s a cop-out. That’s why I keep saying I want Roy to get a chance at running the show somewhere. If nothing else it’d be a hell of a whole lot of fun to watch.

Put up or shut up.

 

[CobraAcesS]

So do u think sakic is the next Yzerman in terms of building a roster and developing players whether it be through signings and trades ?

Sakic does not have the same tools as Mr. Y did in Tampa, but he seems to have learned a lot of valuable lessons. I'm very curious to see how Yzerman does in Detroit. Where yes their history still helps them, but there is a lot of clean up there and no tax advantages.

Missing out on Trouba was a pretty big whiff already IMO.

 

[Hennessy]

Sakic does not have the same tools as Mr. Y did in Tampa, but he seems to have learned a lot of valuable lessons. I'm very curious to see how Yzerman does in Detroit. Where yes their history still helps them, but there is a lot of clean up there and no tax advantages.

Missing out on Trouba was a pretty big whiff already IMO.

You wanted Sakic to sign Trouba to a fat, long-term contract when the team is deep as all hell at D? Call me crazy, may as well just re-sign Barrie. Or trade for Shattenkirk, the way you're going.

 

[CobraAcesS]

You wanted Sakic to sign Trouba to a fat, long-term contract when the team is deep as all hell at D? Call me crazy, may as well just re-sign Barrie. Or trade for Shattenkirk, the way you're going.

I was talking about Yzerman there, but I would have supported trading for Trouba. The over all feeling was that Trouba eventually wanted to be in Detroit. Obviously he wasn't that bullish about it, but at the price Trouba went for Detroit missing on him sucks considering their needs and how their drafts have went towards forwards lately.

Also we are not that deep on the right side. You have a rookie there, and a declining EJ. We may have a big house, but it is a glass house IMO.

 

[Pokecheque]

Boomer Gordon finished his annual offseason NHL GM report cards. This is always a fun segment.



That's about where I'd grade Sakic, for now. I think his mark for Calgary is a little too high, his mark for Vancouver is WAY too high, and IMO his mark for Florida is a bit harsh (he stated he tried to avoid C's whenever possible) but I don't disagree with much else.

He and Jake Hahn made one rather erroneous conclusion, unless they know something I don't--they claimed the Hoffman trade was always a three-way deal. I don't buy that for a second, otherwise Dorion wouldn't have forced in those silly provisions into the subsequent Karlsson deal that would've essentially punished San Jose had they dealt EK65 back to an Eastern Conference team. They were blindsided by that trade IMO, a trade that saw SJ get more for Hoffman than Ottawa did.

 

[CobraAcesS]

Boomer Gordon finished his annual offseason NHL GM report cards. This is always a fun segment.



That's about where I'd grade Sakic, for now. I think his mark for Calgary is a little too high, his mark for Vancouver is WAY too high, and IMO his mark for Florida is a bit harsh (he stated he tried to avoid C's whenever possible) but I don't disagree with much else.

He and Jake Hahn made one rather erroneous conclusion, unless they know something I don't--they claimed the Hoffman trade was always a three-way deal. I don't buy that for a second, otherwise Dorion wouldn't have forced in those silly provisions into the subsequent Karlsson deal that would've essentially punished San Jose had they dealt EK65 back to an Eastern Conference team. They were blindsided by that trade IMO, a trade that saw SJ get more for Hoffman than Ottawa did.

100%

I've always enjoyed your take on GMs. Not always when it comes to other topics as you know, but I think you value and articulate regularly how hard it is to truly judge a GM in the NHL.

 

[Hennessy]

I was talking about Yzerman there, but I would have supported trading for Trouba. The over all feeling was that Trouba eventually wanted to be in Detroit. Obviously he wasn't that bullish about it, but at the price Trouba went for Detroit missing on him sucks considering their needs and how their drafts have went towards forwards lately.

Also we are not that deep on the right side. You have a rookie there, and a declining EJ. We may have a big house, but it is a glass house IMO.

I see that now. Went off half-cocked, I guess.

 

[flyfysher]

Boomer Gordon finished his annual offseason NHL GM report cards. This is always a fun segment.



That's about where I'd grade Sakic, for now. I think his mark for Calgary is a little too high, his mark for Vancouver is WAY too high, and IMO his mark for Florida is a bit harsh (he stated he tried to avoid C's whenever possible) but I don't disagree with much else.

He and Jake Hahn made one rather erroneous conclusion, unless they know something I don't--they claimed the Hoffman trade was always a three-way deal. I don't buy that for a second, otherwise Dorion wouldn't have forced in those silly provisions into the subsequent Karlsson deal that would've essentially punished San Jose had they dealt EK65 back to an Eastern Conference team. They were blindsided by that trade IMO, a trade that saw SJ get more for Hoffman than Ottawa did.

How come Sakic and CBJ get the same grade? CBJ didn't draft anyone of note IIRC and lost Duchene, Panarin and Bobrovsky. They got Nyquist though but I just don't see them as being quite as well positioned as the Avs.

 

[Foppberg]

Columbus, Boston, Calgary seem way to high.

Buffalo, Edmonton, Florida, Montreal seem way too low.

Among others, a pretty shit list tbh