detredWINgs
Registered User
I'd rather keep Babcock.
Its disturbing to me that Ken Holland's performance has significantly worsened as the challenges have increased. How can you be one of the best GMs in the NHL if your resume is built upon easy sailing? When we needed Holland to step up and get aggressive or creative, he instead opted for status quo: going with a veteran heavy roster, re-signing known quantities even if the quality was lacking, and low-balling free agents. These are things he got away with before the luster of the pre-lockout era began to fade and he has failed to adapt. Not just once, but repeatedly over the past 3-5 years. And whats even more mind-boggling is that he makes the same mistakes over and over again. What about that is a sign of one of the league's best GMs?
Ken Holland is just another example of an upper-level management mind that has successfully functioned one way for so long that he fails to realize that he's not just "on a string of bad luck" but rather that the game has changed altogether. I think that is further reinforced by the fact that neither of his apprentices have functioned even remotely close to the way Ken Holland has as a GM. Neither of them have sat back and waited for a low-risk opportunity to present itself, but instead have worked actively to change their positions even at the prospect of making a risky move.
Its disturbing to me that Ken Holland's performance has significantly worsened as the challenges have increased. How can you be one of the best GMs in the NHL if your resume is built upon easy sailing? When we needed Holland to step up and get aggressive or creative, he instead opted for status quo: going with a veteran heavy roster, re-signing known quantities even if the quality was lacking, and low-balling free agents. These are things he got away with before the luster of the pre-lockout era began to fade and he has failed to adapt. Not just once, but repeatedly over the past 3-5 years. And whats even more mind-boggling is that he makes the same mistakes over and over again. What about that is a sign of one of the league's best GMs?
Ken Holland is just another example of an upper-level management mind that has successfully functioned one way for so long that he fails to realize that he's not just "on a string of bad luck" but rather that the game has changed altogether. I think that is further reinforced by the fact that neither of his apprentices have functioned even remotely close to the way Ken Holland has as a GM. Neither of them have sat back and waited for a low-risk opportunity to present itself, but instead have worked actively to change their positions even at the prospect of making a risky move.