Your DRW ‘hot takes’

[Bench]

Ahh, gotcha. Following that logic:
*Don Sweeney of Boston is actually mediocre, because of all the good players that were there before he started.
* Jim Rutherford of Pittsburgh is actually mediocre, despite winning multiple Cups, because he already had Crosby and Malkin.
* Brian MacLellan of Washington is actually mediocre, despite winning a Cup, because he already had Ovechkin.

Keep grinding that axe...

This reminds me of the famous NFL Reddit post where a guy went through great lengths to argue if you normalize Mahome's statistics, he's actually no better than Dak Prescott.

So if you take away all the reasons they win and attribute it to something else, obviously they are all pretty average. I mean, people did that with Holland for years. I've seen people argue he inherited his championship players like Lidstrom and Yzerman and then later got lucky with the likes of Zetterberg. Dude was just sitting around at the right time and right place and championships fell from the sky.

In conclusion, if you take away why a team is good, they are actually average.

Literally no GM starts with nothing. Well, other than like... expansion teams, I guess.

 

[izlez]

Ahh, gotcha. Following that logic:
*Don Sweeney of Boston is actually mediocre, because of all the good players that were there before he started.
* Jim Rutherford of Pittsburgh is actually mediocre, despite winning multiple Cups, because he already had Crosby and Malkin.
* Brian MacLellan of Washington is actually mediocre, despite winning a Cup, because he already had Ovechkin.

Keep grinding that axe...

Lets see...

Don Sweeney... yeah, I'd say he hasn't had much to do with the success of the Bruins as a GM. Took over a great team. Probably too early to judge one way or the other.
Jim Rutherford.He took over a team with talent, and actually did something with it. 3 cups with 2 different teams and hasn't missed the playoffs in pittsburgh. Looks better than Yzerman.
Brian MacLellan. He took over a team with talent, and has done something with it. Division titles in 4/5 years. Stanley cup. Playoffs every year (and hey... 3/4 times his team has been eliminated from the playoffs they lost in a game 7 where things actually could have gone either way). Looks better than Yzerman.

 

[izlez]

This reminds me of the famous NFL Reddit post where a guy went through great lengths to argue if you normalize Mahome's statistics, he's actually no better than Dak Prescott.

So if you take away all the reasons they win and attribute it to something else, obviously they are all pretty average. I mean, people did that with Holland for years. I've seen people argue he inherited his championship players like Lidstrom and Yzerman and then later got lucky with the likes of Zetterberg. Dude was just sitting around at the right time and right place and championships fell from the sky.

In conclusion, if you take away why a team is good, they are actually average.

Literally no GM starts with nothing. Well, other than like... expansion teams, I guess.

Mahomes and Holland's teams have actually accomplished things.

 

[Bench]

Mahomes and Holland's teams have actually accomplished things.

Keep in mind this famous post was before Mahomes accomplished the things.

If success is only measured as a binary Cup/No Cup, then I think that's pretty disingenuous. The same way I don't think the Sharks have been a failure under Doug Wilson. He made great teams that were absolutely right there every single year to win.

And I felt exactly the same way about the Caps and Blues before they finally broke through. But even if the Blues never get that miracle Binnington run and win it all, that does not change Doug Armstrong built an incredible playoff team and put his team in a position of success.

I don't expect championships. I expect a manager to build a team that's right there in the mix. So many things are out of their control, basing it solely on if they win 16 games at the end of the year is shortsighted.

Yzerman built winning teams. Yes, he got some help from high draft picks. Just like basically everyone else. That's why we're all moaning about falling out of the top 3 again.

 

[Gniwder]

We have the worst team in the league.... average would actually be a humongous step forward, lol.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

When a team makes it to the conference finals 3 times and the Stanley Cup Finals once in an 8 year span, and during that span the successful team has an uncharacteristically horrible year where they somehow miss entirely, that says a lot about the kind of team he has built.

How many teams in the league have made it to the conference finals three times in less than ten years in recent history and how many of those GMs would we call failures? Boston has three in nine (one cup, one finals loss). Pittsburgh has three in eight (two cups). Los Angeles has three in nine (three conference finals appearances in a row and two cups). Chicago has five in twelve (three cups).

San Jose is the closest comparable (four in eleven, one finals appearance), but most consider Doug Wilson to have done a good job with the team up until recently.

A GM isn't some kind of guy who through sheer managerial ability can will a team into a cup. It takes good moves, luck, and the talent you have doing what they need to do when the time is right. Yzerman built a team that should have been more successful. When you see how the team performed against Columbus last year you can understand a GM can only do so much to set up a team to succeed.

 

[izlez]

Keep in mind this famous post was before Mahomes accomplished the things.

If success is only measured as a binary Cup/No Cup, then I think that's pretty disingenuous. The same way I don't think the Sharks have been a failure under Doug Wilson. He made great teams that were absolutely right there every single year to win.

And I felt exactly the same way about the Caps and Blues before they finally broke through. But even if the Blues never get that miracle Binnington run and win it all, that does not change Doug Armstrong built an incredible playoff team and put his team in a position of success.

I don't expect championships. I expect a manager to build a team that's right there in the mix. So many things are out of their control, basing it solely on if they win 16 games at the end of the year is shortsighted.

Yzerman built winning teams. Yes, he got some help from high draft picks. Just like basically everyone else. That's why we're all moaning about falling out of the top 3 again.

I agree with all of this.

I just don't think TB meets these criteria over the last 10 years.

 

[jkutswings]

I agree with all of this.

I just don't think TB meets these criteria over the last 10 years.

Over the same interval I originally compared:

Sharks: 9 / 1 / 7 / 3 / 0 (no playoffs) / 14 / 2 / 6 = 42 wins

Blues: 0 (no playoffs) / 4 / 2 / 2 / 2 / 10 / 6 / 0 (no playoffs) = 26 wins

Apparently streaky = bad now. I guess we should hope for a GM that builds a roster to win 3 playoff games every single year. Then we'd know we hit the jackpot.

 

[ManwithNoIdentity]

Very controversial, but my opinion. Yzerman is getting too much credit this year for just 1 good trade (Fabbri) and is not our "saviour" as a lot of people are claiming he is.

Our scouting, a good coach and some better trades are going to get Detroit back to its glory, not just Yzerman himself.

I feel like he’s earned our trust and patience so

 

[GOZetterberg]

We draft Rossi at 4 and he ends up better than Byfield.

 

[Ed Ned and Leddy]

We draft Rossi at 4 and he ends up better than Byfield.