goalie13 Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 Yes you are right that the Canucks would have been screwed but that doesn't mean anything because he DID NOT sign for two years!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
funkyfresh Posted May 4, 2012 Author Share Posted May 4, 2012 Sure it does. The thread is about the moves he made. His move was to offer 2 years at $10M each. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goalie13 Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 Ok by moves, I mean the moves on which he put pen to paper. Kind of thought that was implied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck_Whisperer Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 Why doesn't the Sundin move count? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
funkyfresh Posted May 4, 2012 Author Share Posted May 4, 2012 But that's exactly why it can be hard to truly evaluate a GM's performance. For the most part, we only know the moves he actually made. Sundin's case is a little different because we know what he was offered. What we don't know are all the moves he has tried to make but wasn't successful. Let's say MG made a pitch for Parise, but the Canucks just didn't have what the Devils were looking for, or someone else had more to give. Does that mean MG is a poor GM because the Devils didn't want what he had to offer? Or... how about MG's attempt to get David Backes? Just because he didn't get Backes in the line-up does that mean we shouldn't count the attempt against his performance as GM? Personally, I think he has done a fairly decent job as GM. I just also think he got lucky Sundin didn't take his initial offer. This could be a very different looking roster if he had. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goalie13 Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 See the problem with this is that almost all the other gms could have possibly tried to get Parise as well, so we can only judge him on what he has actually done and not what he could have done. And I agree that he has been a good GM but sometimes you need to take a chance to be better not just stay at the same level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-AJ- Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 Sundin was washed up by the time he got to us. There was no point in getting him at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karlsson`s Flo Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 Right because trading a young offensive center man for a younger power forward (who's a faster skater) wasn't ballsy. Give your head a shake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
funkyfresh Posted May 4, 2012 Author Share Posted May 4, 2012 The fact that he wasn't a great player anymore only makes it more "ballsy". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theo5789 Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 Sundin was washed up by the time he got to us. There was no point in getting him at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.