The Sedin's 6th Sense Posted July 19, 2012 Author Share Posted July 19, 2012 Bump ...wasn't joking when I made this lol. Some of you guys may say well it's worked and the teams successful, but he uses dirty tactics, doesn't respect players and teams and I'm sure his already low GM rep has fallen even more with offer sheeting Weber. Don't like Holmgren one bit.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dion Phaneuf Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 I'd be one happy Flyers fan. He might have lost his relationship with Polie but 28 other teams would still do business with him. * Corrected. He might come across as a douche but if I were a GM...I'd do whatever it takes to win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jägermeister Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 I'd be one happy Flyers fan. He might have lost his relationship with Polie but 29 other teams would still do business with him. He might come across as a douche but if I were a GM...I'd do whatever it takes to win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanHamhuis Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 I'd be one happy Flyers fan. He might have lost his relationship with Polie but 29 other teams would still do business with him. He might come across as a douche but if I were a GM...I'd do whatever it takes to win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canucks.brad Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 so you want gillis to make BOLD moves but when other GM's make BOLD moves you say their status is dropping? oh the cdc.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ice orca Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 Theres probably more than 1 other GM severely pissed at Holmgren right now. While he may be doing some things that will help out his team, you could still say his reputation is still taking a hit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 I bet the teams that were in trade talks about Weber are all pissy about it big time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sedin's 6th Sense Posted July 20, 2012 Author Share Posted July 20, 2012 so you want gillis to make BOLD moves but when other GM's make BOLD moves you say their status is dropping? oh the cdc.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drybone Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 After considering it for a moment , Polie has no choice but to match the offer. 4 low first rounders are not worth Shea Weber just on value alone. On top of that Rinne is no longer a 7 mil dollar goalie and virtually no way Nashville even makes the playoffs after losing Radulov Kots , Suter and Weber. The whole team falls apart. If it was a hockey trade and the preds got some real value for Weber, then he might get away with it . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDave Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 No. No he is not. Question, Answered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tortorella's Rant Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Philly is going to be a force for a long time because of the moves he has made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minhas111 Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 I don't like the offer Holmgren made to Weber. I believe that if Philadelphia signs Weber, they will be in the same situation as Chicago was because young player like Giroux,Couturier and others would want a pay raise. Yes Philadelphia is one of the 30 teams that are always competitive every season which is why players would want to play for them. A long term deal would add value to the team but it also problem in the long run. I feel bad for GM David Poile because he already lost one good Dman to the Wilds. Losing another key Defensemen would be a big blow to any team. I Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jai604 Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 lol, Holmgren sure dicked Poile pretty hard. On the flipside, perhaps he did Poile's negotiating for him? Knew that he couldn't get Weber, so did Poile a favour so that he could match and get the long-term contract he wanted with Weber anyways? hmmm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilbur Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 If i was a free Agent or a player on that team i would want to stay there cause Paul does whats best for the team and trys to win every year JVR didn't live up to his contract so hes traded thats how it should be. If you don't preform up to your contract the GM has the right to trade you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil_314 Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Homer dealt from a position of strength. We have a boatload of offense. JVR wasn't a part of that for basically the whole season last year. Pronger won't be back and we need another big defenseman back there and we got him. Also got more cap space. JVR had flashes of being good but just never measured up. A lot of fans I know like the deal. Now we have 15 million in cap space to get whatever else we need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoneypuckOverlord Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Not a chance. I praise him for making this move. It's a move I would have love to see gillis do. Not many GM"s had the nuts to do this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilbur Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 In some ways I do agree with what Paul's doing over there, as he has in fact built a locker room full of talented, young players. More importantly, he's doing so and improving his team by, as Phillyfangal said, trading from their position of strength to fix other problems. I'm sure MG would do something similar if a tear down was in session, but he's more deliberate (takes more time in acquiring someone) in constructing the team, whereas Paul appears bolder as he has the tendency to tear away solid young pieces for other pieces of equivalent status (e.g. J.V.R. for Schenn). I respect Paul for his boldness. That is not to say that it's any more effective than MG's strategy since MG doesn't need to do that with the amount of young players on long-term contracts that he's stockpiling. By doing so, he also creates the reputation of providing stability to high-end UFA's, which is what they want in joining a team. More importantly, this allows him to build on what's already there without tearing away significant functional pieces. Long term, their status should be measured by their team's success on the ice, and both GM's should be pretty similar in status as neither has been too successful (both have reached he S.C.F. but lost). Their roster management should not have too much of an impact on their status, since players know that with the game of the NHL being a contract market, weak players get moved in order to create stronger ones, and while both GM's make different kinds of moves, both are looking to create long-term success in different ways. There's a difference in circumstances though... the Flyers' roster had/ has issues to fix in its core (earlier, as mentioned it was The Richards/ Carter Party that had to leave town and J.V.R. was underachieving, so it's right that he would move those cancers when he's trading from their strength, to "patch up" or so they thought their defense... and they got Bryz-HA-lov) and they wanted better defense. Plus the "Gillis not making bold moves" argument is unwarranted... trading a potential cancer in Cody for Zach was a bold move, trading to get Lapierre (who could've also become a cancer) was a bold move, trading to get Booth was a bold upgrade... and don't think that bold moves have to involve the core players, especially when they're working well then why on earth would you trade them away? It's not his style to destroy a core that is working well, just like Paul won't disrupt Giroux, Simmonds, Briere, Hartnell... etc. when it's working well. In many ways it's hypocritical to expect these bold moves (I'm agreeing with you canucks.bradley) from MG, who has already done them to mostly improve the team and attempt to bolster its core. Even though "bold" Paul Holmgren makes these moves in bunches and they have a bigger magnitude, both do so with the intention of creating a young, competitive team that will stay that way for years with a young, talented core. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suolucidir Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Seems to be his strategy to get the player now, and worry about the deeper implications later. Philly is doing well for themselves in spite of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilbur Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 If i was a free Agent or a player on that team i would want to stay there cause Paul does whats best for the team and trys to win every year JVR didn't live up to his contract so hes traded thats how it should be. If you don't preform up to your contract the GM has the right to trade you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PlayStation Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Everyone, including myself, called him an idiot for the trades he made with Richards & Carter, but he showed us. Guy has balls, I wish MG had some like this guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.