Re: Let's grade the GM
posted at 3/19/2010 1:58 PM EDT
In Response to Re: Let's grade the GM
Yep, take it from one who knows, a post that long is a waste of time. Look, ChiaPete has to take some heat for the direction this team has taken, and so does Claude. But you can't give the players on this team enough heat in my opinion. I look at that list of decisions and I think many of them are pretty defensible based on the situation at the time. Hindsight's a biiiiiiiitch. What you can't argue, though, is that the players have not responded the way ChiaPete expected. They prioritized getting younger and more talented and ended up just young and inexperienced. Here's a quick summary of at-the-time thinking that I'm sure many people shared: Lewis - remember the article, prior to the season, where he went for Italian with a Globe reporter and talked about wanting to be here and part of the community? And all anyone could talk about was how the Bruins broke pattern and hired a guy with no prior connection to the team who came from a winning organization. Scotty Bowman's bench general and a guy teams had coveted for years. Versteeg - 5th round pick with the body to be a career AHL scoring star. Never called up. Traded for a guy who, a year earlier, scored in bunches during the NHL preseason. Like playing nickle slots only to find your nickel was an old Roman silver coin. Ax, Yelle, Hnidy - Axelsson wanted to be paid like a part-time first liner and not a fourth liner. Yelle wasn't bringing much to the table in terms of emotion, grit, leadership or talent, and brought less in Carolina this year. Hnidy was a slugger who could NOT play a lot of minutes. He could eat up third-pairing minutes by digging the puck out of corners and clanking it out off the glass. You loved him as a team guy, but that's it. Look at where all three of these players landed: Carolina - third worst team in the league; Wild - out of the playoffs; Sweden - not in the NHL. Those were the options for these guys. Even if you think they had more value here, this is the measure of their talent. Ward - probably the biggest absence in the locker room - a clear case of having sacrificed character to get better skill. Now the big ones: Thomas is 4@$5M. Name the last time a GM let his Vezina-winning goaltender go to free agency and walk and I'll show you a guy who got fired. To keep him from testing the waters, Thomas might have accepted 3@$6M or 2@$7M, but that's going to be even worse for your cap. So you give him the term to keep the annual hit down. Wideman - If you look at the season that got him his contract, there are maybe three guys who scored more than DW that year and who are getting paid less based on his new contract. Last year, the only guy to score more and get paid less was Kronwall in Detroit. Wideman was +36. Kronwall +2. Stats aren't everything, except in salary arbitration. This is the first year that Wideman's contract has looked suspect. I'm done talking about Phyllis, except to say that when you're at the cap and you have to decide which of your young players will walk, getting two lottery picks and a second that's basically a low first for the most one-dimensional player is pretty good. Lucic - the contract is all about the market. Last summer, he was a coveted player around the league. Pundits wrote about which teams would put in offer sheets on him if the Bruins let him get to free agency. We all know RFA offers are inflated, so the Bruins probably figured they'd have a choice - lose him, or pay him even more than $4M per. Two bald heads would have been floating in the Charles if they'd lost him. Kobasew was breaking down, making him too expensive and unable to play the style that got him the love. They got a rather impressive return - I didn't think he'd fetch a 2nd but they got a 2nd and two low-level prospects. Last, Ryder. No real reason to overpay Ryder, but he was the most likely candidate to give the Bruins 30 goals at a time when they obviously needed more off the wing. Even though he was okay last year, they still paid more than market for the guy, so now that he's been a bum, he's a huge albatross. If you're grading him, add in the prospects. Bad: not one Chia pick has played a game, though to be fair, most are still either first year pros or amateurs. Has some love affair with undersized NCAA defensemen. Good: integrated a lot of youth into the lineup in the last two/three years. Signed Wheeler (=free top 10 pick). Made some shrewd prospect-level deals in getting Boychuk for Matt Hendricks (who they'd previously signed as a free agent), McQuaid for Sigalet, signed Penner, signed Riendeau. Gambled that Colborne would develop and he has to date. Gambled Caron has more offense than he had shown and it looks good this year. Overall, I think Chiarelli should get a C. Not many creative moves at the NHL level, and his philosophy of overpaying to land his guys is starting to be a problem. Basically does what most GMs would do. Has done well enough getting rid of players when they're breaking down but hasn't done much to acquire replacements that improve the team. The combination makes him look pedestrian next to dynamic GMs like Burke who make high risk creative plays. Smart to concentrate on acquiring via the draft, though, so this is a C verging on incomplete - though even in July, there won't be any real way to assess how Chia did. Maybe he goes off the board and pulls up an Anze Kopitar. Or maybe he thinkgs its Anze and its Evgeni Ryabchikov!
Posted by Bookboy007
yeah.. please keep it to 500 words...