tom webster, on 30 April 2013 - 11:48 AM, said:
Damned if you do? Can even the apologist side admit that a new General Manager might be better? I have said it before, I like reading your stuff and some of it I even agree with. The frustrating thing to me is that there really is "common ground" but everyone is so afraid to admit it that we have to stake out polar opposite positions.
Some are upset that Darcy is telling people up front that it might be a long process. Others are upset that the team wasn't completely blown up. Seems to me there is nothing he can do to make anybody happy.
Can you honestly hold Darcy completely accountable for what happened pre-Pegula? When has Darcy ever had the chance to rebuild a team WHILE having the means available to do whatever he wants? Hindsighters love to criticize him for not blowing it up sooner, but anybody including GM's would have added pieces to the team the year Pegula took over. And even last year. I can't say a new GM would be better because I don't know that it wouldn't be worse. And neither does anybody else. However, it's bound to be better because a new GM would be given the opportunity that Darcy has never gotten. The biggest reason I want Darcy gone is because until he is all we're going to hear is non-stop whining about him regardless of what happens and to be honest it's gotten quite old. Between 'Darcy sucks' and 'Well we won another game to ruin our draft chances' this place got awfully monotonous over the last two months.
I agree with you. People feeling the need to take completely opposing views has really watered down civilized dialogue. Seems to me it's gotten to the point where people think their voice isn't heard unless it is conflicting.
Glass Case Of Emotion, on 30 April 2013 - 11:58 AM, said:
No GM willing to ice the team that took the ice this year should be trusted with a rebuild. Not because the team was bad, but because the team couldn't grow. Your offensive talent can't develop with possession like this roster had, and several mediocre hockey minds on this site could see it coming all year. Grigorenko, Foligno, Ennis, Myers, Weber all lost a potential 48 games of positive development because the team around them was in panic mode all game long. The only player that got a good workout was Hodgson, and that because he lined up with players that are ranked 3rd in their respective draft classes in points. It's not that he's not capable of fielding a winner, it's that he's capable of pissing away a year with a team that isn't good enough to grow, let alone win.
I've got news for you, no developing players on a rebuilding team is going to be introduced to a positive atmosphere. If said team was winning, there wouldn't be a reason for a rebuild. The best players in the draft are often exposed to a losing atmosphere.