Dudley resigns from Blackhawks, joins Thrashers...

davetherave wrote:ASQ> right now the Thrashers are just trying to (a) survive, (b) put a reasonable product on the ice (c) clean up the organization so that the team can move forward, (d) put new hockey men in place so Waddell can focus on executive and fiscal decisions.

Hence the Anderson and Dudley hirings.

So you're saying Waddell's poor hockey decisions are excused by the fact that the team is in a financial mess? Are the successes of Columbus' and Nashville's management supererogatory?

I'm not disagreeing with you that (a), (b), (c) and (d) need to happen. I'm just not sure he's the right man to do (a).

davetherave wrote:

hemlock wrote:

davetherave wrote:ASQ> right now the Thrashers are just trying to (a) survive, (b) put a reasonable product on the ice (c) clean up the organization so that the team can move forward, (d) put new hockey men in place so Waddell can focus on executive and fiscal decisions.

Hence the Anderson and Dudley hirings.

But I think that's the point. Considering his track record, should Waddell focus on executive and fiscal decisions?

That's exactly what Waddell was unable to do because of the ownership mess. Are you not familiar with that situation?

His 'track record'--as you put it--was the direct result of that mess.

Waddell is incompetant as a GM plain and simple. They ought to be bringing in quality hockey guys to replace him, not support him.

To blame his questionable trades on bad ownership is a cop-out. At the end of the day, he's got control of the hockey decisions. He got ONE decent prospect in Esposito and some scrubs for a 40 goal man who is sound defensively. That was not a monetary decision either. Hossa was going to leave regardless of what Atlanta offered, and he knew it.

asq2 wrote:

davetherave wrote:ASQ> right now the Thrashers are just trying to (a) survive, (b) put a reasonable product on the ice (c) clean up the organization so that the team can move forward, (d) put new hockey men in place so Waddell can focus on executive and fiscal decisions.

Hence the Anderson and Dudley hirings.

So you're saying Waddell's poor hockey decisions are excused by the fact that the team is in a financial mess? Are the successes of Columbus' and Nashville's management supererogatory?

I'm not disagreeing with you that (a), (b), (c) and (d) need to happen. I'm just not sure he's the right man to do (a).

You're not reading my posts.

The hockey decisions are directly impacted by the ownership. Poor ownership equates to poor decisions.

Your comparisons with Columbus and Nashville are irrelevant, as the situations there have no resemblance to, nor do they have a bearing on, what takes place in Atlanta.

You keep looking at this as a hockey fan, and not from a business perspective.

So let's take Columbus, if you insist. How did they do under Doug McLean?

hemlock wrote:

davetherave wrote:

hemlock wrote:

davetherave wrote:ASQ> right now the Thrashers are just trying to (a) survive, (b) put a reasonable product on the ice (c) clean up the organization so that the team can move forward, (d) put new hockey men in place so Waddell can focus on executive and fiscal decisions.

Hence the Anderson and Dudley hirings.

But I think that's the point. Considering his track record, should Waddell focus on executive and fiscal decisions?

That's exactly what Waddell was unable to do because of the ownership mess. Are you not familiar with that situation?

His 'track record'--as you put it--was the direct result of that mess.

Waddell is incompetant as a GM plain and simple. They ought to be bringing in quality hockey guys to replace him, not support him.

To blame his questionable trades on bad ownership is a cop-out. At the end of the day, he's got control of the hockey decisions. He got ONE decent prospect in Esposito and some scrubs for a 40 goal man who is sound defensively. That was not a monetary decision either. Hossa was going to leave regardless of what Atlanta offered, and he knew it.

Well, you simply don't know what you're talking about.

The decisions of the General Manager are inevitably approved by the ownership, as ownership assumes the financial obligation that these transactions entail.

So to suggest Waddell 'has control'--what do you know about the workings of the organization in Atlanta that supports your claim?

Furthermore, considering Atlanta has a better base of talent now that it has ever had, what is the justification for your claim that Waddell is 'incompetent'?

If he was 'incompetent', how would he have been hired to be the General Manager for an expansion franchise in a key US market like Atlanta?

If he was 'incompetent', why would he have been successful as a member of the Detroit Red Wings organization?

When you want to throw words like 'incompetent' around, you can expect to be challenged on your presumptions.

NHL GMs are not 'incompetent'. You may disagree with their decisions, and yes, they make mistakes, like anyone else.

But unless you know the business of hockey as well as they do--which is far, far more complex than fans realize--your use of words like 'incompetent' is inappropriate.

davetherave wrote:

hemlock wrote:

davetherave wrote:

hemlock wrote:

davetherave wrote:ASQ> right now the Thrashers are just trying to (a) survive, (b) put a reasonable product on the ice (c) clean up the organization so that the team can move forward, (d) put new hockey men in place so Waddell can focus on executive and fiscal decisions.

Hence the Anderson and Dudley hirings.

But I think that's the point. Considering his track record, should Waddell focus on executive and fiscal decisions?

That's exactly what Waddell was unable to do because of the ownership mess. Are you not familiar with that situation?

His 'track record'--as you put it--was the direct result of that mess.

Waddell is incompetant as a GM plain and simple. They ought to be bringing in quality hockey guys to replace him, not support him.

To blame his questionable trades on bad ownership is a cop-out. At the end of the day, he's got control of the hockey decisions. He got ONE decent prospect in Esposito and some scrubs for a 40 goal man who is sound defensively. That was not a monetary decision either. Hossa was going to leave regardless of what Atlanta offered, and he knew it.

Well, you simply don't know what you're talking about.

The decisions of the General Manager are inevitably approved by the ownership, as ownership assumes the financial obligation that these transactions entail.

So to suggest Waddell 'has control'--what do you know about the workings of the organization in Atlanta that supports your claim?

Furthermore, considering Atlanta has a better base of talent now that it has ever had, what is the justification for your claim that Waddell is 'incompetent'?

If he was 'incompetent', how would he have been hired to be the General Manager for an expansion franchise in a key US market like Atlanta?

If he was 'incompetent', why would he have been successful as a member of the Detroit Red Wings organization?

When you want to throw words like 'incompetent' around, you can expect to be challenged on your presumptions.

NHL GMs are not 'incompetent'. You may disagree with their decisions, and yes, they make mistakes, like anyone else.

But unless you know the business of hockey as well as they do--which is far, far more complex than fans realize--your use of words like 'incompetent' is inappropriate.

I stopped reading after the first line. Then as I was going to reply, I noticed this gem:

"NHL GMs are not 'incompetent'. You may disagree with their decisions, and yes, they make mistakes, like anyone else."

Mike. Milbury.

Nuff said. Bye.

Hemlock, you can always find an example to support your argument.

That doesn't make you right to call Waddell incompetent.

What the heck are we talking about here? A monkey could have run the Thrashers better than Waddell. If somehow the ownership are denying him trades, that's just the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

Why not say to him, here's 45 million dollars, make sure you ice a good team. End of story.

Can't do it in year one? Fine, take another couple of years. If by year three we're still a crappy franchise, you're out, someone else is in, my 45 million dollars go to better use.

There are things about the NHL post salary cap that Atlanta hasn't taken advantage of - namely excellent players that could benefit the franchise coming and going - and have made few good moves.

What does Doug MacLean have to do with this? Sure, let's use him as an example. The BJs are given an internal cap to work with, McLean uses this cap for 6 years, the team never makes the playoffs. McLean is fired, 2 years late they're in the playoffs.

Now McLean is a broadcaster.

There's a reason for that.

davetherave wrote:Furthermore, considering Atlanta has a better base of talent now that it has ever had, what is the justification for your claim that Waddell is 'incompetent'?

A bit of an exaggeration. It was not too long ago that they had a highly touted Stefan, Dany Heatley, Ilya Kovalchuk et all up front, for example.

They've been losing talent as quickly as they've been adding it. Whomever they pick at #4 might not play a shift with Kovalchuk, for example.

Raising Maclean's history was a good point, I'll admit. But I don't think you can truly throw away every bad decision as being management's fault.

But, if that is the case, the question then arises, what has Don Waddell done to prove he is a good GM? Are the good moves he made (not that I can think of very many) in that era moves he can lay claim too? Or is that also management?

davetherave wrote:Hemlock, you can always find an example to support your argument.

I thought the reasons I explained (the Hossa deal, the already
mentioned Coburn gifting to Philly) were reason enough. Turn off your
selective reading function please.

davetherave wrote:That doesn't make you right to call Waddell incompetent.

This from the guy who in one post drags me over the coals for calling Waddell incompetent, and in another (twice actually), tells me that I don't have a clue what I am talking about.

Apparently, I don't have the right to express my opinion about Waddell, but you have every right to say whatever you like about me?

Hypocricy at it's finest.

Several weeks ago, I made a comment during an arguement with N4L that he was one of the reasons I stopped coming here so frequently. The other reason? You hijacked this board. This needs no explaining, as you and every other member knows EXACTLY what I am talking about.

With that, I'm gone.

SpezD I think you may be oversimplifying the situation a little. Owners, since they do have so much money invested in franchises, like to keep tabs on the team. This is their hard earned money, they aren't going to just let someone have free roam with it.

And you are also assuming that players would want to go play there. Atlanta is not a hockey city. Their arena isn't full, there isn't much media coverage, it's just overall not a very attractive place to sign if you are a hockey player. Thus, signing free agents is more difficult, as is retaining players.

Now i'm not saying Waddell is perfect, or even a good GM. I'm saying that there are certain situations which make it a lot harder to succeed. And they are often more complicated than just having a cap to work with.

And DTR: I believe one of the things that might have people confused, is the vagueness of the term "poor ownership". It could mean a few things, but I take it to mean intrusive and obtrusive management techniques.

DId hemlock delete his account?

Bass Destruction wrote:SpezD I think you may be oversimplifying the situation a little. Owners, since they do have so much money invested in franchises, like to keep tabs on the team. This is their hard earned money, they aren't going to just let someone have free roam with it.

And you are also assuming that players would want to go play there. Atlanta is not a hockey city. Their arena isn't full, there isn't much media coverage, it's just overall not a very attractive place to sign if you are a hockey player. Thus, signing free agents is more difficult, as is retaining players.

Now i'm not saying Waddell is perfect, or even a good GM. I'm saying that there are certain situations which make it a lot harder to succeed. And they are often more complicated than just having a cap to work with.

And DTR: I believe one of the things that might have people confused, is the vagueness of the term "poor ownership". It could mean a few things, but I take it to mean intrusive and obtrusive management techniques.

That's fair, I can buy into that. I just think Waddell mismanaged the assets he was given, and I don't think he ended up with the return he should have for Hossa. It feels like the Thrasher are always rebuilding. Is that Waddell's fault? I believe it is personally.

Plus, how much does management have to say with re-signing a young D-man to a 3.8 million dollar extension? Or signing Hainsey to a 4.5 million dollar contract etc. etc. etc. If we're throwing that money around, perhaps Waddell should have thought of making some trades, bringing in some mid-priced talent to flank Kovalchuk and Kozlov.

And then there's the feeling that if they had drafted to the best of their abilities, some of the young other than Little, Enstrom and Bogosian would be making bigger contributions and the team would be able to maintain itself under a self imposed cap.

And, why did he stick with Lehtonen? He's a great talent, but the Thrashers needed an experienced tender once and for all. Stabilize the franchise, don't put all your eggs in the basket of a young goalie who's always hurt.

So many things that the ownership - no matter how controlling - shouldn't have had a problem with IMO. But...that's just my opinion.

marakh wrote:DId hemlock delete his account?

He may have actually.

marakh wrote:DId hemlock delete his account?

Guess so. Interesting that he's listed as "guest" but the quote function still has him as "hemlock."

Damn shame, though. He's been a long-time poster in this "community" of sorts, dating back to our time at the 'Buzz. Alot of interesting discussions.


Plus, now I don't have anyone who agrees with me/I agree with on everything.

Excuse me for saying that I find this quite lame. If you disagree with someone, move on. IMO, we have the best community of posters here.

I don't understand that. I'm disappointed, but we'll all have to move on. Diddling Heatley situation, the Draft. Diddle man, come on, it's an agrument about the diddling Atlanta Thrashers.

Say it ain't so Hemi...

I'll miss the chats for sure, but I'll also miss the 'Die Dany Heatley' at the bottom with the guillotine.

That was classic... maybe he will change his mind.