Overager wrote:Eagle Vision - The sarcasm comes from others as much as from me .I made some serious comments re Heibert's record and I immediately read responses about me being negative, about my commenting about the three star selection in London (made last year) and suggestions that if I know so much about hockey that I should contact the Ranger office about me running the team.. I have no objection about opposition to my points. However, in case you haven't noticed, the insults are not always from me. Look at the posts in an objective manner.
Overager, we actually share many opinions, but not all of them.
Here's my deal on Heibert:
I think that he's scared to hire people he doesn't know. Specifically with regards to coaches.
I think that within Ontario, he's done some of the best drafting we've seen since the infamous Eminger, Roy, Dickie, Armstrong, Amodeo, Gagnon draft (I think that Dunphy was in that draft as well prior to his leg going backwards). Spott was a good coach and after a very rough first year a very good GM.
I think that DeBoer stuck around to draft Skinner & gang, and Spott stuck around for the 2013 draft. You also pointed a the 2012-2013 we traded a lot of the future away for that 7th finish and that was under Spott.
I'm giving Heibert a free-pass on the 2013-2014 season. He did do what needed to be done in terms of getting Troy Smith out from behind the bench.
What i do love is Heibert's drafting. He picked Bunnaman in the 2nd round 31st overall. Spott was here for 4 seasons, and every 1st rounder he drafted (all forwards) were inferior to Bunnaman (other than Murphy, who like Mascherin was a slam-dunk very early pick), after that you have Marcantuoni, Davies, Pederson and Schmalz. I realize that Heibert was involved in the draft, but he may have not been calling the shots.
When Spott was coach/GM I looked at 2nd and 3rd rounders like "magic beans" most would turn into bit players. Everytime I see a mid-rounder 2nd-5th from Heibert, it's not a project.
I absolutely detest the fact that Heibert has not added enough muscle to this team. The fact that we will not trade for grit, or anyone for that matter. DeBoer's hallmark was making deals to make this team win.
A thought in closing.
Trading for a Superstar (Bracco costs a B-rated younger forward), three 2nd rounders and a veteran D-man.
A guy like Connor Bunnanman is more of a A-rated younger forward. He's the same age as Cole Carter and his value is significantly greater. If Windsor was willing to cough up a Connor Bunnaman, I think that would nullify the three 2nd's, and you take Bunnaman/Carter/Burns for Bracco straight up.
I think that Heibert takes this as a challenge. The cost for a Connor Bunnaman from a Rangers' perspective is a 2nd rounder. The net gain would be three second rounders. The key is drafting players in the 2nd-5th rounds who will easily be worth triple what you paid for them. I actually think that Heibert would excel at this type of thing. It might not be 3-to-1, but 2-to-1 and 1-to-1 is fine.
I think that one of the biggest challenges for a GM (and it has been for Heibert) is to be critical of his own work. DeBoer when he showed up simply traded away pieces and parts that his predecessors worked extremely hard to obtain with little regard. It's very easy to take someone else's work and crap all over it. It's very easy to move into a house and re-do stuff because the previous owner had no taste or common sense. But then we're completely blind to when the things that we added flooring/paint, furniture goes out of style or starts looking worn, because we remember the time and effort put into those things. After 2003, it took another 5 years to manufacture something that could be considered championship-worthy, I think that some of that could be attributed to DeBoer not giving up on some of the pieces he worked so hard to obtain.
Just some (a lot of) food for thought.