Brian Burke vs. Bob Murray: 2005 Draft
by Jen Neale on Feb 6, 2012 8:28 AM PST
in Ducklings
Email
PrintIn Robby's excellent coverage of the State of the Franchise address, there was one subject that Ducks GM Bob Murray covered that really stood out to me:
He mentioned that the team is currently suffering due to bad drafts in '05, '06, and '07, but said that they've overhauled their drafting since then and have had three strong drafts in a row.
Wow. To me, that's a direct shot at Brian Burke and his legacy in Anaheim. Once Burkie left for Toronto and Murray assumed his position, the comparisons began. How can you not compare the guy that won your franchise their first Stanley Cup to the guy that took his place? The two will continue to be scrutinized until Murray delivers on a second Cup or leaves the organization (by choice or not).
I am an ardent Brian Burke supporter, and I refuse believe that Bob Murray is a better drafter. I am also completely ignoring the group of scouts each GM had. Each GM has the final say, so ultimately the decision is theirs. Throughout the week, I'll be looking at each year of Burke's drafts that Murray called into question and where they are at with the Ducks. To be fair, I'll also run a post of Bob Murray's draft picks from 2008 to 2011. Then you guys can make the final call on who was the better drafting GM.
Let's get started with Burkie's first draft in 2005. The NHL is returning after a year long lockout. The newly re-branded Anaheim Ducks were just one ping-pong ball away from drafting the sport's savior at first overall...
2005 Draft
Notable non-Anaheim draftees: Sidney Crosby (#1), Jack Johnson (#3), Carey Price (#5), Devin Setoguchi (#8), Anze Kopitar (#11), Marc Staal (#12), Martin Hanzal (#17), Tuukka Rask (#21), TJ Oshie (#24), Andrew Cogliano (#25), James Neal (#33), Paul Stasny (#33), Mason Raymond (#51), Kris Letang (#62), Jonathan Quick (#72), Keith Yandle (#105), Niklas Hjalmarsson (#108), Darren Helm (#132), Cal O'Reilly (#150), Sergei Kostitsyn (#200), Patric Hornqvist (#230)
| Round | Pick | Overall | Player (Position) |
| 1 | 2 | 2 | Bobby Ryan (RW) |
| 2 | 1 | 31 | Brendan Mikkelson (D) |
| 3 | 2 | 63 | Jason Bailey (RW) |
| 5 | 2 | 127 | Bobby Bolt (LW) |
| 5 | 16 | 141 | Brian Salcido (D) |
| 7 | 3 | 197 | Jean-Philippe Levasseur |
Where Are They Now?
#2 Bobby Ryan (RW)
Player taken before and after: #1 Sidney Crosby (C - PIT) and #3 Jack Johnson (D - CAR)
Stats with Ducks (so far): 301 GP, 124 G, 109 A, 233 Pts, plus-31, 208 PIM in the regular season.
It took Bobby a little while to stick in Anaheim, a lot of which had to do with cap issues. I beg to differ that he was a bad pick in the draft considering who was out there. Sidney Crosby went number one and Jack Johnson went number three (I know, I don't believe that either). Needless to say, I am ardently in the Pro-Bobby Camp. My feelings about Bobby were summed up by Justin Bourne of The Backhand Shelf blog on The Score. When referring to Bobby being on the trading block, he said something to the effect of when ALL teams are calling to inquire, you should see the potential in the player. As of recently, Bob Murray was quoted as saying Bobby is off the table.
#31 Brendan Mikkelson (D)
Player taken before and after: #30 Vladimir Mihalik (D - TBL) and #32 Tyler Plante (G - FLA)
Stats with Ducks: 67 GP, 0 G, 5 A, 5 Pts, minus-6, 38 PIM
In November of 2006, Mikkelson was signed to a three-year, entry-level contract by then GM Brian Burke. He was up and down between the AHL and the big club almost the entire time. In 2010, Bob Murray extended a one-year, qualifying offer to Mikkelson that he accepted. The following October, still in 2010, Mikkelson was placed on waivers and subsequently picked off them by Calgary. Following an odd trend, Mikkelson was re-signed in July 2011 and in January was traded to Tampa Bay for Blair Jones. So far he's been in 3 games for the Lightning has 0 goals/assists/points/penalty minutes and is a plus-3.
#63 Jason Bailey (RW)
Player taken before and after: #62 Kris Letang (D - PIT) and #64 Joe Barnes (C - CAR)
Stats with Ducks: NONE!
Does that name sound familiar? It should. This is the guy that sued the Ducks for discrimination. Bailey alleged that coaches in the Ducks then minor league affiliate Bakersfield Condors discriminated against Bailey for being Jewish. The suit was eventually dropped. You can Google it to read more. As a player, the Ducks signed Bailey a three-year entry level deal in April of 2008. Prior to the deal, Bailey spent his time with the Ottawa 67's of the OHL and the University of Michigan, posting unremarkable numbers at both locations. In September of 2009, after 35 games with the Condors, scoring only 10 points, he was traded to Ottawa for left wing Shawn Weller.
#127 Bobby Bolt (LW)
Player taken before and after: #126 Tim Crowder (RW - PIT) and #128 Kevin Lalande (G - CGY)
Stats with Ducks: NONE!
In June 2010, the Ducks made qualifying offers to Brendan Mikkelson, James Wisnieski, and Bobby Ryan. Having filled their Bobby quota, the Ducks did not make a qualifying offer to Bobby Bolt, as well as Shawn Weller (acquired in the Jason Bailey trade above), and fellow 2005 draftee Jean-Philippe Levasseur. Bolt was left to explore free agency and finally signed with the Allen Americans of the CHL.
#141 Brian Salcido (D)
Player taken before and after: #140 Taylor Dakers (G - SJS) and #142 Nathan Gerbe (C - BUF)
Stats with Ducks: 2 GP, 0 G, 1 A, 1 Pts, plus-2, 0 PIM
In August 2006, Salcido was signed to the standard three-year, entry-level deal after his junior season at Colorado College. Salcido was the feel good story of the draft for the Ducks because he hailed from Hermosa Beach. Following the expiration of his entry level deal, the GM Bob Murray signed Salcido to a one year deal in July 2009. He made his NHL debut on February 20, 2009, played two games, and then was allowed to become a free agent following the end of the 2009-2010 season. Currently Salcido is playing in the Finnish Elite League.
#197 Jean-Philippe Levasseur (G)
Player taken before and after: #196 Nicholas Tuzzolino (D - NYI) and #198 Kyle Lawson (D - CAR)
Stats with Ducks: NONE!
In December 2006, JP Levasseur was signed to the usual three-year, entry level contract. The closest thing Levasseur saw to an NHL game was backing up Curtis McElhinney while Jonas Hiller was out with his first round of vertigo. He did such a good job at sitting on the bench that Murray signed him to a one-year extension in June 2010, playing mostly in Syracuse. One year later, he was not extended a qualifying offer by the Ducks and went on to the free agent market. Unable to find a team in North America, JP Levasseur has gone to Italy to play for Cortina SG.
My only question after reading all of this is if the draft class was so bad, why did Murray make qualifying offers or sign players to extensions? Hmm. A look at the 2006 draft comes tomorrow.
56 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
The only thing really missing from this is what was being said about Mikkelson when he was drafted. Lots of guys get drafted a little higher than they should be and don’t pan out, and a lot of teams get lucky with later picks. However, the real question is how much of a reach was Mikkelson in the second round, or was he chosen right when he was supposed to be?
This article has him ranked as the 5th best defender in the draft, and this summary of the Ducks 2005 draft lists Mikkelson as a potential top 4 guy with mobility and puck moving skills.
That first article has Letang listed as a sleeper and honestly made him sound like a much better option. Mikkelsons report listed a lot of down side and a lot of??? He was projected to fill out his frame and had more offensive upside. For a Guy the made no improvements on his point generation in the juniors while playing more games, I just don’t see it. The only complaint about Letang was his size and that he played with another ranked prospect. I understand hind sight is 50/50 but really?
by DavidBL on Feb 6, 2012 10:02 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
The funny thing about sleepers is that you never know what’s going to happen. Do you use a second round pick to gamble on a sleeper or do you get a guy who’s probably a guaranteed puck mover? The better question, if Letang is such a sure thing, why isn’t he ranked in that guy’s top 10. He was called a sleeper for a reason. Who knows, maybe if Pittsburgh doesn’t pick him right before us, we do.
Second, playing with a guy is a serious concern. You never know if you’re getting the real deal or not. Is he the result of his partner’s skill or his own? I think you’re using a ton of hindsight in the Letang grab. He was something like the 25th defenseman taken. It’s not like we were the only ones who passed on him.
Moreover, Mikkelson is playing well for the Lightning right now. He’s been a pretty solid guy in his 11 games there: no points, but he’s +3. Mikkelson looks like he’s developing into what he’s supposed to be: a smart, reliable defender. The Pens got lucky on Letang. it happens.
Also, both Letang and Mikkelson were criticized for size. At that point the only knock on Mikkelson is that he might not use his offensive tools well, because he’d rather be responsible. I don’t see that as a glaring flaw.
What I was trying to say was from the scouting reports or recaps of the two players how mikkelsson was that much better of an option vs Letang. Obviously the scouts were actually watching them play so they can make a better judgement on players and their skills. Keith Yandle was also taken REAL late in that draft. What it came down to in my eyes is which player fit the Burke mold more. Mikkelsson had 2 inches and projected to reach a weight in the the 200s. In that sense the pick makes more sense.
As for mikkelsson not using his offensive skills regularly because he desides to be more causious can certainly be held against him. We yell at Bobby all the time for not using his size. IMO it suggests an inconsistancy in the players attitude which can be one of those intangables.
by DavidBL on Feb 6, 2012 12:20 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
I think that’s not an effective comparison. Bobby not using his size limits his effectiveness as a forward. Mikkelson being cautious with his offensive abilities doesn’t make him a defensive liability. When a defender doesn’t use his full offensive potential, it’s only a liability if he can’t keep the puck out of the net. That didn’t seem to be the knock on Brendan. I just don’t think you can knock a player for being who he is, especially a defender. Look at Brookbank, that vanilla game really serves him well. Mikkelson is turning into a responsible Cam Fowler without the offensive upside. I suppose there are worse things.
by Daniel AC on Feb 6, 2012 1:16 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
I meant it more as a concern. If Hess good defender who can occasionally jump into and score, say like Beauch. That’s great. But when you’re expecting on offensive threat from that player and he doesn’t deliver, he isn’t living up to expectations. I think its fair to say he hasn’t lived up to those expectations. As for the comparison to Bobby I think it’s fair. Forwards can be successful and effective without being big. Is he better when he plays big probably. But wouldn’t Mikkelsson be better if he also used is offensive skills? We’re still talking about assets a player has and weather or not they are being utilized.
by DavidBL on Feb 6, 2012 1:51 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Its all well and good to discuss where people should have got drafted to where they did get drafted, and there is some merit in the arguement. But at the end of the day in sport, as in life, we get judged on the result. In 2005 we got a perennial 30 goal scorer, and nothing else. Mikkelson, barely worked out enough to be a trading chip.
Daniel, youve made the argument that a second round pick has value. I believe you argued that a second round pick for cogs was too much (yes i know he was originally a 1st rounder, but we got him for a second), yet here you argue that Mikkelson was a proper draft choice. Cogs at least has played a lot of games in his young career (and has played games for us this year), Mikkelson however has done not much at all. I cant see how you can argue that Cogs was a bad option for a second round pick, but Mikkelson was a good choice?
by BennyLightning on Feb 6, 2012 1:23 PM PST up reply actions
Because Mikkelsson had the potential to be a player like Letang. If he had been playing like Letang or Yandle we’d be stoked at the value of the second rounder. Your drafting potential where as a in a trade for an NHL player you pretty much know what you’re going to get. TThat being said, I don’t mind the second rounder for Cogs. I just think Murray overpaid on the contract.
by DavidBL on Feb 6, 2012 2:05 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
I agree that your drafting for potential. But the arguement has been made in the past (on this blog) that you should get an nhl player with a second round pick. Mikkelson, isnt really an nhl player…well not one with any consistency. He didnt work out. Thus the drafting of him must be considered a bust.
by BennyLightning on Feb 6, 2012 3:44 PM PST up reply actions
Wait, how are you contextualizing my argument? I have said numerous times that the value of a pick cannot be compared to the player selected. In fact, that’s one of my favorite things to point out to people who argue ergot Etem and Palmieri in the Pronger deal. The value of a pick is different from the value of a selected player.
With everything everyone knew at the time of the draft, Mikkelson was a good choice. Sure, he didn’t work out, but that doesn’t mean it was a bad selection. Alexander Daigle was pretty much a consensus first overall pick, but how’d that work out for Sens. You expect to get an NHL player in the second round, if you draft well. Mikkelson is still only 24 and might have found a home in Tampa Bay. At what point is he a bust. If he plays in 500+ NHL games, was he a bad selection. Just because we couldn’t get him to be good doesn’t mean that he isn’t.
The value of a pick cannot be equated to the value of the player selected.
by Daniel AC on Feb 6, 2012 3:59 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
agree that all picks are not created equal. I top pick is less than a mid round first etc. The higher the pick the greater value it has, as the likelyhood of securing a quality nhl player is greater. That was why i argued that picking up a player like cogs with a second round pick was a good deal. We get a player that has not missed a game in 4 years. Thats a win. Would cogs for a mid first round pick be a good one…maybe not so much. I digress however, Mikkelson for a second round pick was not a good pick by us, yes hindsight is wonderful, but when we evaluate drafts its always done this way. If he goes on and plays 500 games for Tamps it will still be a bad draft for us, as we didnt turn that asset (the pick) into anything. However the likelyhood of him doing this is low at this point based on his past history. Thus that would make it a poor choice in a poor draft year for us
If we’re to compare drafts (as is the point of this exercise) you have to compare what players were drafted, and what the gross gain for us was. Mikkelson didnt make it here, and we lost him on waivers for nothing. Essentially we got 1 player out of that draft. It was a poor draft.
by BennyLightning on Feb 6, 2012 6:04 PM PST up reply actions
Cogs is not a good pick up for a second round pick. So what if he hasn’t missed a game, look who he was playing for. Do you honestly think Cogs logs all those NHL games if he’s playing anywhere else other than Edmonton? I highly doubt it. I’m just saying GP probably isn’t the stat you should use to justify that trade. The real question you should ask is: Is a 30 point player worth a second round pick? If your answer is always yes, then there’s nothing I can do to convince you anyway.
I think your method for evaluating a draft is a bit shortsighted given the actual purpose of the exercise. Murray has called out Burke for being a bad drafter. However, there’s an important question to be asked: Did Burke draft poorly, or did Murray not want to bother properly developing Burke’s picks. I am under the impression that it is fairly common for new GMs to clean out old prospects since they aren’t part of the new GM’s plans. If we can assume that Murray at least did a little of this, then it becomes more important to ask whether or not the old GM, in this case Burke, actually selected good players. If Mikkelson becomes a good player, then it becomes at least fair to ask if maybe Murray gave up too soon on a good player. If that’s potentially true, then Burke didn’t make a bad pick, the organization simply gave up too soon.
Ranger fan here.
Marc Staal 6-4, 210 25 yrs old, missed 5 gms in 4 seasons prior to this season-has returned to team
14 gms ago. Defensively solid, 1st pairing or at worst 2nd pairing defenseman. some offensive skills,
averaging about 20 pts a season-not a fighter.
Brandon Dubinsky 6-1, 210, 25 yrs old missed 18 gms over last 4 seasons-Only 6 goals, 22 pts this season,
but still a +11. A leader like Staal, but a guy who plays with an edge-not a fighter, but has beaten a few guys like Mike Richards/ Has 124 hits this season. Much of his loss in points directly attributed to his being replaced on power
play by free agent Brad Richards and who is a minus 2 this season.
The above 2 players might be avaliable in a trade for Bobby Ryan & Andrew Cogliano.
Ryan is an excellent finisher, but has skating deficiencies which may not work with a Tortorella hard checking, defensive minded team.
POSSIBLE TRADE
Cogliano a bit small and not good on faceoffs but very fast, and has not missed a gm in 4 seasons.
To be honest I doubt Ryan is on the block, and I sort of doubt he ever really was. I think it was more of a get your ass in gear threat. That said, if Ryan is indeed on the block, his value will be sky high at the end of the month and should net us far more than what you have suggested. Ryan could be the piece that all 19 other teams want to add and that will trigger a bidding war.
by Newport Rebel on Feb 7, 2012 2:51 PM PST up reply actions
THANK YOU JEN!!!
Finally an article I’ve been waiting for with my thoughts about how poorly the Ducks been drafting since Bryan Murray left. If you look at the players that were there in ’07 most of them were brought in by Murray even if you count ’03, Burke all he did was tweak it for a championship run.
To propose an answer to your question at the end Jen
Murray offered extensions to 3 of the above drafted (not counting Ryan). I believe at the time of those extensions the Ducks were looking into starting their own AHL affiliate and probably needed a certain number of players to do so. Add in the fact that its hard to except that draft picks are busts and its a pretty low risk situation to offer cheap, 1-year extensions to these guys and Murray would be an idiot if he didn’t offer them extensions. Just thought I would give a POV on that question as everyone seems more interested in Mikkelson.
Also, on a side note, franklec I thought you were done posting ridiculous trade proposals here. And what happened to all the Ranger prospects are so great we shouldn’t even think about asking for Staal or Dubinsky. Jesus, im done with these rumor whores (aka Ranger and Leaf fans).
Ryan and Cogliano of Staal and Dubinsky may work CAP wise
Ryans from NJ and Cogliano played for the Michigan Wolverines, just like
Carl Hagelin.
Dubinsky is from Alaska
Rangers probably giving up too much and Ryan may not backcheck well
enough to suit a Tortorella.
Rangers in 1st place, Del Zotto is a +26, 26 points, and a 176 hits/blocks combined.
Won’t even mention Fowlers stats next tp Del Zotto
Fowler would be like 6th or 7th on Ranger depth chart in organization on defense.
He’s just another Sanguinetti type. Been there, done that.
what argument?
This entire comment has nothing to do with anything. Who cares where these people are from? Who cares about Fowlers stats vs Del Zottos. It’s not an argument, it’s just a waste of time writing Ranger nonsense. Your team is playing well, they have been rumored to acquire a player that really makes no sense on your team, and would have to give up very good players to get a great one. End of story!
by Kevin Riach on Feb 6, 2012 10:53 PM PST via iPhone app up reply actions
everytime other teams fans come over here, they are stupid as shit, unbelievable.
can’t we at least once get someone who is older than 15 and/or knows something about hockey
Like I posted earlier, can’t win an arguement, revert to type
“a weak mind trying to show how strong it is by using profanity”.
Profanity is in no way linked to the merit of the argument. If anything, calling attention to it demonstrates an inability to see a message in spite of the profanity. In other words, saying a counter argument is pointless because of profanity demonstrates an inability to critically analyze that message.
yes, but its worded so eloquently.
Me english bad. words good. you understand
by BennyLightning on Feb 8, 2012 2:05 PM PST up reply actions
So we cant use FOWL language anymore at AC. It’s going to be a long season.
by Newport Rebel on Feb 8, 2012 9:32 AM PST up reply actions
exactly, and when a teams passes on such guys, and picks players who never play for their team, they consider that year a weak draft year for their franchise. ;-)
Every pick doesn’t work out for any team, if they did they had an AMAZING draft. For comparisons sake, recently we have have a lot of prospects that we are excited to see making their way to the NHL level where as there are very few that even came close in years past. All of our top prospects came in recent drafts, almost none from the 05-07 drafts. Ryan was really the only player anyone was excited about. Now it is unlikely that all of our current prospects will work out, but they at least are making strong cases to do so.
I believe I said this earlier, but you can’t evaluate the drafts solely on what a guy does or does not do for us. Some guys just don’t work out on certain teams. On top of that, if a GM cleans out the old prospects, there’s a chance he’s tossing a baby with some bathwater. It’s possible to make a good selection, but not develop the player properly.
by Daniel AC on Feb 7, 2012 5:12 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
How else do you evaluate a draft then to see how it has helped the franchise? I’ll admit it’s hard to compare because its two different GMs and really Burkes drafts have had more time to not pan out than Murrays have. And like you said GMs clean house of old GM picks, but it’s not like these picks are making impacts elsewhere either. Isn’t the players development also the GMs responsibility, by proxy of making sure he has the right environment to grow and succeed?
I think when you compare one GMs drafting to another’s you inevitably run into problems such as this. Mikkelson is maybe, finally, working it out in Tampa Bay, if I haven’t jinxed the poor bastard. So, did Burke make a bad selection, or did Murray clean him out too soon? I don’t know if either answer is necessarily wrong. In this situation there are too many variables, how much of Murray’s influence disrupted the development process? How many prospects did he maybe give up on too soon, and those guys had to start all over again? How many of these guys were seriously derailed by our lack of a legitimate farm team for almost two full seasons?
With all those variables, the only thing you can really ask is whether or not the GM made a logical pick given his information. We’d have to ask Newport, but maybe Murray has benefited from changes in the scouting staff that Burke either hadn’t implemented yet, or just implemented before he left. Of course, maybe Murray capitalized on seeing the failures of Burke’s staff. If that’s the case, he does deserve credit for better drafting.
I can’t be sure we are drafting better under Murray, because as you noted there hasn’t been enough time. However, I also didn’t scrutinize the draft as much back then. I think my overall point is that right now, the best thing we can do is analyze if Burke made sensible choices at the time.
by Daniel AC on Feb 7, 2012 6:36 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
So we make judgments based on the scouting reports from the time and how the GM drafts? Its been a league wide question, do you draft to need or to best available player? Burke felt we needed a D so he drafted D instead of a more skilled Forward, or did he think the D was the better overall player. It’s kind of hard to tell not having followed the draft till really the last 2 years.
I agree that we can’t determine if Murray is “better” at drafting because its too soon. But I can say definitively that Murray was right in saying those draft years were terrible. I understand the argument that you are making, but consider the following.
1) These guys had time to develop and perform on the NHL level, few to none played competent enough to warrant a job with us.
2) Those players were then moved to other teams or let go, either way none of these players are doing anything for other teams (Mikkelson has not played enough games to warrant an exception)
3) If these players were hurt because of a lack of farm system, I don’t see how you can put that on Murray. That’s not the GMs call, and we did get a farm system under Murrays tenure.
Lastly, consider that the picks Murray has chosen have done well in their respective minor leagues and have given us a very nice pool of prospects that both the Ducks and other teams value. Like Murray said, we know have a lot of “bullets” that can be used for trades if we decide to go that route. I specifically like the way Murray has stocked the team with RWs in anticipation of Selanne’s departure.
without jumping into Burkes corner too much (as i do believe his drafts were poor), Murray also has had the benefit of a greater number of first rounders. The likelyhood of them succeeding is much higher, and it looks as though they may. Unfortunately most of burkes 1st rounders didnt stick, so maybe thats the true test, to actively compare the seperate rounds that each gm drafted in?
In Burkes defence he did draft ryan, who may in fact turn out to be the biggest trading chip this franchise has had, what his net wrth is to the rest of the league could potentially change this franchise…does that kowledge impact how his drafts(this one in particular) have been judged?
by BennyLightning on Feb 8, 2012 12:39 AM PST up reply actions
I love how Burkie gets a ton of credit for picking Ryan
but he didnt want him. Chuck Fletcher who is now the GM of the Wild talked Burkie into it. It was Flecher’s call and a call that helped him make the jump to assistant GM for the Pens and then GM of the Wild.
I’m willing to not give Burke credit, if people are willing to stop giving Murray credit for every draft choice he makes.
Nope. Sorry GM’s final word on all draft choices, trade choices etc. Burke gets credit for Ryan as he had to make the final say. how i see it.
by BennyLightning on Feb 7, 2012 4:38 PM PST up reply actions
Sure you’re just not trying to defend Murray?
by Daniel AC on Feb 7, 2012 5:14 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
No, not at all.
Gm’s probably get too much credit when things go right, as well as too much stick when they go wrong. But at the end of the day they have to make the moves/decisions.
by BennyLightning on Feb 7, 2012 5:49 PM PST up reply actions
Well Burkie said as much a few weeks ago on TSN Toronto radio. He said it was all Chuch on that one. Burkie ask him a few times are you sure and Chuch talked him into it.
by Newport Rebel on Feb 8, 2012 9:29 AM PST up reply actions
The drafting as of late. Actually its the finding of gems like Friberg in the late rounds but overall Madden gets the credit for the drafting. It is his scouting department that makes the reports that the GM looks at.
by Newport Rebel on Feb 8, 2012 11:48 AM PST up reply actions
When was the last time someone said, gee the vice presidents doing a great/bad job? The assistants may do the leg work, but its the GM’s ass on the line.
Also prospects like friberg/rackell are just that, prospects. It will take a few years before we can actually evaluate if they were good draft picks. Tangradi was a coverted prospect at one point, and he hasnt done much too date(i know different system, but point remains).
by BennyLightning on Feb 8, 2012 2:08 PM PST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Anaheim Calling
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
SBNation.com Recent Stories
CK Photo Galleries
