Coyotedroppings
Registered User
- Jul 16, 2017
- 6,267
- 5,036
Official 2024-25 Utah HC Season Discussion.
- Thread starter Logan Thompson
- Start date
Coyotedroppings
Registered User
- Jul 16, 2017
- 6,267
- 5,036
I agree. As a UFA, its the one time the player has all the leverage, Schmaltz will want a long term deal and he will get it from somebody else other than Utah. I can see him being traded this summer with all the young wingers we have in the pipeline.
Last edited:
BA is getting more time then any NHL GM historically speaking to build a team, so it sure is the long game. With the amount of time, this is year 5, and our mid 80 pointish team this year, its ok but its not world beating progress.
Arizonatah
Registered User
Add some context though. BA was the GM of one of the (if not the) worst run, cheapest franchise in the NHL for the first 4 seasons. It's very likely that if he were the GM of any other franchise he would have had more to work with and would've approached a rebuild a bit differently. He started the type of rebuild a struggling franchise like AZ would allow. I think that what he's done, handcuffed by Meruelo/Arizona, looks great. Took what he had and used it to the fullest.
As soon as Smith told him he had his full support he went out and nabbed Sergachev for example. Might not have happened if the team was still in Arizona. BA has only had one off-season under the new ownership without handcuffs. And it was a good off-season too, even though the dust was still settling on the move.
Last edited:
Those things can happen when you have changes in ownerships a lot.
Although there are those who keep changing things around and never get anywhere.
OR……. To put it in this perspective…. for you this is year 5. For Ryan Smith it’s year 1.
This isn't the only tough situation ever in the history of NHL GMs. I get all the reasons, you here that from every team and every GM, as to why it didn't happen or hasn't happened yet. There is always "context", but its 5 years too. BA isn't going to now spend a ton of money and go nab a Marner as an example, he has never used the money excuse to his credit.
Go takeover any team rebuilding or in shambles right now, give them a plan that says in year 5 we will be a mid 80 point team, thats the bogie. How many owners would accept that as a target and hire that candidate? I think they would want to see more progress then that.
Arizonatah
Registered User
GMs get sacrificed a lot to appease the fan base. If the only reason to fire BA is because of a certain standard that shows nothing but impatience, that only makes me want to keep him even more. If statistics show that rebuilding teams rarely make the playoffs 4 years in, then what would they actually be firing BA for? Especially when the team is knocking on the door and expects to make the playoffs next season. Looks poised to do it too.
When teams get impatient and bring in a new GM, is there anything that shows the other guy couldn't have actually finished the job they started? That the new guy really was the one to turn things around and didn't just steal credit for what the guy before him built up? Maybe constant change is what f's things up?
IMO the only reason to fire BA is because of a trend of fan appeasement and impatience. Doesn't mean it's the right move or a necessary move (or always logical) - which in BA's case I see it as neither. I hope Smith is more of a leader and less of a follower of the way other NHL owners tend to operate in this case.
Last edited:
Arizonatah
Registered User
I think BAs plan would be different for each other team. His plan was designed specifically for what Arizona needed and what they had to work with. So were the expectations set based on it all.
If he was GM of CHI for example his plan would've been different because he probably would have had higher expectations placed on him. He'd also have less restrictions placed on him. Complete different set of assets to work with from the start too. Therefor his "pitch" would've been different and so would the expectations set to go with it. I'd expect him to be well aware of what each team's ownerships expectations were and adjust to them accordingly.
Rebuilds aren't one-size-fits-all. Replacing a GM in the middle of a rebuild shouldn't be either, IMO.
Edit: Kyle Davidson deserves to be fired into the sun by CHI. What a shit-show he's got going on with their rebuild. That would be a justified firing for my taste. Think odds are really good that another GM would actually do a better job there.
Last edited:
Mangosteen
Yotes Ashtray of the NHL
- Apr 9, 2018
- 1,240
- 799
Exactly!!! We saw poor coaching systems. Power play and playing with a lead was brutal. Lack of agility when the team faced injuries. Way too many games lost to injuries. Year 1 to a new fan base and what started off as incredible energy has turned to most viewers not even watching the third period. They even dropped prices to 1 dollar. Post mortem after this year, will not look good on Bill.
He will say I tried to temper expectations but this highlights his poor leadership. I not drinking his koolaid anymore.
Arizonatah
Registered User
Are you aware that Utah's PP is ranked 14th in the NHL?
That there's 18 teams with worse PP than UHC?
That 14th puts them in the top half of the NHL?
Edit: Sure does look like poop sometimes though.
Last edited:
Mangosteen
Yotes Ashtray of the NHL
- Apr 9, 2018
- 1,240
- 799
I don't think we will re-sign Schmaltz. I'm 50/50 he makes it through the offseason. Good player having a pretty good year, but our forward group is too similar and he'll be victim of that.
I know the Chicago situation well, Davidson would say he had to get out from under contracts on an aging team. He also had to/has to deal with interference/influence from ownership when making decisions, I know this with certainty. My point is that all situations come with hair on them and none are perfect setups for the new GM. It wasn't in Detroit either for Steve Y. Bottom line, its year 5 for BA, the results are not great (so far), they are ok at best, a mid 80's point team this year, that could not have been the bogie going into it 5 years ago, even in AZ with the ownership structure/money. GMs last less than 5 years in general with the results we have had so far.
I do think BA will get another year, I am not so sure with Bear though. Is BA happy with the inconsistent play down the stretch, beating TBL then losing to the Wings as an example, team play is all over the map. BA might think it is a coaching issue, while Bear will say the team is young and misconstructed maybe.
I am mixed on what ownership does with the GM/coach, I just want to see us make the playoffs next year, was hoping this would be the year, but we have to all hope the young players keep improving, that is more important then all else right now.
Assuming Vejmelka starts again, it'll be 16 in a row. Expectation in goal is a 1A and 1B Vejmelka/Ingram split, so I think this has been a good chance to see how well Vejmelka can handle the full time starting duties.
While I don't suspect the expectations were super high that he'd carry his highest level of play across all these games, it's good to learn limits. Hopefully next season Ingram will be back to form as well and can each get the adequate rest needed to maintain their best performance levels.
While I don't suspect the expectations were super high that he'd carry his highest level of play across all these games, it's good to learn limits. Hopefully next season Ingram will be back to form as well and can each get the adequate rest needed to maintain their best performance levels.
Stanley Thermos
Registered User
I had not connected that exact set of dots, but it makes sense. Do you think BA has all the info he needs to act decisively so early? I wonder how knowledge of But's hopeful/likely transition to NA might factor, for instance.
Stanley Thermos
Registered User
Well, his play was hard on the fans as well.
Freakshow
Arizona Coyotes
No he's not. Where do you come up with this nonsense? Give some examples where GM's rebuilt a team in three or four years if you think five years is more than a traditional timeline. I'll wait. Because there isn't one. He needs to start having some progress, which is already happening, next season. This is a big off-season for the UHC.
Rebuilds aren't a linear timeline, there's so much involved, strength of draft and luck being the obvious two. Armstrong was hired in September of 2020, that winter they decided to tear it down and rebuild starting from the 2021 draft, so he's only three and a half years into a rebuild. The 2025 draft will be his fourth.
Look at the Chicago Blackhawks, it took them six drafts to assemble what is considered a modern day dynasty before they had the right players to win a Cup. Starting with Duncan Keith in 2002 and finishing with Patrick Kane in 2007.
Nonsense: 4 to 4.5 years is the average life of an NLH GM, coaches its 2 years. 85 points in year 5 gets you fired anywhere else. You do realize the Blackhawks went through 4 GMs from 2002-2009 before they won a cup. The GM and coach that starts a rebuild might not be the right guy to finish it.
I think we will bring in more size than just But. Whether through trade or free agency.
I agree that Schmaltz won't be re-signed and might be traded. I really don't think Marner is a fit, given the desire to get bigger and harder. I'm sure that Rantanen would have been a target. Don't know who else could be targeted as a legit top six forward with size.
That's why I think the do-nothing approach might be the way to go. Daniil But and Iginla are coming sooner than later and will bring more grit to our top six as compared to Schmaltz and Maccelli.
