In article 735307970@vela.acs.oakland.edu, ragraca@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Randy A. Graca) writes:  >gballent@hudson.UVic.CA (Greg  Ballentine) writes: > >>In article 735249453@vela.acs.oakland.edu, ragraca@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Randy A. Graca) writes: > >>>I also think that they will have a hard time with Pittsburgh if they >>>face them in the finals (which is what all the Detroit sportswriters  >>>are predicting).  Although I think Bryan Murray is probably the best GM >>>I have ever seen in hockey > >>How do you figure that??  When Bryan Murray took over the Wings they were >>a pretty good team that was contending for the Stanley Cup but looked >>unlikely to win it.  Now they are a pretty good team that is contending for >>the Stanley Cup but looks unlikely to win it.  A truly great GM would >>have been able to make the moves to push the team to the upper echelon >>of the NHL and maybe win the Stanley Cup.  A good GM (like Murray) can >>maintain the team's success but can't push them to the next level. > >When Jacques Demers brought the Wings to the conference finals twice a >few years back, he had everyone on the team giving 100 percent, but he  >had very little talent.  He had Yzerman, Bob Probert (who had drinking >problems at the time), and a couple of decent goaltenders in Hanlon and >Stefan who got hot.  That's about it.  Can you name one player on those >earlier teams who even deserved to be in the all-star game, much less  >actually got there, other than Yzerman and Probert?  Like, Petr Klima? >Give me a break!  When they faced Edmonton in both of those conference >finals, as hard as they played, it was clear they faced a team that simply >had superior talent to the Wings.  That's why they could not get to the >finals.  Also, at that time the Norris division was still the weakest  >division in hockey, and getting past Chicago, and Toronto was not as >impressive as it is today. > >Murray has brought scoring talent to the Wings that they did not have a >few years ago when Devellano was GM and Demers was coach.  To name a few, >Ysebaert, Kozlov, and Paul Coffey (who has made a definite positive impact on >the power play especially).    >Murray has built one of the most talented teams in hockey at the present, with >the possible exception of the Pittsburgh Penguins.  The Wings have at least >five 30 goal scorers that I can think of, and a couple of defenseman with over >100 games worth of playoff experience.  Murray's one failing is that unlike >the other GM's you mentioned (who are definitely also good, don't get me >wrong), he has not found for himself a strong coach to motivate the team to >go out and give 100 percent for the full 60 minutes every night like they  >did the last time they made a cup run.  When a team wins or loses, it's a >reflection of the GM *and* the coach, which was the point of my original  >post.  If the team outmatches their opponent in terms of talent but loses >anyway (which has been the case this year when the Wings have struggled), >that indicates that the GM has done his job in building up the team but the >coach has failed to motivate them.  If, as in the case of the last run the >Wings made in the playoffs before Murray came, they gave opponents a hard >time who should have beaten them easily, that indicates good coaching making >up for a lack of talent.  All of this is fine.  I never said that Murray was a bad GM.  I merely said that he isn't the best GM in hockey- or even a contender for that honor. If Murray is as great as you claim- the Wings would have won the Stanley Cup by now- probably more than once.  If he was as great a GM as you claim and he was as poor a coach as you claim- he would have been intelligent enough to hire the coach to push the team to the next level of success. But Murray is an average (unspectacular) NHL coach and a pretty good GM so none of this is true anyway.