30
|
|
Post by ebonyraptor on Oct 24, 2020 0:45:36 GMT -6
If I were prone to reading between the lines of Stan's and Colliton's statements in that Tribune article, I might suspect they are subtly making it more attractive for the Core-4 players to request a trade. Maybe I'm reading something that isn't there. I don't know. Trading the Core-4 would seem to have been unthinkable until fairly recently. Now it seems to be gaining more wide spread support from the fans, which shouldn't be the main factor, but it is a factor the Hawks management are aware of. Soften up the fans to be more amenable before actually doing it. Yes, it's pandering to some extend - welcome to the real world. you don't have to read between the lines. Colliton said in his podcast interview that "some guys won't be here". that is EXACTLY what they are hoping for and, better yet, a large swath of fans are jumping on board and are going to make it OK for this asshole to do exactly what he has wanted to do for years now..... Do you really believe Stan has wanted to trade away one or more of the core-4 guys for years now? That seems a little over the top to me. For what reason would he have wanted to get rid of them when they were still in "win now" mode? Excluding Seabrook, the other three were productive and the leaders of the team. |
|
|
|
Post by BigT on Oct 24, 2020 7:55:26 GMT -6
If I were prone to reading between the lines of Stan's and Colliton's statements in that Tribune article, I might suspect they are subtly making it more attractive for the Core-4 players to request a trade. Maybe I'm reading something that isn't there. I don't know. Trading the Core-4 would seem to have been unthinkable until fairly recently. Now it seems to be gaining more wide spread support from the fans, which shouldn't be the main factor, but it is a factor the Hawks management are aware of. Soften up the fans to be more amenable before actually doing it. Yes, it's pandering to some extend - welcome to the real world. That’s exactly it. No one wants to be at the cap ceiling during a rebuild. Those 4 don’t have to go anywhere, and they probably won’t. Which makes a rebuild horrible and almost impossible to do. Stuck in the middle is not fun, and that’s where the Hawks will be. And I’m not sure what Colliton means by “they have to buy in”. Does he mean buy in to tank? Stan clearly said that Toews needs more help, we don’t have enough guys right now. So what does he have to buy into? Their words are very condescending and it looks like they’re trying to push these guys out!!! |
|
|
|
Post by hsbob on Oct 24, 2020 8:55:05 GMT -6
Thanks for that Jimmy. I thought last summer Stan said clearly “We wanted guys with term on their contracts”. He meant in the trade dept. and he got that, now he wants youth. We all have to remember, because they’re young, doesn’t mean they’re good!!! I think it's fair to ask this question in leu of Blowman's recent statement...... If we were rebuilding last summer then why in the world does he spend 20M+ and give up a 19yro D-man who started em all last year and two real good picks? |
|
|
|
Post by BigT on Oct 24, 2020 9:16:33 GMT -6
Thanks for that Jimmy. I thought last summer Stan said clearly “We wanted guys with term on their contracts”. He meant in the trade dept. and he got that, now he wants youth. We all have to remember, because they’re young, doesn’t mean they’re good!!! I think it's fair to ask this question in leu of Blowman's recent statement...... If we were rebuilding last summer then why in the world does he spend 20M+ and give up a 19yro D-man who started em all last year and two real good picks? Exactly. There’s too many holes in his story. I sure hope he’s learning more from Prince Daniel. Cuz this is not gonna be a quick rebuild. They’ll teeter on the edge of the playoffs for a couple more years. The plan is obvious, they want those big contracts gone. Fans aren’t coming out regardless. I would just like a little more honesty. Or just honesty. If they put out a letter, but talked to their meal tickets first about a direction. I applaud that. But also just say in the letter that the team is going to go through massive changes. Change is necessary to move forward, it happens to every team. I believe the Pens only have 7 guys left from their last Cup win a couple years back. Stan has had change, no doubt. But like I’ve said in the last few weeks. He trades a 90 overall for a 78 overall. Then trades the 78 overall for 71 overall, then trades the 71 overall for a 67. So we went for having a player 90 out of 100, to a 67 out of 100. That’s a massive step back. And he’s done that with more than just Panera. I’m all for a trade, but it seems his trades are always a step backwards. And that he’s sweetened the pot to trade such players. It’s just horrible way to run a team. Now I don’t want him fired. I want him destroyed so no other fans will ever have to put up with this!!! |
|
|
|
Post by ebonyraptor on Oct 24, 2020 9:17:44 GMT -6
Thanks for that Jimmy. I thought last summer Stan said clearly “We wanted guys with term on their contracts”. He meant in the trade dept. and he got that, now he wants youth. We all have to remember, because they’re young, doesn’t mean they’re good!!! I think it's fair to ask this question in leu of Blowman's recent statement...... If we were rebuilding last summer then why in the world does he spend 20M+ and give up a 19yro D-man who started em all last year and two real good picks? Whether it will turn out to be a good move or not is another question, but the motivation for trading Joki for Nylander is not inconsistent with the youth movement and in fact makes sense from the perspective of dealing from a strength to address a weakness. Joki was an RD in front of Boqvist and Mitchell, who they must have thought more of than Joki, whereas Nylander was projected to be a skilled top-6 winger when the only other young top-6 winger was D-Cat. |
|
|
|
Post by BigT on Oct 24, 2020 9:27:56 GMT -6
I think it's fair to ask this question in leu of Blowman's recent statement...... If we were rebuilding last summer then why in the world does he spend 20M+ and give up a 19yro D-man who started em all last year and two real good picks? Whether it will turn out to be a good move or not is another question, but the motivation for trading Joki for Nylander is not inconsistent with the youth movement and in fact makes sense from the perspective of dealing from a strength to address a weakness. Joki was an RD in front of Boqvist and Mitchell, who they must have thought more of than Joki, whereas Nylander was projected to be a skilled top-6 winger when the only other young top-6 winger was D-Cat. I think it’s fantastic to trade from a strength to aid a weakness. But then again, he traded from a strength to make the team weaker. Nylander was a total craps shoot. He was hoping for a home run there. And it failed. Miserably. Joker was the only RH dman to actually make the team and play a decent role. Boqvist isn’t even an NHL regular yet. He’s shown absolutely nothing. At least Dach showed some improvement and flashes of what he could be. Boqvist has shown nothing, and neither has Mitchell to this point. Wouldn’t it have been better to keep Joker for now. He ends up in the top 4 here. Then Boqvist and Mitchell show up and now he’s expendable. Jokers value will be much higher and we could end up with the winger we desire. It’s just poorly planned if you ask me!!! |
|
|
|
Post by vadarx on Oct 24, 2020 10:11:34 GMT -6
you don't have to read between the lines. Colliton said in his podcast interview that "some guys won't be here". that is EXACTLY what they are hoping for and, better yet, a large swath of fans are jumping on board and are going to make it OK for this asshole to do exactly what he has wanted to do for years now..... Do you really believe Stan has wanted to trade away one or more of the core-4 guys for years now? That seems a little over the top to me. For what reason would he have wanted to get rid of them when they were still in "win now" mode? Excluding Seabrook, the other three were productive and the leaders of the team. honestly ER, I wrote out a long response to this that sounded like a hockey version of Game of Thrones. I decided against it, cuz i just don’t really want to get into it. so the quick answer to your question is: yes. there are folks here that think Stan is an idiot and doesn't know what he is doing. I believe he knows exactly what he is doing and has been following a plan for the past 3 summers that has worked very well for him. just my $0.02 |
|
|
|
Post by vadarx on Oct 24, 2020 10:19:55 GMT -6
If I were prone to reading between the lines of Stan's and Colliton's statements in that Tribune article, I might suspect they are subtly making it more attractive for the Core-4 players to request a trade. Maybe I'm reading something that isn't there. I don't know. Trading the Core-4 would seem to have been unthinkable until fairly recently. Now it seems to be gaining more wide spread support from the fans, which shouldn't be the main factor, but it is a factor the Hawks management are aware of. Soften up the fans to be more amenable before actually doing it. Yes, it's pandering to some extend - welcome to the real world. That’s exactly it. No one wants to be at the cap ceiling during a rebuild. Those 4 don’t have to go anywhere, and they probably won’t. Which makes a rebuild horrible and almost impossible to do. Stuck in the middle is not fun, and that’s where the Hawks will be. And I’m not sure what Colliton means by “they have to buy in”. Does he mean buy in to tank? Stan clearly said that Toews needs more help, we don’t have enough guys right now. So what does he have to buy into? Their words are very condescending and it looks like they’re trying to push these guys out!!! you mean the GM and the head coach basically calling the team captain a liar (after the GM all but admitted that he had lied to the fans the past two summers, no less) is condescending? I can think of words for it too..... Stan can't be too much of a dick to them just yet, they still sell merchandise and will sell seats if any fans are allowed in the barn this season. he has to make it appear like he wants to work with them still. that way, when they fail to make the playoffs this coming season, the fans will blame them and it will become ok to trade them. I hope Lord is right, now. I hope none of them waive. ever. the only waving I hope they do is to Bowman as he carries his desk contents out to his car, never to return. |
|
|
|
Post by hsbob on Oct 24, 2020 10:41:02 GMT -6
I think it's fair to ask this question in leu of Blowman's recent statement...... If we were rebuilding last summer then why in the world does he spend 20M+ and give up a 19yro D-man who started em all last year and two real good picks? Whether it will turn out to be a good move or not is another question, but the motivation for trading Joki for Nylander is not inconsistent with the youth movement and in fact makes sense from the perspective of dealing from a strength to address a weakness. Joki was an RD in front of Boqvist and Mitchell, who they must have thought more of than Joki, whereas Nylander was projected to be a skilled top-6 winger when the only other young top-6 winger was D-Cat. That's a valid point and we'll have to wait a year or two to see if it was the proper player assessment,LORD also mentioned the issue of having to protect Jokiharju in the upcoming expansion draft to be fair. |
|
|
|
Post by hsbob on Oct 24, 2020 11:14:17 GMT -6
Whether it will turn out to be a good move or not is another question, but the motivation for trading Joki for Nylander is not inconsistent with the youth movement and in fact makes sense from the perspective of dealing from a strength to address a weakness. Joki was an RD in front of Boqvist and Mitchell, who they must have thought more of than Joki, whereas Nylander was projected to be a skilled top-6 winger when the only other young top-6 winger was D-Cat. I think it’s fantastic to trade from a strength to aid a weakness. But then again, he traded from a strength to make the team weaker. Nylander was a total craps shoot. He was hoping for a home run there. And it failed. Miserably. Joker was the only RH dman to actually make the team and play a decent role. Boqvist isn’t even an NHL regular yet. He’s shown absolutely nothing. At least Dach showed some improvement and flashes of what he could be. Boqvist has shown nothing, and neither has Mitchell to this point. Wouldn’t it have been better to keep Joker for now. He ends up in the top 4 here. Then Boqvist and Mitchell show up and now he’s expendable. Jokers value will be much higher and we could end up with the winger we desire. It’s just poorly planned if you ask me!!! Above and beyond the issues I mentioned to er above,we also have Henri Jokiharju's rather large sample size for such a young D-man...... After our young HC said the 6' 195lb(at the time)youngster didn't have "that man body" (who says that about a 19yro and what kinda body did Sikura have @166lbs) when he was sent back down and after our GM floated stories of a bad attitude after moving this youngster who then went on to help the Finns beat teams chock full of NHL'ers on the big stage of the WC and play em all for a very demanding Ralph Krueger.......such an attitude. Q also had this kid playin' top pair minutes right off the bat and I'll always believe Q's doing so hurt the kid in his GM's and new HC's eyes. Krueger fed his young,promising D-man around 15 3rd line minutes to start last season as he should have but had him skatin' 20 plus by the end of it and this allowed the Sabres to shed both Scandella's and Bogosian's big cap hits. I saw quite a few Buffalo games last year on Center ice and I'll have a few more teams to follow next year. Time will tell on this trade like it does all others but so far time's been unkind IMO. |
|
|
|
Post by ebonyraptor on Oct 24, 2020 14:46:46 GMT -6
Do you really believe Stan has wanted to trade away one or more of the core-4 guys for years now? That seems a little over the top to me. For what reason would he have wanted to get rid of them when they were still in "win now" mode? Excluding Seabrook, the other three were productive and the leaders of the team. honestly ER, I wrote out a long response to this that sounded like a hockey version of Game of Thrones. I decided against it, cuz i just don’t really want to get into it. so the quick answer to your question is: yes. there are folks here that think Stan is an idiot and doesn't know what he is doing. I believe he knows exactly what he is doing and has been following a plan for the past 3 summers that has worked very well for him. just my $0.02 I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other about Stan. I think he's made some good moves and some bad moves. I don't have the time or interest to attempt to quantify an overall assessment because I don't have the information necessary to know the complexities and dependencies that fans simply don't have. I constantly take the role of apologist for Stan, not because I think he's a great GM, but because the majority of my fellow fans think he's a terrible GM when I know they don't know anymore than I do and I'm not in a position to judge him on anything more than what is seen on the surface. So, my natural inclination to defend the victim when I perceive they are being treated unfairly takes over and I end up defending Stan - not something I want to keep having to do. If nothing else, this official youth movement will bring the whole Stan thing to a head at some point so it doesn't go on indefinitely. |
|
|
|
Post by nighbor on Oct 24, 2020 22:53:54 GMT -6
honestly ER, I wrote out a long response to this that sounded like a hockey version of Game of Thrones. I decided against it, cuz i just don’t really want to get into it. so the quick answer to your question is: yes. there are folks here that think Stan is an idiot and doesn't know what he is doing. I believe he knows exactly what he is doing and has been following a plan for the past 3 summers that has worked very well for him. just my $0.02 I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other about Stan. I think he's made some good moves and some bad moves. I don't have the time or interest to attempt to quantify an overall assessment because I don't have the information necessary to know the complexities and dependencies that fans simply don't have. I constantly take the role of apologist for Stan, not because I think he's a great GM, but because the majority of my fellow fans think he's a terrible GM when I know they don't know anymore than I do and I'm not in a position to judge him on anything more than what is seen on the surface. So, my natural inclination to defend the victim when I perceive they are being treated unfairly takes over and I end up defending Stan - not something I want to keep having to do. If nothing else, this official youth movement will bring the whole Stan thing to a head at some point so it doesn't go on indefinitely. Great post. The view of everyone carries equal value. Coming to the aid of the underdog can be a curse.
|
|
|
|
Post by vadarx on Oct 24, 2020 23:06:11 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by vadarx on Oct 24, 2020 23:19:56 GMT -6
honestly ER, I wrote out a long response to this that sounded like a hockey version of Game of Thrones. I decided against it, cuz i just don’t really want to get into it. so the quick answer to your question is: yes. there are folks here that think Stan is an idiot and doesn't know what he is doing. I believe he knows exactly what he is doing and has been following a plan for the past 3 summers that has worked very well for him. just my $0.02 I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other about Stan. I think he's made some good moves and some bad moves. I don't have the time or interest to attempt to quantify an overall assessment because I don't have the information necessary to know the complexities and dependencies that fans simply don't have. I constantly take the role of apologist for Stan, not because I think he's a great GM, but because the majority of my fellow fans think he's a terrible GM when I know they don't know anymore than I do and I'm not in a position to judge him on anything more than what is seen on the surface. So, my natural inclination to defend the victim when I perceive they are being treated unfairly takes over and I end up defending Stan - not something I want to keep having to do. If nothing else, this official youth movement will bring the whole Stan thing to a head at some point so it doesn't go on indefinitely. I understand that, ER. I don't actually think he was always terrible either. I have given him credit for what he did during the run, etc. I've already said all this, I'm not going to restate it now. I just don’t agree with how he has operated the past few years. you can feel free to disagree (which you will be doing a lot here, I think, lol). i don't think you or anyone else needs to know anymore to evaluate his performance or his actions. I mean, we are all on a message board here, isn't that what we are supposed to do? armchair quarterback? |
|
|
|
Post by Tater on Oct 24, 2020 23:41:39 GMT -6
Man, Colliton is a beaut. There's gonna be a lot of friction on the bench when hockey resumes. After reading that article and others, it's hard believe 3 time Cup winners will buy into what a coach close to their age, with minimal playing or coaching experience is selling. |
|
|
|
Post by ebonyraptor on Oct 25, 2020 1:14:14 GMT -6
I thought everything Colliton was quoted as saying in that article was pitch perfect. He's the coach and they're the players and everyone has to do their job. One part of the job for the core-4 and other veteran players is to, as Eddie would say, (1) accept your job, and (2) execute. Inherent in that is the proper attitude necessary to carry out their job - being disgruntled in any way, shape or form is not the proper attitude. If the veteran players can't 100% buy in to those job requirements than they shouldn't be a part of the process. This is about what management (from Rocky on down) thinks is best for the Chicago Blackhawks. End of discussion - now either get in line of see yourself out. Period. |
|
|
|
Post by Tater on Oct 25, 2020 1:19:37 GMT -6
But lying to players about rebuilding for years now, after picking up Lehner discredits them. If I were any of the core, I think I'd want out.
|
|
|
|
Post by vadarx on Oct 25, 2020 2:04:21 GMT -6
I thought everything Colliton was quoted as saying in that article was pitch perfect. He's the coach and they're the players and everyone has to do their job. One part of the job for the core-4 and other veteran players is to, as Eddie would say, (1) accept your job, and (2) execute. Inherent in that is the proper attitude necessary to carry out their job - being disgruntled in any way, shape or form is not the proper attitude. If the veteran players can't 100% buy in to those job requirements than they shouldn't be a part of the process. This is about what management (from Rocky on down) thinks is best for the Chicago Blackhawks. End of discussion - now either get in line of see yourself out. Period. fair enough. I know if I was one of the core and someone who was younger and less accomplished than me acted like that, I wouldn't be happy. would you? would you just lay down and do exactly what you know they want you to do? to displace your family or the life you've built for over a decade? because that is pretty obviously what they want. they can preach the "it will be good for everyone" line all they want, but you and I both know that the likelihood of any of thsoe veterans reaping the spoils of this rebuild is probably slim to none and it would benefit both sides (from a hockey sense) if they moved on. so then, you're essentially called a liar by both the coach and GM. they are obviously painting you into a corner where if you do not do what they say, then you look like the bad guy. how would that make you feel? furthermore, other than Toews speaking out, what have the core done that indicates they haven't been onboard? they've been pretty good teammates and leaders from what I've seen. but, then you read his interview and him talking about disagreements on the bench. at what point have any of them not accepted their roles and executed? since when is it not OK to have disagreement with the coach, especially when you are vastly more experienced than they are? I agree, he is the head coach and he has to exert some control over the room. which, just makes the hiring of him that much more ridiculous, because who in their right mind would think a guy like him would fly with a core group that is either the same age or older than him and has accomplished more than he has? but, that aside, you are correct, he has to get everyone pulling the same direction and he absolutely cannot do that if the core isn't on board. I suppse I just don’t appreciate the way he comes off while doing it, because he sounds like a smug prick who knows that his boss has his back and he has all the leverage. his airing of business in the media is bullshit. he knows what his mentioning of players not agreeing with his decisions means to the vets. he is letting them know that he is in charge and, as you said, they better all get in line. does this seem like a good place to do that? does this not seem like it will just hurt things rather than help? and so, it brings me to this: it isn't that I hate JC or think he is the worst coach in the world. hell, I think that if given a few years and a younger team, he could prove to be a fair coach. I can't say that for certain, but I can't say he will be an utter failure either. I don't know. what I do know, is this treating the guys that actually did the dirty work to bring all of the glory to the Blackhawks Organization like crap is..... well, crap. there was a better way to do this. it didn't have to be subterfuge and underhanded. it could've been respectful. this is the problem I have with all of this. it is going to end with acrimony and it didn't have to. just like it didn't have to with Q, but we know how that went. we are all fans and, at least here, aren't idiots. this all would've been easier to swallow had we and the core and the HOF coach not be treated as such. all they had to do is be honest and they still refuse to do so. just come out and say it, Stan. rip the band-aid off and let's get on with it. |
|
|
|
Post by Tater on Oct 25, 2020 2:10:45 GMT -6
Thanks for stating that way better then I did Vadarx.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimakablkhwks918 on Oct 25, 2020 6:41:39 GMT -6
I thought everything Colliton was quoted as saying in that article was pitch perfect. He's the coach and they're the players and everyone has to do their job. One part of the job for the core-4 and other veteran players is to, as Eddie would say, (1) accept your job, and (2) execute. Inherent in that is the proper attitude necessary to carry out their job - being disgruntled in any way, shape or form is not the proper attitude. If the veteran players can't 100% buy in to those job requirements than they shouldn't be a part of the process. This is about what management (from Rocky on down) thinks is best for the Chicago Blackhawks. End of discussion - now either get in line of see yourself out. Period. fair enough. I know if I was one of the core and someone who was younger and less accomplished than me acted like that, I wouldn't be happy. would you? would you just lay down and do exactly what you know they want you to do? to displace your family or the life you've built for over a decade? because that is pretty obviously what they want. they can preach the "it will be good for everyone" line all they want, but you and I both know that the likelihood of any of thsoe veterans reaping the spoils of this rebuild is probably slim to none and it would benefit both sides (from a hockey sense) if they moved on. so then, you're essentially called a liar by both the coach and GM. they are obviously painting you into a corner where if you do not do what they say, then you look like the bad guy. how would that make you feel? furthermore, other than Toews speaking out, what have the core done that indicates they haven't been onboard? they've been pretty good teammates and leaders from what I've seen. but, then you read his interview and him talking about disagreements on the bench. at what point have any of them not accepted their roles and executed? since when is it not OK to have disagreement with the coach, especially when you are vastly more experienced than they are? I agree, he is the head coach and he has to exert some control over the room. which, just makes the hiring of him that much more ridiculous, because who in their right mind would think a guy like him would fly with a core group that is either the same age or older than him and has accomplished more than he has? but, that aside, you are correct, he has to get everyone pulling the same direction and he absolutely cannot do that if the core isn't on board. I suppse I just don’t appreciate the way he comes off while doing it, because he sounds like a smug prick who knows that his boss has his back and he has all the leverage. his airing of business in the media is bullshit. he knows what his mentioning of players not agreeing with his decisions means to the vets. he is letting them know that he is in charge and, as you said, they better all get in line. does this seem like a good place to do that? does this not seem like it will just hurt things rather than help? and so, it brings me to this: it isn't that I hate JC or think he is the worst coach in the world. hell, I think that if given a few years and a younger team, he could prove to be a fair coach. I can't say that for certain, but I can't say he will be an utter failure either. I don't know. what I do know, is this treating the guys that actually did the dirty work to bring all of the glory to the Blackhawks Organization like crap is..... well, crap. there was a better way to do this. it didn't have to be subterfuge and underhanded. it could've been respectful. this is the problem I have with all of this. it is going to end with acrimony and it didn't have to. just like it didn't have to with Q, but we know how that went. we are all fans and, at least here, aren't idiots. this all would've been easier to swallow had we and the core and the HOF coach not be treated as such. all they had to do is be honest and they still refuse to do so. just come out and say it, Stan. rip the band-aid off and let's get on with it. This X infinity.....perfectly stated. |
|
|
|
Post by hsbob on Oct 25, 2020 8:52:34 GMT -6
I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other about Stan. I think he's made some good moves and some bad moves. I don't have the time or interest to attempt to quantify an overall assessment because I don't have the information necessary to know the complexities and dependencies that fans simply don't have. I constantly take the role of apologist for Stan, not because I think he's a great GM, but because the majority of my fellow fans think he's a terrible GM when I know they don't know anymore than I do and I'm not in a position to judge him on anything more than what is seen on the surface. So, my natural inclination to defend the victim when I perceive they are being treated unfairly takes over and I end up defending Stan - not something I want to keep having to do. If nothing else, this official youth movement will bring the whole Stan thing to a head at some point so it doesn't go on indefinitely. I understand that, ER. I don't actually think he was always terrible either. I have given him credit for what he did during the run, etc. I've already said all this, I'm not going to restate it now. I just don’t agree with how he has operated the past few years. you can feel free to disagree (which you will be doing a lot here, I think, lol). i don't think you or anyone else needs to know anymore to evaluate his performance or his actions. I mean, we are all on a message board here, isn't that what we are supposed to do? armchair quarterback? GM's in every sport get criticized or out n out LAMBASTED all over the inter-net for one bad season and we've seen more than one recently and if the three cups didn't protect Q then they don't protect SB either......sorry. WE have a few long time posters who never liked SB and admit it(I'm not one!) and those same posters will attest to my support for the guy along with everything else Black Hawks. I supported every new pick who made the team and argued my ass off to do so,took Kane's side in every off ice dust-up,supported JT through his worst times and some unpleasant back and forth(water under the bridge) and I'm still willing to point out some of SB's additions that helped win the last two cups........anyone can feel free to point out where this paragraph is wrong. Took my lumps supportin' Crawford his entire time here too. Things changed for me.... The sweep was blamed on Q and a highly paid core and rightly so but some of us thought the team needed some help at the TDL despite a record that wasn't what it appeared to be but none came. Allowing a team that held a spot when CC went down the following year to go half a season without a starting GT(I've pointed out the one's available)was managerial malfeasance and I believe it turned the HC and the team against it's GM as much as anything.........it did me! Nothing but old and/or crap was brought in the following summer,three million for the Cam Ward retirement tour while much better GT's signed for much less all around the league. The way the team's GoAT HC was booted will never sit well with me either but things do change,something we need to remember when we look at SB's league long tenure. The small or non-physical nature of the team continued to manifest itself as time went on too and everyone knows how I feel about that. Some can blame Q or McD for this but I've heard SB say with my own ears how the game has changed and doesn't require what it used to in that category. I don't know how anyone can look at last summer and see anything but a squandered 20M+ in precious cap space and the loss of a top D prospect who's more than a prospect now and the loss of MUCH needed good picks.......unless two over floats their boat. The Jokiharju trade might still be a wait and see for some but I saw a 20yro D-man play em all and play big minutes as the year went on for his team and a 22yro forward who was a healthy scratch just three games in for his new HC and again in his team's biggest and last game of the year. I have little to no confidence in our GM being able to take on the monumental task of what this team is lookin' at for the above stated reasons. |
|
|
|
Post by ebonyraptor on Oct 25, 2020 9:08:31 GMT -6
I thought everything Colliton was quoted as saying in that article was pitch perfect. He's the coach and they're the players and everyone has to do their job. One part of the job for the core-4 and other veteran players is to, as Eddie would say, (1) accept your job, and (2) execute. Inherent in that is the proper attitude necessary to carry out their job - being disgruntled in any way, shape or form is not the proper attitude. If the veteran players can't 100% buy in to those job requirements than they shouldn't be a part of the process. This is about what management (from Rocky on down) thinks is best for the Chicago Blackhawks. End of discussion - now either get in line of see yourself out. Period. fair enough. I know if I was one of the core and someone who was younger and less accomplished than me acted like that, I wouldn't be happy. would you? would you just lay down and do exactly what you know they want you to do? to displace your family or the life you've built for over a decade? because that is pretty obviously what they want. they can preach the "it will be good for everyone" line all they want, but you and I both know that the likelihood of any of thsoe veterans reaping the spoils of this rebuild is probably slim to none and it would benefit both sides (from a hockey sense) if they moved on. so then, you're essentially called a liar by both the coach and GM. they are obviously painting you into a corner where if you do not do what they say, then you look like the bad guy. how would that make you feel? furthermore, other than Toews speaking out, what have the core done that indicates they haven't been onboard? they've been pretty good teammates and leaders from what I've seen. but, then you read his interview and him talking about disagreements on the bench. at what point have any of them not accepted their roles and executed? since when is it not OK to have disagreement with the coach, especially when you are vastly more experienced than they are? I agree, he is the head coach and he has to exert some control over the room. which, just makes the hiring of him that much more ridiculous, because who in their right mind would think a guy like him would fly with a core group that is either the same age or older than him and has accomplished more than he has? but, that aside, you are correct, he has to get everyone pulling the same direction and he absolutely cannot do that if the core isn't on board. I suppse I just don’t appreciate the way he comes off while doing it, because he sounds like a smug prick who knows that his boss has his back and he has all the leverage. his airing of business in the media is bullshit. he knows what his mentioning of players not agreeing with his decisions means to the vets. he is letting them know that he is in charge and, as you said, they better all get in line. does this seem like a good place to do that? does this not seem like it will just hurt things rather than help? and so, it brings me to this: it isn't that I hate JC or think he is the worst coach in the world. hell, I think that if given a few years and a younger team, he could prove to be a fair coach. I can't say that for certain, but I can't say he will be an utter failure either. I don't know. what I do know, is this treating the guys that actually did the dirty work to bring all of the glory to the Blackhawks Organization like crap is..... well, crap. there was a better way to do this. it didn't have to be subterfuge and underhanded. it could've been respectful. this is the problem I have with all of this. it is going to end with acrimony and it didn't have to. just like it didn't have to with Q, but we know how that went. we are all fans and, at least here, aren't idiots. this all would've been easier to swallow had we and the core and the HOF coach not be treated as such. all they had to do is be honest and they still refuse to do so. just come out and say it, Stan. rip the band-aid off and let's get on with it. vadarx, there's a lot there to unpack but I think I can address the crux of my disagreement with your position using your opening sentence. "I know if I was one of the core and someone who was younger and less accomplished than me acted like that, I wouldn't be happy." There are several points to be made. First, even given that professional sports is not a microcosm of real world labor relations, it is nonetheless a job which entails hierarchical power structure and is not based on all parties being happy about what the job requires of them. In the best scenario, harmonious relationship between management and labor is good and fosters the best results for both sides, but it it not the preeminent objective nor even required. Second, citing "someone who is younger and less accomplished" is problematic on two levels. First, it applies a false dichotomy where age and accomplishment trump youth and inexperience across distinctly different positions - player and manager. Colliton, in fact, has more accomplishment and experience being a manager than any of the players. Second, it legitimizes age bias which is nothing more than an excuse for resentment. Third, it calls into question the decision made by upper management by viewing it from the player's perspective which implies the players know better. Even if that were true - that the players know better in this specific case - it is a mutinous position to take and needs to be put down before it escalates. In summary, management makes management decisions and players accept those decisions and do their job. Colliton was installed as head coach by management. He has stated what he expects of the players. Nowhere is it stated the job requirement of the players is to make management decisions. The requirement of the players is to be a team player - they can grouse and whine all they want in private but not when it affects team harmony. |
|
|
|
Post by hsbob on Oct 25, 2020 9:09:15 GMT -6
I thought they'd wait a month or two into the season to start pointing fingers.......this won't be fun. "They're focused on their own game and how they can help the team individually"(otherwise known as doing their job.....NO?),"my job is to focus on the greater good and the bigger group" .......What's stoppin' you? The article said "they need to set an example".......what do we consider being the team's top two scorers every year,the best two set up men,the best goal scorer,the best FO guy and what have they done to suggest they DON'T lead by these examples. How many of D-Cat's many goals have come off of Kane's sweet saucer passes and how many of Kubalik's many goals came off of JT's hard working,sweet dishes? THIS is what making your linemates better looks like my friends. YES,some other players haven't done as well with K&T and some turds can't be polished either. |
|
|
|
Post by hsbob on Oct 25, 2020 9:16:30 GMT -6
I thought everything Colliton was quoted as saying in that article was pitch perfect. He's the coach and they're the players and everyone has to do their job. One part of the job for the core-4 and other veteran players is to, as Eddie would say, (1) accept your job, and (2) execute. Inherent in that is the proper attitude necessary to carry out their job - being disgruntled in any way, shape or form is not the proper attitude. If the veteran players can't 100% buy in to those job requirements than they shouldn't be a part of the process. This is about what management (from Rocky on down) thinks is best for the Chicago Blackhawks. End of discussion - now either get in line of see yourself out. Period. fair enough. I know if I was one of the core and someone who was younger and less accomplished than me acted like that, I wouldn't be happy. would you? would you just lay down and do exactly what you know they want you to do? to displace your family or the life you've built for over a decade? because that is pretty obviously what they want. they can preach the "it will be good for everyone" line all they want, but you and I both know that the likelihood of any of thsoe veterans reaping the spoils of this rebuild is probably slim to none and it would benefit both sides (from a hockey sense) if they moved on. so then, you're essentially called a liar by both the coach and GM. they are obviously painting you into a corner where if you do not do what they say, then you look like the bad guy. how would that make you feel? furthermore, other than Toews speaking out, what have the core done that indicates they haven't been onboard? they've been pretty good teammates and leaders from what I've seen. but, then you read his interview and him talking about disagreements on the bench. at what point have any of them not accepted their roles and executed? since when is it not OK to have disagreement with the coach, especially when you are vastly more experienced than they are? I agree, he is the head coach and he has to exert some control over the room. which, just makes the hiring of him that much more ridiculous, because who in their right mind would think a guy like him would fly with a core group that is either the same age or older than him and has accomplished more than he has? but, that aside, you are correct, he has to get everyone pulling the same direction and he absolutely cannot do that if the core isn't on board. I suppse I just don’t appreciate the way he comes off while doing it, because he sounds like a smug prick who knows that his boss has his back and he has all the leverage. his airing of business in the media is bullshit. he knows what his mentioning of players not agreeing with his decisions means to the vets. he is letting them know that he is in charge and, as you said, they better all get in line. does this seem like a good place to do that? does this not seem like it will just hurt things rather than help? and so, it brings me to this: it isn't that I hate JC or think he is the worst coach in the world. hell, I think that if given a few years and a younger team, he could prove to be a fair coach. I can't say that for certain, but I can't say he will be an utter failure either. I don't know. what I do know, is this treating the guys that actually did the dirty work to bring all of the glory to the Blackhawks Organization like crap is..... well, crap. there was a better way to do this. it didn't have to be subterfuge and underhanded. it could've been respectful. this is the problem I have with all of this. it is going to end with acrimony and it didn't have to. just like it didn't have to with Q, but we know how that went. we are all fans and, at least here, aren't idiots. this all would've been easier to swallow had we and the core and the HOF coach not be treated as such. all they had to do is be honest and they still refuse to do so. just come out and say it, Stan. rip the band-aid off and let's get on with it. I hear the core shoulda known the team was rebuilding last summer,was the 20M+ spent on players and trading our best,young D-man along with a 2nd and a 3rd a dead give away?LOFL |
|
|
|
Post by hsbob on Oct 25, 2020 9:37:12 GMT -6
fair enough. I know if I was one of the core and someone who was younger and less accomplished than me acted like that, I wouldn't be happy. would you? would you just lay down and do exactly what you know they want you to do? to displace your family or the life you've built for over a decade? because that is pretty obviously what they want. they can preach the "it will be good for everyone" line all they want, but you and I both know that the likelihood of any of thsoe veterans reaping the spoils of this rebuild is probably slim to none and it would benefit both sides (from a hockey sense) if they moved on. so then, you're essentially called a liar by both the coach and GM. they are obviously painting you into a corner where if you do not do what they say, then you look like the bad guy. how would that make you feel? furthermore, other than Toews speaking out, what have the core done that indicates they haven't been onboard? they've been pretty good teammates and leaders from what I've seen. but, then you read his interview and him talking about disagreements on the bench. at what point have any of them not accepted their roles and executed? since when is it not OK to have disagreement with the coach, especially when you are vastly more experienced than they are? I agree, he is the head coach and he has to exert some control over the room. which, just makes the hiring of him that much more ridiculous, because who in their right mind would think a guy like him would fly with a core group that is either the same age or older than him and has accomplished more than he has? but, that aside, you are correct, he has to get everyone pulling the same direction and he absolutely cannot do that if the core isn't on board. I suppse I just don’t appreciate the way he comes off while doing it, because he sounds like a smug prick who knows that his boss has his back and he has all the leverage. his airing of business in the media is bullshit. he knows what his mentioning of players not agreeing with his decisions means to the vets. he is letting them know that he is in charge and, as you said, they better all get in line. does this seem like a good place to do that? does this not seem like it will just hurt things rather than help? and so, it brings me to this: it isn't that I hate JC or think he is the worst coach in the world. hell, I think that if given a few years and a younger team, he could prove to be a fair coach. I can't say that for certain, but I can't say he will be an utter failure either. I don't know. what I do know, is this treating the guys that actually did the dirty work to bring all of the glory to the Blackhawks Organization like crap is..... well, crap. there was a better way to do this. it didn't have to be subterfuge and underhanded. it could've been respectful. this is the problem I have with all of this. it is going to end with acrimony and it didn't have to. just like it didn't have to with Q, but we know how that went. we are all fans and, at least here, aren't idiots. this all would've been easier to swallow had we and the core and the HOF coach not be treated as such. all they had to do is be honest and they still refuse to do so. just come out and say it, Stan. rip the band-aid off and let's get on with it. vadarx, there's a lot there to unpack but I think I can address the crux of my disagreement with your position using your opening sentence. "I know if I was one of the core and someone who was younger and less accomplished than me acted like that, I wouldn't be happy." There are several points to be made. First, even given that professional sports is not a microcosm of real world labor relations, it is nonetheless a job which entails hierarchical power structure and is not based on all parties being happy about what the job requires of them. In the best scenario, harmonious relationship between management and labor is good and fosters the best results for both sides, but it it not the preeminent objective nor even required. Second, citing "someone who is younger and less accomplished" is problematic on two levels. First, it applies a false dichotomy where age and accomplishment trump youth and inexperience across distinctly different positions - player and manager. Colliton, in fact, has more accomplishment and experience being a manager than any of the players. Second, it legitimizes age bias which is nothing more than an excuse for resentment. Third, it calls into question the decision made by upper management by viewing it from the player's perspective which implies the players know better. Even if that were true - that the players know better in this specific case - it is a mutinous position to take and needs to be put down before it escalates. In summary, management makes management decisions and players accept those decisions and do their job. Colliton was installed as head coach by management. He has stated what he expects of the players. Nowhere is it stated the job requirement of the players is to make management decisions. The requirement of the players is to be a team player - they can grouse and whine all they want in private but not when it affects team harmony. We can debate whether what JT said is proper as we can on whether what the HC and GM are now saying is proper,it's a matter of opinion. In my opinion,leading this team in scoring year in,year out in the regular season as both K&T do and again when the team snuck into this year's PO's as both did again is leading by example and doing their jobs. At what point does that harmony and ability to get the team to buy in fall on the coaching staff? I think it's grossly unfair to paint Toews as a whining,mutinous malcontent for stating he was unaware of a rebuild after watching his GM spend a massive amount of money last summer and move out young,valuable assets. Four players on the roster laced em up for all 70 last year and K&T were once again two of em......mutineers they are! |
|
|
|
Post by ebonyraptor on Oct 25, 2020 10:23:51 GMT -6
vadarx, there's a lot there to unpack but I think I can address the crux of my disagreement with your position using your opening sentence. "I know if I was one of the core and someone who was younger and less accomplished than me acted like that, I wouldn't be happy." There are several points to be made. First, even given that professional sports is not a microcosm of real world labor relations, it is nonetheless a job which entails hierarchical power structure and is not based on all parties being happy about what the job requires of them. In the best scenario, harmonious relationship between management and labor is good and fosters the best results for both sides, but it it not the preeminent objective nor even required. Second, citing "someone who is younger and less accomplished" is problematic on two levels. First, it applies a false dichotomy where age and accomplishment trump youth and inexperience across distinctly different positions - player and manager. Colliton, in fact, has more accomplishment and experience being a manager than any of the players. Second, it legitimizes age bias which is nothing more than an excuse for resentment. Third, it calls into question the decision made by upper management by viewing it from the player's perspective which implies the players know better. Even if that were true - that the players know better in this specific case - it is a mutinous position to take and needs to be put down before it escalates. In summary, management makes management decisions and players accept those decisions and do their job. Colliton was installed as head coach by management. He has stated what he expects of the players. Nowhere is it stated the job requirement of the players is to make management decisions. The requirement of the players is to be a team player - they can grouse and whine all they want in private but not when it affects team harmony. We can debate whether what JT said is proper as we can on whether what the HC and GM are now saying is proper,it's a matter of opinion. In my opinion,leading this team in scoring year in,year out in the regular season as both K&T do and again when the team snuck into this year's PO's as both did again is leading by example and doing their jobs. At what point does that harmony and ability to get the team to buy in fall on the coaching staff? I think it's grossly unfair to paint Toews as a whining,mutinous malcontent for stating he was unaware of a rebuild after watching his GM spend a massive amount of money last summer and move out young,valuable assets. Four players on the roster laced em up for all 70 last year and K&T were once again two of em......mutineers they are! The core-4 players were doing their jobs when they led the Hawks into the playoffs. Management has officially publicized a change in direction from "win now" to "build for the future with a youth movement". That change in direction is within the purview of management and incumbent upon the players to accept the redefinition of their job responsibilities from one of playing to win now to one of playing to lead young players in learning how to succeed in the NHL. The players don't have to like it, but they should accept it and do their best to meet their new job responsibilities or be honest with management that they can't buy into the new direction and would prefer to be traded. I'll acknowledge that I'm an old school believer in the critical need for hierarchical structure in achieving a missions objective - and as such maybe I'm out of step with the modern day way of doing things. If that's the case, then so be it because I'm in no position to do anything about it. But, I believe what I believe to be time honored truth and I'll not back down because it's unpopular. |
|
|
|
Post by vadarx on Oct 25, 2020 11:23:17 GMT -6
fair enough. I know if I was one of the core and someone who was younger and less accomplished than me acted like that, I wouldn't be happy. would you? would you just lay down and do exactly what you know they want you to do? to displace your family or the life you've built for over a decade? because that is pretty obviously what they want. they can preach the "it will be good for everyone" line all they want, but you and I both know that the likelihood of any of thsoe veterans reaping the spoils of this rebuild is probably slim to none and it would benefit both sides (from a hockey sense) if they moved on. so then, you're essentially called a liar by both the coach and GM. they are obviously painting you into a corner where if you do not do what they say, then you look like the bad guy. how would that make you feel? furthermore, other than Toews speaking out, what have the core done that indicates they haven't been onboard? they've been pretty good teammates and leaders from what I've seen. but, then you read his interview and him talking about disagreements on the bench. at what point have any of them not accepted their roles and executed? since when is it not OK to have disagreement with the coach, especially when you are vastly more experienced than they are? I agree, he is the head coach and he has to exert some control over the room. which, just makes the hiring of him that much more ridiculous, because who in their right mind would think a guy like him would fly with a core group that is either the same age or older than him and has accomplished more than he has? but, that aside, you are correct, he has to get everyone pulling the same direction and he absolutely cannot do that if the core isn't on board. I suppse I just don’t appreciate the way he comes off while doing it, because he sounds like a smug prick who knows that his boss has his back and he has all the leverage. his airing of business in the media is bullshit. he knows what his mentioning of players not agreeing with his decisions means to the vets. he is letting them know that he is in charge and, as you said, they better all get in line. does this seem like a good place to do that? does this not seem like it will just hurt things rather than help? and so, it brings me to this: it isn't that I hate JC or think he is the worst coach in the world. hell, I think that if given a few years and a younger team, he could prove to be a fair coach. I can't say that for certain, but I can't say he will be an utter failure either. I don't know. what I do know, is this treating the guys that actually did the dirty work to bring all of the glory to the Blackhawks Organization like crap is..... well, crap. there was a better way to do this. it didn't have to be subterfuge and underhanded. it could've been respectful. this is the problem I have with all of this. it is going to end with acrimony and it didn't have to. just like it didn't have to with Q, but we know how that went. we are all fans and, at least here, aren't idiots. this all would've been easier to swallow had we and the core and the HOF coach not be treated as such. all they had to do is be honest and they still refuse to do so. just come out and say it, Stan. rip the band-aid off and let's get on with it. vadarx, there's a lot there to unpack but I think I can address the crux of my disagreement with your position using your opening sentence. "I know if I was one of the core and someone who was younger and less accomplished than me acted like that, I wouldn't be happy." There are several points to be made. First, even given that professional sports is not a microcosm of real world labor relations, it is nonetheless a job which entails hierarchical power structure and is not based on all parties being happy about what the job requires of them. In the best scenario, harmonious relationship between management and labor is good and fosters the best results for both sides, but it it not the preeminent objective nor even required. Second, citing "someone who is younger and less accomplished" is problematic on two levels. First, it applies a false dichotomy where age and accomplishment trump youth and inexperience across distinctly different positions - player and manager. Colliton, in fact, has more accomplishment and experience being a manager than any of the players. Second, it legitimizes age bias which is nothing more than an excuse for resentment. Third, it calls into question the decision made by upper management by viewing it from the player's perspective which implies the players know better. Even if that were true - that the players know better in this specific case - it is a mutinous position to take and needs to be put down before it escalates. In summary, management makes management decisions and players accept those decisions and do their job. Colliton was installed as head coach by management. He has stated what he expects of the players. Nowhere is it stated the job requirement of the players is to make management decisions. The requirement of the players is to be a team player - they can grouse and whine all they want in private but not when it affects team harmony. fair points, all around. |
|
|
|
Post by hsbob on Oct 25, 2020 11:24:54 GMT -6
We can debate whether what JT said is proper as we can on whether what the HC and GM are now saying is proper,it's a matter of opinion. In my opinion,leading this team in scoring year in,year out in the regular season as both K&T do and again when the team snuck into this year's PO's as both did again is leading by example and doing their jobs. At what point does that harmony and ability to get the team to buy in fall on the coaching staff? I think it's grossly unfair to paint Toews as a whining,mutinous malcontent for stating he was unaware of a rebuild after watching his GM spend a massive amount of money last summer and move out young,valuable assets. Four players on the roster laced em up for all 70 last year and K&T were once again two of em......mutineers they are! The core-4 players were doing their jobs when they led the Hawks into the playoffs. Management has officially publicized a change in direction from "win now" to "build for the future with a youth movement". That change in direction is within the purview of management and incumbent upon the players to accept the redefinition of their job responsibilities from one of playing to win now to one of playing to lead young players in learning how to succeed in the NHL. The players don't have to like it, but they should accept it and do their best to meet their new job responsibilities or be honest with management that they can't buy into the new direction and would prefer to be traded. I'll acknowledge that I'm an old school believer in the critical need for hierarchical structure in achieving a missions objective - and as such maybe I'm out of step with the modern day way of doing things. If that's the case, then so be it because I'm in no position to do anything about it. But, I believe what I believe to be time honored truth and I'll not back down because it's unpopular. Your opinion is as important as anyone's whether I agree with it or not and I don't think anyone expects you to back down. I took some knocks when I was still optimistic and I never let it stop me as I don't now that I'm pessimistic. I'm just disagreeing with you. K&T's job is still to score goals and produce offense....ect....ect as far as I see it and they do as well as any other players on the team and I think it's incumbent on the STAFF to teach young players how to succeed in the league. If these two great players saw a drop off in performance for the good of the team,we'd see their names dragged through the mud for that drop off as we've seen before and as we see here. I don't want to get into some ideological,employee vs management debate but I think there's a chance that the core see the same chance of success being led by two liquor salesmen and a dim witted GM as I see and I do hope they waive because they'll never get another shot here again. If you see something different,I applaud your optimism and I hope you keep sharing it as I will my pessimism. |
|
|
|
Post by nighbor on Oct 25, 2020 11:47:22 GMT -6
Man, Colliton is a beaut. There's gonna be a lot of friction on the bench when hockey resumes. After reading that article and others, it's hard believe 3 time Cup winners will buy into what a coach close to their age, with minimal playing or coaching experience is selling. I see no difference between JC a young coach and a second year player Toews being named captain. Both had limited NHL experience and accomplished nothing. |
|
|
|
Post by vadarx on Oct 25, 2020 11:51:35 GMT -6
We can debate whether what JT said is proper as we can on whether what the HC and GM are now saying is proper,it's a matter of opinion. In my opinion,leading this team in scoring year in,year out in the regular season as both K&T do and again when the team snuck into this year's PO's as both did again is leading by example and doing their jobs. At what point does that harmony and ability to get the team to buy in fall on the coaching staff? I think it's grossly unfair to paint Toews as a whining,mutinous malcontent for stating he was unaware of a rebuild after watching his GM spend a massive amount of money last summer and move out young,valuable assets. Four players on the roster laced em up for all 70 last year and K&T were once again two of em......mutineers they are! The core-4 players were doing their jobs when they led the Hawks into the playoffs. Management has officially publicized a change in direction from "win now" to "build for the future with a youth movement". That change in direction is within the purview of management and incumbent upon the players to accept the redefinition of their job responsibilities from one of playing to win now to one of playing to lead young players in learning how to succeed in the NHL. The players don't have to like it, but they should accept it and do their best to meet their new job responsibilities or be honest with management that they can't buy into the new direction and would prefer to be traded. I'll acknowledge that I'm an old school believer in the critical need for hierarchical structure in achieving a missions objective - and as such maybe I'm out of step with the modern day way of doing things. If that's the case, then so be it because I'm in no position to do anything about it. But, I believe what I believe to be time honored truth and I'll not back down because it's unpopular. again, fair points, ER. I think the issue here is less some major disagreement between us and more of of a minor one, tbh. it is likely that I have yet to fully capture my main issue with this. that is: I don't agree with the way the people in charge are doing business. a hierarchy is needed for success. on that we absolutely agree. a hierarchy that doesn't take into account everyone's thoughts, feelings, concerns, etc is not a good way to maintain it, though, in my opinion. going out and saying: this is the way it is, like it or leave, is not the way I would handle things. of course, as you said, I have no say in so..... what can I do? rage about it here, I suppose. this isn't just a core 4 issue to me. this is a long term issue. how will this affect free agency? who will want to come here if it appears the players weren't treated with the respect (especially those that have surely earned it)? how will this affect working with other organizations? Bowman already seems to have a hard enough time trading as it is, he doesn't need the old school club that is the NHL front office looking down on him any more than they already do. mostly, however, it just seems like a shit way to try and fix this thing. outing things in the media, making hires that clearly go against the team's current situation, and then saying do it or piss off (essentially) is not how you get everyone pulling in the same direction without dooming it to failure down the road. pushing out those who have relevant complaints because they won't just go along with something they disagree with is not the way to sow trust amongst those who remain. it may work for a while, to varying degrees, but it isn't likely to lead to long term success. given that this is what they are purportedly aspiring to, long term and extended success, it is infuriating to me. they are saying they want one thing but are going about it in a way that seems shortsighted instead. I feel like a more collaborative approach to this would've been a better way of doing this. that doesn't mean the veteran players have some huge say in it, it just means they more say than do "do what we want or get out". |
|
