All Activity

This stream auto-updates   

  1. Today
  2. A good manger trains his replacement. Replacement for when he might be sick or away and replacement to carry on the job after he is gone. Sometimes it is difficult to find the best qualified for the job and then fit them in to all the other garbage that comes with a high profile job..
  3. I still wouldn't be surprised to see BT and or BB given there walking papers before draft day. BT hasn't been a success with us so far. Blaming the coaches is a smoke screen for him he knew what this team needed from the start like goalies which he did try I guess but failed till now but Smith can't stop every thing. The trades on D was as far as I'm concerned should have made us better but losing a first perhaps even a top 6 really hurts but I'm sure he never expected it to go so far down hill but not protecting for the lottery was a huge mistake . GG might have been the coach but i bet BT made a few decisions that GG was not happy with when it came to player movements. Im leaning towards a c to c- this yr on his work as a whole. Just saying.
  4. Ryan Reeves has been talked about plenty in this thread and he fits into that role of goon who shouldn't play a regular shift.
  5. Nobody in this thread is talking about aquiring some goon who is incapable of playing a shift in the NHL. Engelland is a good example of a heavyweight who can play and fill the role of protector if needed.
  6. I don't follow coaches near as much as I do players, but I feel that hiring AV would be a safer choice than Peters. For me, it comes down to NHL experience. If BT is risking his job on the next coach hiring, I'm betting he goes that direction.
  7. Some say he got the Canucks when they got into their primes. He got the Canucks when the twins were basically still 2nd liners, Kesler was at par with Lombardi and Burrows was just discovered. He placed a defensive system that allowed them to flourish and then transitioned and changed the system into a powerhouse. When AV started, we all thought the Canucks would continue to suck. everyone remembers the team they changed into. I dont get the idea that he can’t coach youth.
  8. I would have to think if we get Peters as a coach that we may sign Derek Ryan. Good faceoff guy, produced fairly well. Would give us a nice 4th line C
  9. Yesterday
  10. Should be getting some news tomorrow as it’s Peters last day to opt out...
  11. No I’m not playing the hindsight card, just throwing more fuel on ff’s comment that good players can be traded for some fine futures. As he pointed out Nieuwy turned into Iggy, I believe Theo(?) turned into Reggie. I wouldn’t take issue if we were moving Brodie/Bennett(not my choice) I’d be more interested in A level prospects.
  12. http://www.oann.com/watch-pearson-sharp-refutes-msm-reports-of-chemical-weapons-attack-in-douma/
  13. just saw this too, was actually just coming in to post it LOL so good chance we don't have to wait over a month this time
  14. To be Real Honest , I don't put a whole lot of stock into this "Ownership is meddling " talk that is surrounding Sutter . Just due to the history since the Ken King era ended and the way I know their dynamic has shown it to be. Recent things that we know as fact: - BT has stated he has no constraints salary wise when it comes to hiring this coach - He wants and has stated , a coach that has NHL experience - It has been stated by all parties , many times, he consults and relies on Brian Burke in many situations , but final decisions are BT's - When the last coach was hired , Randy Carlyle was a candidate through the whole process, its safe to say this was a BB suggestion , he's a BB guy so it makes sense, but in the end it was BT's guy that got hired - based on the last hire , when GG was hired , he needed sign off on the contract from BB and ownership What likely is happening , or happened here : They had their big meeting in Banff, and the conclusion was that GG needed to go . BT and / or BB pointed out to ownership that if they wanted something proven, more solid this time. they will need to pay the new coach , not shop on a budget - BIll Peters makes 1.6M in Carolina , safe to say where he ends up he will be higher than that , I can see the 2.5 to 4 range based on coaches these days .. I read somewhere that GG made about 1 or just under Ownership,(and this is their right since they write checks ) likely said OK , but with a caveat that it needs to be a solid proven guy. If it's not , we're not writing a big check for that - Could KK be suggesting names? absolutely and due to the past history that name was likely Darryl Sutter - they wanted him to return to behind the bench before he left , he resigned instead of firing his Brother - Could BB be suggesting names ? absolutely , that's his job and in many ways his Job is tied to BT.. if BT fails he could be gone too - Will BT have to explain who he is hiring and justify why he picked him and why he wants to pay him $X? absolutely ..that's his job - Could he say he wants to hire Bill Peters and pay him $4M and be told No, we'll only give you $2M for him ? yes.. but again its his job to sell that to them and all indications is he has BB in his corner to back his decisions and let it be his hire again Do I believe that Ownership/ KK could be saying " we really like Darryl, make sure you take a hard look at him " yes.. absolutely . and that is no different than BB telling him last time " Take a hard look at Carlyle" Do I believe Ownership/ KK is saying " you're going to Hire Darryl Sutter "? absolutely not . That's jumping multiple levels of delegation If Ownership is "demanding " it .. then KK would be ticked , cuz that's what he hired BB for and that's stepping on KK's toes If KK is demanding it, then BB should be ticked cuz that's what he was hired for It's silly to believe for one second that brainstorming ISN'T happening ..everybody throwing out names and suggestions .and BT has probably asked them to. BB has a history in the league, BT has a fairly recent list of people he interviewed last time , KK and owners are going to throw their 2 cents in as well But somebody hears "Ownership is pushing for Darryl Sutter" and people hear "Owners are meddling and telling BT who to Hire " The tell take for me was hearing "BT is pushing for Peters and Ownership wants him to Hire Sutter ".. because seriously , when has anybody ever known what BT was wanting or doing before he did it ?? Nope sorry .. even if Sutter does get hired, it will be because BT interviewed him and decided he was the guy he wanted .. nobody is making him do anything , except maybe to interview him .
  15. Do we think Treliving is professional enough to put aside the emotional aspect of hiring Sutter as coach? As a manager in my industry of 20 years, I once hired a previous manager and it was a defining and learning mistake. Would never do that again. I'm not saying Sutter would undercut him or anything, but if I was BT I'd always have the wonder and fear in the back of my mind. Would he put himself in that position? Would he choose another coach because of that reason? Maybe that's why ownership is getting involved.
  16. Hamilton is the type of player you hope a 1st rounder turns into. No problem with that trade personally.
  17. They each have options. If ownership does supersede the GM, he may as well resign.
  18. Maybe Ownership needs to focus on a arena Deal instead of Interfering with Gm duties
  19. yes, but would we better? I'm not sure we would personally. Without Hamilton there would be a huge hole on the blueline.
  20. So true ff, Boston’s return on Hamilton looks just fine. In hindsight, they could have really belted it out of the park when you rearrange those picks to Barzal, Forsbacka-Karlsson(or Sprong) and Rasmus or Dunn would have been a massive haul. Easy in hindsight but it isn’t far out there for that to have happened. I’m a huge fan of getting good prospects in trades. Without the Hamilton trade, all of that could have been ours with both Andersson and Dunn, and we’d still be getting Kyl to boot. We’d be a lot different.
  21. I think BT is likely out irregardless of who he hires if the results arn't there. I don't think if he hires AV or Sutter and it doesn't work out (which CAN happen) the narrative or view from ownership will change then if he hires Peters. Pretty rare that any GM survives 3 coaching hires so for this reason I really don't think this should factor into the decision. Peters has no playoffs but he's also from a mess of a franchise. There has been 2 consistencies since Peters has been the coach. The Canes have been in the bottom 4 of the league in Save % and bottom 4 in payroll. Really tough for me to blame the coach when those are 2 constants. No other team in the league during his tenure stayed in the bottom 4 and most that were there with them were worse off than the Canes. When it comes to coaches I think you have to be carefully looking at previous records. Past performance is not always indicative of future successes. AV was a dud for the Habs. 1 year playoffs, 2 sub 500 years and then was fired in his 4th year when the Habs were behind 2 expansion teams in the standings. Gerrard Gallant was first before reaching 2 full season in Columbus. win % was sub .450. Mike Sullivan went to playoffs 1 year, then was fired after a sub .500 season the next year. Now has 2 Cups and could have a 3rd. Peter Deboer never made the playoffs in 3 years in Florida. Now has been to the finals twice. In Reverse: Randy Caryle won a cup with the Ducks. Pretty mixed results since. Missed the playoffs almost as much as he's made them. Claude Julien won a cup, but what happened this year with the Habs? Bruins have always taken off since he was let go. Ron Wilson - what did he do in Toronto? Then they should fire the GM.
  22. If it was my choice .... Martin Gelinas I bet nobody saw that coming. And Brad no more signing yesteryear players Jagr was a bad move, the only player from the past to sign perhaps Iggy so he retires a Flame! Give him a job managing the Heat or something, I bet Iggy might be interested in Coaching (Heat) and he be a good one. Always in condition!!
  23. As Cross has been saying for awhile, regardless of who the coach is, if it goes wrong Treliving is out of job. He just has to pick who he thinks is the best coach for his group. I personally think it's Peters, has I think he has the best mix of personality and systems to get the most out of the team. Add in the fact that Peters has experience being a coach in the NHL and coaching NHLers at the World Championships.
  24. Micro management on any level is not fun. The owners getting involved is agreeable to that it's annoying but Trevling did hire the last dud. The owners wanting Sutter makes sense as he advocates accountability and players earn their pay checks. When your GM publicly addresses media and fans with the point of there was no passion or heart is a difficult 70+ million dollar pill to swallow. Sutter is a great coach there is no questioning that but again is he the right guy for this club? That stated is Peter's, or any of the others. This time around your coaching selection has to meet the roster we have. I agree with you that the interference of owners is awful but this also shows no faith in your GM's choices, which is understandable as well.
  25. My big concern with Peters is his nhl as head coach playoff experience none. Would BT who has no more outs and has to get this coach right put his job on the Peters as coach line? If it does not work BT is likely next to go
  26. So just to be clear the reason I reference that quote and voiced frustration is purely based on the quote about ownership, it had nothing to do with Sutter. I'm not a fan of these owners, well 1 in particular, and how they operate so it becomes frustrating when you continue to hear their involvement. Personal thing, not against Sutter. I think the idea of fit is being a little misinterpreted though. I agree that the concept that Sutter can only coach a big heavy team is incorrect. Sutter is a much smarter coach then many give him credit so I don't agree that guys like Gaudreau/Bennett or even Backlund wouldn't succeed under Sutter. The players who can't play for Sutter are not the skilled guys, its the guys who can't take the demanding work ethic and two way style he wants, but I personally don't see a guy on the roster that wouldn't be ok with that, especially if you win. Remember, Sutter went out and traded for guys like Tanguay and Huselius. Not fair to say he ignores skill. however, offensively he's similar to Gulutzan so if people hated that offensive strategy Sutter's is the same. It's possession based, cycle based and won't generate the high quality scoring chances that some complained about under Gulutzan. It won't utilize Dmen and it's more dump and chase based as well. That will hurt Gaudreau but likely help the likes of Bennett/Ferland who I could see having more success in a dump and case based system. However, don't exact the offense to get any better under Sutter than Gultuzan, because Sutter's is more "boring". Now of course maybe he is willing to change. He did change his style from the Flames to the Kings, but kept some of the same core principles and that's why I'm skeptical he would change that much. he has core principles that aren't likely going to go away. but, as I said earlier about Sutter you can never ignore that this is Darryl Sutter. He is probably the best motivator the league has seen since Bowman. Whatever your thought process is on systems, style of player and their correlation to winning, you still have to acknowledge this strength of his. He gets his teams to play for each, play hard, and be accountable. That alone, with the talent level of this team would yield better results. I think how much better would be determined on what you think of his style of play, that combined with how comfortable you are with the idea he'll very likely have a short shelf life.
  1. Load more activity