Quote:
Originally Posted by killer_carlson
Let me expand on this.
When I say "saddled with Backstrom" it's the acquisition where we promised a 38 year old goalie who hadn't played in 14 months with starts down the stretch. I dont have a problem with that because the expectation is that the goalie will be rusty and probably lose more than they will win. I think Backstrom outperformed (or actually, Montreal out-tanked us in the his first game).
So I think the acquisition of Backstrom was designed to help get us a pick and help get us better odds in the draft lottery.
Which is why I think it's BS that the coach is held accountable for the team's performance when the GM is making moves that he knows aren't likely to help the team win.
|
Because our stretch was of such importance.....The issue isn't how the team played once they were eliminated from the playoffs, it was the other 70 games of the year.
Also, Backstrom got starts due to: 1) Ramo having a season ending injury; and 2) Hiller being one of the worst goalies over the last decade. Backstrom also played in a grand total of 4 games. ...bringing him in was totally inconsequential.
And no, we shouldn't have gone after Reimer. He would have cost assets to acquire. The correct move was to wait until the off season, when there are not only FA options (including Reimer) but several teams looking to unload a goalie under contract.
As for Treveling, the Dougie Hamilton move alone gets him more time. Add in the fact that he killed it at the trade deadline, and there is absolutely no reason to fire him.
I think the issue is that you liked Hartley. So you feel that it's unfair that he gets the boot, while Treveling stays on. However, Hartley is just too simple of a coach for the NHL right now. You can read his game plan a mile away, and he isn't capable of adapting his game.