Quote:
Originally Posted by GoJetsGo
The idea is being critiquied, and your response has been smug like you're the only one who sees through it.
Once again:
"I have gone through over the course of the last couple weeks, I just felt that at this particular time for us to move forward Bob has taken this team as far as he can take it."
"Each coach has their own style and their own way of doing things. Bob is able to get a lot out of players, but when we sat back and reviewed the season, I felt for us to move forward as an organization it was time, it was important and critical that we made this decision. I wish him nothing but the best."
This has nothing to do with "deserves".
It's a business, and the GM is in charge of personnel changes. You keep suggesting there's an injustice that Hartley doesn't get more time.
The fact they don't feel he's the person to take the team forward makes things like "fault" and "deserves" irrelevant.
|
Whether it's talking about player ice time, call ups from the minors, who makes the roster, or a coaching change like this, your post brings up something for me. Time and time again, I'm amazed at the number of people who's opinions are passionately based around things like "fault" and "deserves" when it comes to decisions at the NHL level.
A lot of opinions that to me come off as very "equal opportunity" opinions, which make me wonder what type of work environments everyone else works in. The NHL is not a "just cause", find "precedence", "fair" for all environment. It's a cut throat business from the GM down to the players, who all get a chance to participate in game to earn their living, and for the most part are compensated very handsomely to do so. They all knowingly give up the security and "fairness" you might find in say a union based position (despite having a union as far as the players go) to get that chance, and it still amazes me how often people become besides themselves over a decision they view as being made without "just cause". Doesn't apply in this environment.