Not intending to be defensive here but for the sake of discussion:
If you are an NHL GM who basically got very little back in a trade, are you going to come out and be totally transparent with how the process went?
To do so ruins credibility with your peers.
Yzerman had his own agenda, and doesn't strike me as someone who stops moving based on someone else's timelines.
I'm not suggesting that is not unrealistic (or common) for Treliving to have to get approval.
I simply relayed information that was given to me.
For all I know it's just one small bargaining chip before getting a deal done.
It could be EVERYTHING to him, it could be NOTHING to him.
I'm sure many of us have been in a position where a boss/manager has interfered with us getting jobs done in the most effective manner possible.
Difference being most of us are not subject to contract renewals/negotiations every few years.
It's not even my attempt to suggest King is bad.
Sometimes I've had executives who were outstanding at their role... it's when they started also trying to stay too involved in the roles of their managers that things went badly.
Execs should delegate and then trust, unless track record indicates otherwise - which
doesn't seem the case here.
If I am considered "elite" in my field and I have an opportunity to play a card to either improve my contract or improve my authority that enables me to better perform my duties without impedance... I'm taking it.
GM's are evaluated based on the on ice performance so if something is blocking me from producing, and it's within my control to change it... I'm sure trying.
He's got some grounds to stand on, especially if he is considered a desirable asset.
From a hockey perspective (and not knowing ANY of the specifics of the deal):
If I had a deal for Bishop which would have better solidified my team leading up to battling for playoffs and maybe doing some damage, and it got killed because of this... I'd be annoyed.
|