Quote:
Originally Posted by activeStick
Just my take, but leadership in hockey is like in any other organization and needs to happen organically for it to be effective the majority of the time. Casting people into these kinds of roles when it's unnatural usually leads to disappointment.
Brouwer as an example, to me, indicates the roster as it stood when he was brought in was sorely lacking an existing player with leadership qualities (which includes respect from his peers). I'm not convinced that casting a new joiner into that kind of a role is a good idea unless he comes with immense, irrefutable credentials to back it up. I'm not in the room, so I have zero idea, but the fact that Brouwer got the A over a number of guys who have history with the team was an odd decision from my perspective as an outsider.
I agree to an extent with those that believe the A has minimal impact to the overall end game, but the fact is it's there, and it's a thing, so who teams decide to give that distinction to does end up mattering.
|
Generally speaking I agree which is also why it actually makes more sense that Stajan has an A over Brouwer. Been here, liked by the group, generally seems to work hard most of the time and has carved out a respectable role (albeit he may not be there anymore this year).
But to leave the A on Brouwer is strange. I don't mean to beat up on the guy so badly but it truly is just mindboggling. Maybe he has a requirement in his contract or something.