Quote:
Originally Posted by FanIn80
I get that normally a team that hates all its coaches would be a warning flag, but in their defence, it's not like we're hiring Scotty Bowman clones here. We're talking about one coach that had to work in Europe because he couldn't get an NHL job, and another one who just has no business being a head coach anywhere.
And now we have another coach without any kind of established credibility.
|
I don't think that is entirely fair. Bill Peters has won a Memorial Cup, a gold medal at the WHC, and he was behind the bench of the gold-medal-winning Canadian World Cup team in 2016 alongside Mike Babcock, Claude Julien, Barry Trotz, and Joel Quenneville. He may not have had a lot of NHL success yet, but I would say that is an impressive resume that bespeaks a considerable level of credibility.
Quote:
My question is this: Why put all the effort into building a talented team, just to skimp out on the guy in charge of deploying and managing that team?
Like, I don't get it. Do we (GM/Owners) don't believe that you also need a great ("good" at the very least) coach to be a great team? Are we of the mindset that it's 90% players and 10% coach? You can have the best player in the history of the game on your team, but if your coach decides to sit him and have a defenceman take his place in the shootout in the biggest game of the season... what good is that?
/end rant
|
I think the question of money is legitimate, but I am less convinced that was the primary motive behind Treliving's latest coaching hire. Based on the timeline from the end of the season to Peters's hire it seems pretty clear to me that he was deliberately targeted by Treliving. I think that while he was probably going to replace Gulutzan in any event, the moment that Peters became available Treliving moved to secure the coach that he wanted. Rightly or wrongly the GM pretty clearly believes that Bill Peters is the best coach to lead this team.