Quote:
Originally Posted by Flash Walken
I understand he was restricted in what he could say from both a legal perspective as well as a public relations perspective.
I get he can't and shouldn't speak to any specifics.
I think there was more to be said on how they plan to do things moving forward and about the positive steps they can take right now to address any shortcomings in either their hiring practices or how the organization views inclusivity and the current hockey culture.
Brad had no issue spelling out that he did a 'full scrub', his due diligence and spoke with previous employers about Peters, so I don't buy that he couldn't also make mention of other aspects of the hiring process.
I understand he doesn't want to put anything out there, but he was very quick to defend their hiring process, and for me, that was very CYA.
|
OK - thanks for that.
He did say that from any event one learns, and that in the days to come they will re-evaluate how they manage their hiring (or words to that effect). He sidestepped the question about the Canes and Hawks (wisely - the NHL will have to deal with them, methinks!) and kept on message about the team's approach moving forward. I really didn't see anything to complain about there.
The problem - thankfully - wasn't in the Flames organization. And there is only so much due diligence one can do in a hiring situation. Former employers will only say so much (don't forget - they are ALL competing organizations, too....), and one cannot rely on stories, hearsay and other lovely tidbits, no matter how juicy they might be. They might all be crap, too.
As a GM you're trying to find someone who can direct, push, prod, shove, encourage and ultimately get positive results. Those people don't tend to be ones who mollycoddle their charges. They also don't need to belittle them, bully them or harass them...but they might be tough and hard on them.
At what point does "hard" transform to "bully"? Eye of the beholder? Are some players whinier than others? It ain't easy...