I'm finding it hard to rank.
Core is an issue and the possibilities of cliques within it is an issue, which overlaps with leadership. On the latter, I think when things were going better, guys who lead by example like Gio are fine. These days maybe they need someone more assertive to take charge. This doesn't require a change of letter - someone just needs to do it. Gio also may have taken a step back in his role as he feels his own game slip and tries to recover it. But at the end of the day, the core is what it is - not at the top of the division in raw talent and closer to the bottom. That takes years to address.
Coaching is an issue, which I think some people fall hard on in the hopes that changing a coach fixes the core and everything is rosy. I think a coaching change would be an improvement but not an overwhelming one. It's the easiest thing to address though - it's one guy.
Scouting - I think amateur has been fine, pro has been a mix: Lindholm was indeed "ready to pop" as was Hamilton, Tanev was a good signing, Markstrom was a no brainer. But Neal, Hamonic, Brouwer, Lazar were failures in pro scouting.
Ownership: I think they've been more hands off than some people. I'm betting, while the bottom line of success matters, Treliving has been given the lifespan of his current contract to succeed or not. IIRC there was some issue at the time of his last renewal where it was surmised he didn't have 100% confidence. Here's the issue: There are no hockey people in the organization above Treliving. Bean is an oil and gas accountant. The owners are interested amateurs. Who knows how they go about hiring a replacement?
Development is so tricky. People focus on Bennett and maybe Jankowski. But what about Ferland, Mangiapane, Andersson - I'd say those are successes. And Valimaki and Dube look promising.
|