Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
For sure ... but wanted to create an alternative where they wouldn't be disappointed because they were part of the problem themselves.
I forget who it was ... Friedman or Lebrun I think that said the word is the ownership is content with Treliving and they didn't see him going.
But as a group (ownership/management) they have to be disappointed. The plan didn't work. The idea that they had 2/3 of a first line to build around has completely fallen apart in the last two years and because of that they're sort of forced to retool.
If that is 100% on Treliving, and the ownership group was suggesting they move on from the duo sooner than yeah he could be in trouble. But if they were in concert with what was going on, than I'm guessing the owners and management are right along with myself and probably most of this site in not seeing that complete 13/23 collapse coming.
If that's the case they probably don't fire him.
|
Pointing exclusively to disintegration of 13 and 23's play does not justify what is, IMO, a poorly constructed roster. Many people questioned whether those two could ever form the top line on a contending team.
And suggesting the only way Treliving should be is accountable is if ownership told him to move on from Gaudreau and Monahan and he resisted seems like an example of trying too hard to absolve the General Manager of responsibility.
The GM is much more of a CEO and ownership is a BOD in a typical public company construct. I haven't seen many CEO's successfully pass off responsibility for business failure to their Board.