Quote:
Originally Posted by GioforPM
IMO the players should choose but subject to a team veto (to be used sparingly).
|
I understand your point about that, but I don't think I agree. Since we've been talking about ancient history, do you remember what happened after Peplinski retired? The Flames were left without a captain, and they let the players elect a new one. They chose Brad McCrimmon, who became the leader of an organized campaign to have Terry Crisp fired. The team played inexcusably badly in the 1990 playoffs, because they had not only tuned out the coach, they were deliberately trying to get rid of him. Cliff Fletcher wound up firing the coach
and trading the ringleaders for peanuts, and that was the end of the Flames as a dominant team in the league.
If there are questions about the character of some of the guys in the room, I don't think it's wise to let those same guys choose their own leader. Ask around one-on-one, by all means, and see what names come up and why. But in the end it's a player personnel decision, and the GM takes the blame if it goes wrong. He may delegate that decision to the coach, but he shouldn't simply surrender it.