Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainYooh
You've had me at Brouwer and lost me at Peters. I never understood the Peters' hire when Darryl was available and willing. I was very vocal about it at the time and got scolded by many here for "looking back instead of looking forward". At Tre's own admission, his whole decision-making factor was being impressed by Peters over his coaching style during some IIHF event (or something like it, I forgot the exact event). The fact that Peters had zero head coaching success during playoffs was of no consequence to Treliving (similar to Ward and Gulutzan).
|
I don't believe that Sutter was, in fact, available at the time Treliving hired Peters. Both Treliving and Sutter have publicly stated that attempts were made earlier to get him behind the Flames bench, but that the timing never worked out for both sides.
As for hiring a head coach on the basis of playoff results, this is not a hard-and-fast measure of future success. A coach cannot win in the playoffs until he does, and for some it takes more time than others.
Quote:
|
To be fair, for every season he was here, Treliving had tried making the team roster better in the off-season in accordance with what he thought and the coaches thought the most pressing need was. The problem was his "looking for a bargain deal" trend. More often than not, this has lead to buying crap on the cheap.
|
I also don't believe this is true. Peters was not a "bargain deal" hire. And moreover, even if this were true, this is most likely not Treliving's mandate, and was much more likely the policy set by ownership.
Besides, the most difficult part of being a NHL GM is that one cannot simply do whatever he wants, when he wants to do it. So much of success occurs through trial and error, and by way of a prodigious dose of very good fortune.
Sent from my SM-G986W using Tapatalk