Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
We just keep repeating the same arguments every day.
There are three scenarios here.
1) Treliving is the man
- Owners have entrusted Treliving to run the team
- He looked at what it would take last summer to sign Gaudreau and took a pass
- He looked at what he could get last summer in a Gaudreau trade and didn't like it, and turned it down
- He alone decided to risk taking Tkachuk into the last year of his contract
- He was wrong on all of it, and the owners are pissed
2) Treliving Reports to Ownership but is the man
- Treliving makes day to day decisions, but on franchise altering moves he needs to present the information to owners
- He took the Gaudreau contract offer to owners with a recommendation to not take the offer
- He took the trade options for Gaudreau last summer to owners recommending they don't trade him.
- He suggested to owners that Tkachuk wants to stay and suggested they let the season play out
- He was wrong on most of it, and the owners are pissed, but ultimately they signed off on all the moves
3) Treliving Reports to Owners - Edwards in Charge
- Treliving makes day to day decisions, but the owners ultimately make all the big calls.
- He takes the final Gaudreau demands last summer to Edwards. Edwards takes a pass
- He took the trade offers for Gaudreau to Edwards, and Edwards didn't think it was enough
- He presented the risks on Tkachuk and Edwards decided to punt until this summer
In scenario one he's fired.
In scenario two he could be scape goated.
In scenario three he could still be scape goated, but shouldn't be.
My gut given rumblings over the years, we have zero chance on scenario one, about a 20% chance on scenario two, and more like 80% chance on scenario three.
|
Good projections of structure. Having worked for Edwards and Markin I would rule the third scenario out. Edwards would rather give you all the rope in the world to hang yourself, and fire your ass, than micromanage the crap out of you. He pays you to do a job and holds you accountable when you #### up.
The first scenario is unlikely too, especially with the regular report outs that Treliving spoke of. I doubt he was given the keys to the kingdom and told have at it.
The most likely is the second scenario where he is granted authority and responsibility but is given a budget and oversight over his spending decisions.
Most organizations have sign off authority and spending limits. Treliving's would be quite high so he wasn't constantly running to get permission to do certain things, and most of these lesser decisions would be covered in his regularly scheduled report outs if they had potential to have risk or negative outcomes associated with them. It would be expected that Treliving would present a regular strategic update, address budgetary issues, and come prepared to answer hard questions and provide insight into the direction of the team and its resources. Pretty standard stuff. He is the decision maker up to a budget level, then would have to get signoff before going beyond that level. The board is not going to get into the weeds of the decisions, they're going to ask for justification of the expenditure and how this moves the organization forward in achieving fiscal and operational goals. When it comes down to the bottom line and not meeting those goals, that's where Treliving will have some 'splainin to do and potentially lose his job. Treliving is a decision maker with oversight. He'll own the decisions the club has made or is about to make. He's got to feel pretty uncomfortable right now.