|
Post by bookboy007 on May 6, 2015 19:51:43 GMT
Based on the poll thread, most people here aren't buying the rationale for firing Chiarelli. Badhab's thread also points out some dissatisfaction in not knowing the whole story. I tend to think the usual reasons people give are not good reasons. The Seguin trade, cap management, drafting, missing the playoffs this year.... Given the team's overall success, firing a guy for any one of those things is like giving away your Ferrari because you need more cup-holders. Firing him for all of those things still seems odd given the Cup, 2 Finals, and several 100+ point regular seasons. If it wasn't for the Cup and second Finals appearance, maybe the combined weight of those things drives a move, but with those highlights, you have to wonder if you've fired a guy with a feel for the difficult chemistry of building a team because you don't like the suppliers he uses to buy his chemicals. That said, I think there are legit reasons to think about firing the guy. Here are the five that make me think I can understand the move even if I don't entirely like it. Add or debate as you wish. - An ounce of prevention.... Really, this is the umbrella reason, and it relates to the two seasons since the last finals appearance. In that time, the Bruins have incorporated a significant number of new players - in fact, it's roughly comparable to the number of new (i.e. not NHL veterans but not necessarily young) and young players the Bruins brought in to change the culture and build a winner in the first years of Chiarelli's tenure. Then it was Krejci, Lucic, Marchand, Wheeler, Kessel, Sobotka, McQuaid, and Boychuk. The last two years, it's Hamilton (yes, he played a year before that, but he was a scratch to start the playoffs), Krug (only played playoffs the year before), Bartkowski, Miller, Smith, Pastrnak, and Spooner, and Soderberg. There were other guys too, of course, but these are the main ones for both eras. Compare them, though, and you see one of the key diffferences. Lucic was a big, mean presense. Marchand a nasty agitator. Wheeler had size. Sobotka attitude. McQuaid size, nasty. Boychuk, size and physicality. Now? Hamilton's got height, not really size. Bartkowski and Smith aren't big and don't play with an edge. Miller isn't big, and his edge has been blunted by injury. Spooner? Pastrnak weighs less than my morning coffee. A lot of the new generation are skilled, but they aren't even as skilled as their predecessors, and outside of Kessel and Wheeler, you can't even blame it on not having a top 10 draft spot. It sure looks like Chiarelli was looking at his club and wanting to get more skill in the mix; he found this year that they'd lost the balance that made them successful. If you think that's a sign that Chiarelli's become too responsive and not proactive enough or that his strategy for managing turnover in his club isn't working as well as it needs to work, then going in a different direction makes sense.
- His favorite wells have gone dry. When Chiarelli tore down the ricketty barn he inherited, a key part of the blueprint for the new build was his ability find players through less conventional means - AHL trades for players who might be a better fit in CJ's system, NCAA free agents, trades for journeymen with years left on their deals who can be had for less because there's no bidding war. After the successes of McQuaid and Boychuk, Wheeler and Seidenberg, Chiarelli has continued to go to these wells with diminishing success. He traded for a raft of (typically NCAA trained) minor league defensemen or undervalued prospects like Kampfer, Cohen, Wild, Worseoffsky etc. None of them has panned out like McQuaid and Boychuk. Krug has been as much a success as Wheeler was, but there's no sense he was ever one of the leaders on Kevin Hayes, for example. And none of the NHL trades has worked overwhelmingly in Boston's favour if at all. Chiarelli's success was tied to trying new things to get new results - the new things aren't new anymore, and he didn't seem to have a next generation of new tricks up his sleeve. Time to move on.
- He was out of "get out of jail free cards." Under Chiarelli, the Bruins have generally been very aggressive with their use of Cap space. Spend every dime you need to spend to field the best team, and if you need to make moves to take on salary, well...just make them. Trade Derek Morris for McCain Frozen Pizzas. Make "Sturming" someone a verb. Having space is over-rated if you can create space when you need it. Well, in the last couple of years, they couldn't create the space when they needed it, or, when they did, it was at the expense of an even greater handcuff later on. Even Houdini eventually failed. He died.
- There's only so many times luck can save you from making a mistake. On balance, PC made some wildly successful moves and some moves that didn't turn out the way any Bruins fan would hope. But he also tried to make some moves that, in hindsight, we can only say thank Jeebus that didn't go through. Kessel for Kaberle, even if it had been Kessel for Kaberle and Kadri. Re-signing Horton's bad back. There are others that I'm forgetting, but even the Fernandez acquisition intended to displace Tim Thomas as the starter was a potential disaster. If you combine those near misses with the less than successful moves, you might question Chiarelli's judgment more than if you only count the things that actually happened.
- He wanted to go. This is the most speculative, but...technically Neely's the boss, and if he's not, Charlie certainly is. If they say X and PC says Y, PC may have been in that awkward situation where he had a choice to either implement what they wanted him to implement or leave. If there was a personality conflict, Neely seizing power is only one interpretation of why he might have fired PC. It's entirely possible that PC knew there were other opportunities out there, and that if he and his bosses had different ideas of where the organization wanted to go, then PC was ready to go.
|
|
|
Post by jmwalters on May 6, 2015 20:05:21 GMT
3. is pretty interesting actually. I think once the team won the cup it became harder to find other GM's willing to help PC out...something required when "sturming." Yeah, there was Thomas to the Isle but I can't think of any more post 2011 moves that helped create the space needed to load up for a playoff run.
|
|
|
Post by walktheline on May 6, 2015 20:06:37 GMT
The one thing I'll add to the list is his penchant for paying his own players just a tick more than I think he should have. I'm talking small amounts like $150-250k. But when that happens for 5 or 6 players that could be the difference of having another quality player on your roster instead of Jordan Caron.
|
|
|
Post by jmwalters on May 6, 2015 20:10:53 GMT
The one thing I'll add to the list is his penchant for paying his own players just a tick more than I think he should have. I'm talking small amounts like $150-250k. But when that happens for 5 or 6 players that could be the difference of having another quality player on your roster instead of Jordan Caron. Good point. The player-friendly contracts to Pevs and Kelly are good examples...both with NTC's to boot.
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on May 6, 2015 21:16:52 GMT
The one thing I'll add to the list is his penchant for paying his own players just a tick more than I think he should have. I'm talking small amounts like $150-250k. But when that happens for 5 or 6 players that could be the difference of having another quality player on your roster instead of Jordan Caron. Good point. The player-friendly contracts to Pevs and Kelly are good examples...both with NTC's to boot. See, I think this is a story from the other category. I mean, again, he's been doing this since pretty much day 1, so this isn't a failing so much as a management strategy. Part of making the Bruins a destination team so that players like Iginla do want to come as UFAs to the point they reach out and take a crazy deal to make it work, or your RFAs hear you say "I'll take care of you" and they believe you - and that means you can ice a team. It's a strategy with a cost to it, but unless you've changed your mind about everything, it's part of how you won as well as partly why you are where you are. Hard to pull that out as a reason to fire the guy.
|
|
|
Post by walktheline on May 6, 2015 21:50:26 GMT
Good point. The player-friendly contracts to Pevs and Kelly are good examples...both with NTC's to boot. See, I think this is a story from the other category. I mean, again, he's been doing this since pretty much day 1, so this isn't a failing so much as a management strategy. Part of making the Bruins a destination team so that players like Iginla do want to come as UFAs to the point they reach out and take a crazy deal to make it work, or your RFAs hear you say "I'll take care of you" and they believe you - and that means you can ice a team. It's a strategy with a cost to it, but unless you've changed your mind about everything, it's part of how you won as well as partly why you are where you are. Hard to pull that out as a reason to fire the guy. Yes, but doesn't the "what have you done for me lately" mentality apply here? Cam and Chuckles are likely to be more influenced by the downside of the slight overpayment strategy as it's currently part of the reason for the bind the team is in regarding the cap. The benefits of the strategy are in the past. So while you and I might agree it's a management strategy the powers that fire people may see it more as a failing. I'll ask Chuck...we're going out on his yacht this weekend
|
|
|
Post by walktheline on May 6, 2015 21:57:29 GMT
The one thing I'll add to the list is his penchant for paying his own players just a tick more than I think he should have. I'm talking small amounts like $150-250k. But when that happens for 5 or 6 players that could be the difference of having another quality player on your roster instead of Jordan Caron. Good point. The player-friendly contracts to Pevs and Kelly are good examples...both with NTC's to boot. The NTC's don't bother me much. It seems like they're a sort of security blanket that has value to the player when they negotiate the contract. But it's more of a perceived value than a real one. It's pretty rare that a NTC blows up a deal when they want to move a player. Seids, when it was rumored he was a possible trade chip before the deadline, said the NTC wouldn't be a problem because if a team doesn't want you why would you want to stay? Many of the NTC's are limited anyway, protection from being sent to Buffalo or whatever. I don't think GM's sweat it as much as we as fans sometimes do.
|
|
|
Post by stan17 on May 6, 2015 22:48:33 GMT
The one thing I'll add to the list is his penchant for paying his own players just a tick more than I think he should have. I'm talking small amounts like $150-250k. But when that happens for 5 or 6 players that could be the difference of having another quality player on your roster instead of Jordan Caron. A very good point
|
|
|
Post by Fletcher on May 6, 2015 23:41:38 GMT
And he's bald.
Of course, I think the tales of bad drafting are overstated and I think the NTCs may have been necessary, but I do see the faults in several of the scenarios described above.
Early on, there were some notorious blunders, like drafting Hamill or hiring Dave Lewis.
I think he recovered from those problems well, but I bet everyone would like to understand what his plan was for 2014-15, specifically, and how it went wrong. He did more than imply that there was a larger plan behind trading Boychuk and we never found out what it was. I'm still not necessarily opposed to the Boychuk move, but I am opposed to be told that there was a 2nd move coming, when it never happened. I would love to hear what the dispute with Neely and Junior was about, in relation to Chiarelli's plan. I hope all of the info comes out some day. It would be nice if a credentialed reporter, like say KPD, could stop trolling Twitter and break some news there.
I'm not applauding myself for this, but I was not particularly interested in re-signing Horton and was happy that it fell through. Watching the infamous temple-massaging and deeps sighs of remorse on Behind the B made you wonder if PC really did overvalue Horton (and maybe his vets in general). He got lucky there.
And perhaps the most interesting scenario is #5. Maybe blaming Neely and Junior has been premature, because Chiarelli could have said "I'm sick of sharing a brain with you two, I'm tired of Julien, and my key veterans are underachieving -- fire me already (as soon as I finish this long-distance call to Alberta...)."
Again...hoping a good journalist breaks a story with some revelations here.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2015 0:38:27 GMT
#5...Everything Neely said in the presser pointed the finger at the coach, not the GM. Not making the playoffs simply provided Neely the opportunity to take total control of the organization. It was a power move plain and simple. Anyone who has to say multiple time that he is not a micromanager, is a micromanager. So maybe in the end, PC didn't really care anymore.
|
|
|
Post by kelvana33 on May 7, 2015 3:04:58 GMT
#3. "Having space is over-rated if you can create space when you need it"
I think he even is suprised he couldnt do it, especially after dealing Boychuk.
As I stated before, I think we got a piece of the answer during the Neely/Charlie awkward press conference. PC had a deal, Cam nixed it is what I came away with.
|
|
|
Post by Wheatskins on May 7, 2015 11:29:52 GMT
BB you continue to amaze. We have all actually thought of all, most or some of your points, but you have taken the time to articulate and type out the entirety. This is an article piece worth something.
Send out some resumes with links to pieces such as this and others you posted in BDC.
No sarcasm or irony intended on my part.
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on May 7, 2015 12:49:10 GMT
BB you continue to amaze. We have all actually thought of all, most or some of your points, but you have taken the time to articulate and type out the entirety. This is an article piece worth something. Send out some resumes with links to pieces such as this and others you posted in BDC. No sarcasm or irony intended on my part.
Thanks, wheats. At times in my life, I've done different kinds of freelance journalism - mostly culture section stuff, specialty papers - and you know what? They don't pay enough for the work you have to put in just to find a place to publish. Staffers have it better than freelancers, but I couldn't take the pay cut. I'm just happy to write the things I feel like thinking through and share them with people here - and take flack for being a long-winded freak.
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on May 7, 2015 13:16:46 GMT
See, I think this is a story from the other category. I mean, again, he's been doing this since pretty much day 1, so this isn't a failing so much as a management strategy. Part of making the Bruins a destination team so that players like Iginla do want to come as UFAs to the point they reach out and take a crazy deal to make it work, or your RFAs hear you say "I'll take care of you" and they believe you - and that means you can ice a team. It's a strategy with a cost to it, but unless you've changed your mind about everything, it's part of how you won as well as partly why you are where you are. Hard to pull that out as a reason to fire the guy. Yes, but doesn't the "what have you done for me lately" mentality apply here? Cam and Chuckles are likely to be more influenced by the downside of the slight overpayment strategy as it's currently part of the reason for the bind the team is in regarding the cap. The benefits of the strategy are in the past. So while you and I might agree it's a management strategy the powers that fire people may see it more as a failing. I'll ask Chuck...we're going out on his yacht this weekend
Maybe, but by definition, doesn't that expression exist cover the fact that you've acted without a legit reason? That's what I was trying to think through - we can think of a lot of ways for the Bruins to rationalize Chiarelli's firing, and no one's record is perfect, so there will always be some thing that you did or didn't do that the boss can point to and say "that's why." I thought it was funny on the playoff thread, Bowers ripping "Bathetic Bergevin" for not being willing to take the risk and trade some assets to improve Montreal's offense. Where have I heard that before?
That's why I was trying to focus on elements of the way Chiarelli does the job and not necessarily the results alone. For example, taking risks can be very valuable, but even the best risk-taker will lose to the house, and not just on a few occasions. The trick is to hit big enough to cover a lot of smaller losses, or hit small often enough that you come out ahead overall. If you agree with that, you probably don't fire your GM for one or two missed bets. But if the overall pattern of how he makes his bets starts to decline, maybe you make a change.
|
|
|
Post by kelvana33 on May 7, 2015 15:57:55 GMT
Some real good reasons and possibilities here. I'm with Fletch, I wish a journalist would get the interview, ask the right questions and see what he says.
I'll give some of my reasons:
1. I don't so much think he mismanaged the cap, I do think he went for it with the Iginla signing and I like that about him, even though they didn't get what they want. I think he had a plan after the Boychuk trade, plan fell through and he didn't have a plan B, and if he did, Neely didn't like it.
2. The Seguin trade. I think PC had to answer for this in Jacobs' eyes. All were for it, Neely included, but ultimately it was held against PC. I say this and I say I agreed with why he was dealt and even like the fact they got Eriksson in the deal. I'll stand by PC to this day on this, but I think Jacobs sees his team struggling to score, Eriksson through no fault of his own his first year didn't have the numbers, Fraser waived, Smith struggling and Morrow still down at Providence. Add this to the fact that Seguin is putting up those numbers on that salary, he knows a player like that is good for business in the pro shop, his team is out of the playoffs and I think this infuriates Jacobs. Again, I agreed with the deal then, and I agree with it now.
3. At the end of the day,I'm sure PC and Neely clashed, especially at the deadline. Perhaps a Harvard guy doesn't like an ex jock giving him suggestions on the numbers side of the business.
|
|
|
Post by MrHulot on May 7, 2015 16:14:30 GMT
I really like all the theories and ideas on this page, but would it really be so strange if one day we found out that it was really just because Cam didn't like PC and Charlie had to save face after his big announcement in January?
|
|
|
Post by stevegm on May 7, 2015 16:23:51 GMT
I want to go over each of those 5 scenarios when I have more time.
What I get when I go quickly through the OP though is that most can be easily explained by someone even a bit critical of the GM. I think more dissection just makes it look worse though. The list to me...looks like someone desperately searching for some counterbalance to a polarizing story. We know pretty much how it went down. We know how the hockey community sees it. We know a new vision, can't include the same core 7 or 8 guys. PC did one thing that is a bit of a rarity. He developed some pretty big fans among the Bruin hard-core. Don't think that happens a lot. Certainly never did with me in 48 years. By nature, fandom creates some myopia. If there isn't significant change, and the B's do better(96 pts +) it doesn't validate the move. Same with worse. If they do significantly better, by significantly changing core players, it'll appear wise. Short term, those are about the only scenario's. We all hope it will be the last one. The on ice results of Cam's new team speak for themselves. I don't see it, but I'll have no problem admitting it, if that happens. More later
|
|
|
Post by kelvana33 on May 7, 2015 16:29:25 GMT
Agreed Steve, I hope the new G.M comes in here and does well. Just because I'm a fan of Chiarelli doesn't mean I will hold it against the new guy. That said, I think the loss of PC is the biggest one this franchise has suffered in many years. He had mistakes, but I look at what this franchise was like before he got here and how it stands today and it is a credit to him.
|
|
|
Post by 50belowzero on May 7, 2015 16:34:39 GMT
Something had to have happened between PC and Neely if we are to believe the fractured relationship theory. I seem to recall watching Cam and PC watching B's games together in their suite and they were smiling and high giving and generally seemed like old buddies. If PC made the Sequins deal on Cams authority,that can't be it,so whats left? Bad drafting soured the friendship? Drafting smaller players not in the Bruin mold? I mean they could have had discussions about that and come to an agreement. The only thing that makes sense is the CJ scenario, Neely wanted PC to fire CJ and PC said no,so that left Seabass with no other alternative than look for his first opportunity to fire PC,the DNQ provided that. Neely as the president couldn't just go over PC's head and fire CJ,that just doesn't happen and he couldn't force PC to do that. Neely fires PC and then asks CJ if he wants to follow him,CJ says no i'll stick around and collect my salary,but if you want to can me thats ok, i can collect it that way as well. As the dust settles,and if Sweeney gets the job you never know,CJ could get a stay of execution,but i think it will be a very short leash.
|
|
|
Post by jmwalters on May 7, 2015 16:39:03 GMT
Something had to have happened between PC and Neely if we are to believe the fractured relationship theory. I seem to recall watching Cam and PC watching B's games together in their suite and they were smiling and high giving and generally seemed like old buddies. If PC made the Sequins deal on Cams authority,that can't be it,so whats left? Bad drafting soured the friendship? Drafting smaller players not in the Bruin mold? I mean they could have had discussions about that and come to an agreement. The only thing that makes sense is the CJ scenario, Neely wanted PC to fire CJ and PC said no,so that left Seabass with no other alternative than look for his first opportunity to fire PC,the DNQ provided that. Neely as the president couldn't just go over PC's head and fire CJ,that just doesn't happen and he couldn't force PC to do that. Neely fires PC and then asks CJ if he wants to follow him,CJ says no i'll stick around and collect my salary,but if you want to can me thats ok, i can collect it that way as well. As the dust settles,and if Sweeney gets the job you never know,CJ could get a stay of execution,but i think it will be a very short leash. Sounds so Shakespearian in its complexity. Perhaps Ockham's razor may be the correct route? The team, supposed to be a contender, did not make the playoffs. Someone's head had to role to please us unwashed masses and the upper crust of the org. Solution....fire the GM.
Think it is that simple?
|
|
|
Post by 50belowzero on May 7, 2015 16:56:13 GMT
Something had to have happened between PC and Neely if we are to believe the fractured relationship theory. I seem to recall watching Cam and PC watching B's games together in their suite and they were smiling and high giving and generally seemed like old buddies. If PC made the Sequins deal on Cams authority,that can't be it,so whats left? Bad drafting soured the friendship? Drafting smaller players not in the Bruin mold? I mean they could have had discussions about that and come to an agreement. The only thing that makes sense is the CJ scenario, Neely wanted PC to fire CJ and PC said no,so that left Seabass with no other alternative than look for his first opportunity to fire PC,the DNQ provided that. Neely as the president couldn't just go over PC's head and fire CJ,that just doesn't happen and he couldn't force PC to do that. Neely fires PC and then asks CJ if he wants to follow him,CJ says no i'll stick around and collect my salary,but if you want to can me thats ok, i can collect it that way as well. As the dust settles,and if Sweeney gets the job you never know,CJ could get a stay of execution,but i think it will be a very short leash. Sounds so Shakespearian in its complexity. Perhaps Ockham's razor may be the correct route? The team, supposed to be a contender, did not make the playoffs. Someone's head had to role to please us unwashed masses and the upper crust of the org. Solution....fire the GM.
Think it is that simple?
Imo,nope. A GM that has brought more success in 9 yrs than Harry Sinden did in 35 yrs is let go because of a DNQ with 96 pts,highest non qualifying total in NHL history? Seems very shortsighted,i'm not against change and i hope the new man (Sweeney) will do a great job,but i don' think firing PC was an appease the masses move,it was an appease Seabass move.
|
|
|
Post by jmwalters on May 7, 2015 17:02:49 GMT
Sounds so Shakespearian in its complexity. Perhaps Ockham's razor may be the correct route? The team, supposed to be a contender, did not make the playoffs. Someone's head had to role to please us unwashed masses and the upper crust of the org. Solution....fire the GM.
Think it is that simple?
Imo,nope. A GM that has brought more success in 9 yrs than Harry Sinden did in 35 yrs is let go because of a DNQ with 96 pts,highest non qualifying total in NHL history? Seems very shortsighted,i'm not against change and i hope the new man (Sweeney) will do a great job,but i don' think firing PC was an appease the masses move,it was an appease Seabass move. Could be. I am sure JJ was pissed...no playoffs means no $20hotdogs or watery beer sold = no$$$. This makes Chuckles pissed because...daddy. Neely gets pissed because his benefactors are angry and he does not care for PC much. PC then gets the donkey punch to the nads
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on May 7, 2015 21:01:19 GMT
Just a quick generic response to steve, JM, Mr. Hulot, because I think there's something I wasn't clear enough about here.
I'm not attempting to divine or propose a theory for why the move was made. I think it's entirely possible that the reality was one of the things I think are not good reasons like a personality conflict between execs., and I think it's entirely possible that we'll never get more of an answer than the speculation that has gone on to date. What I was looking for instead was the best case you could make for sending Chiarelli packing if you were the President and not Cam. If it was my presser, I'd have said something like: we saw a downward trend that we didn't want to continue and we didn't feel the strategy proposed to address that trend had been adapted to account for declining returns on our existing strategy; when we made the decision we looked at the direction Peter set both with the moves he made and the moves he attempted to make to make sure we fully understood where he wanted to take us; we discussed the fact that there seemed to be a disconnect and Peter was unwilling to change his strategy, which we respect because he has had great success with it. However, in light of that disagreement on direction, we felt that perhaps Peter had taken us as far as he could and it was time for us to part ways.
Anyway, the whole point was that I would find these lines of reasoning more comprehensible, or I would respect the logic more, than "Neely is evil!"
|
|
|
Post by stevegm on May 7, 2015 22:42:12 GMT
Just a quick generic response to steve, JM, Mr. Hulot, because I think there's something I wasn't clear enough about here. I'm not attempting to divine or propose a theory for why the move was made. I think it's entirely possible that the reality was one of the things I think are not good reasons like a personality conflict between execs., and I think it's entirely possible that we'll never get more of an answer than the speculation that has gone on to date. What I was looking for instead was the best case you could make for sending Chiarelli packing if you were the President and not Cam. If it was my presser, I'd have said something like: we saw a downward trend that we didn't want to continue and we didn't feel the strategy proposed to address that trend had been adapted to account for declining returns on our existing strategy; when we made the decision we looked at the direction Peter set both with the moves he made and the moves he attempted to make to make sure we fully understood where he wanted to take us; we discussed the fact that there seemed to be a disconnect and Peter was unwilling to change his strategy, which we respect because he has had great success with it. However, in light of that disagreement on direction, we felt that perhaps Peter had taken us as far as he could and it was time for us to part ways. Anyway, the whole point was that I would find these lines of reasoning more comprehensible, or I would respect the logic more, than "Neely is evil!" And I probably should have clarified. I knew exactly what you were doing, and thought after, I may have come off as being critical of the logic. Not my intent. Rather it was to suggest those 5 reasons are as good as any we'll see anywhere...and the moral of the story....we're really going to have to dig deep to find something compelling. There's no question it's "fit". And that happens a lot. Almost impossible to explain that off,........... There seemed to be a huge culture shift when PC came in. Huge, and it was all for the best. There have been a ton of reports that things have been in turmoil for quite a while. Something just smells to me..like the organization is sliding right back into their "adversarial" ways of the past. That's not good. The kid who gets the keys to Dads 800 million dollar toy, should never introduce himself to the world they way Charlie did. I think both Cam and Charlie are shell-shocked right now. I don't think they had any idea the industry was going to harpoon them the way they did. I think it has influenced their opinion on Claude. I really think they need to move him, as coaching will be a huge distraction after every loss moving forward, but now...not sure they will. Cam is gonna have a huge bullseye on him moving forward, and I just think it's so unnecessary, and detrimental to the product. And the new guy is going to be under tremendous pressure. I don't know why anyone very good, would want either of those jobs.
|
|
|
Post by MrHulot on May 7, 2015 23:09:28 GMT
No problem here, book. It's probably more than just a dislike between Cam & PC. I like 50's theory about Cam trying to get rid of Claude. I think we can all agree that Cam Neely cannot be considered a big fan of Claude Julien's hockey philosophy. Maybe he already wanted to fire him after last season's playoff exit against the Habs, which would explain the quick counterstrike by PC (the multi-year contract extension he gave CJ in November). So things are clear from here on out - it's PC & CJ vs Cam & Charlie, who has his big entrance in January with his proclamation to the media. And the team struggles to stay in the playoff race, Cam tells PC not to waste any assets on rentals, the team fails to hold on to the final playoff spot - BINGO!
|
|