Yeah I think likely that was more of a trigger than anything. I think once that threat was made Trotz just decided he would rather wipe his hands than worry about keeping what could be a good player.
Reality is that Trotz created this whole situation with the bonehead contract he gave Saros when he didn't need to. He could easily have avoided this mess by simply waiting for this year to play out.
1. Do you have a link?
it’s a 30 minute video interview behind a subscription paywall. Not sure you can watch it without a subscription but if you’re still interested I’d be glad to post you the link.
Apparently serial winners are a lot like serial losers when you take out the winning portion. You can't out culture NHL teams. You MIGHT be able to win some games by outworking and out gritting teams on occasion, but overall, the system and its executors are what dictate the success. Positionally average players/below average + below average system = our results.But didn’t we clean house on the malcontents and slackers and bring in serial winners to establish a new culture?
It's surreal how quickly we've lost the focus that hockey is a team sport. Just putting a Hall of Fame caliber player like Stamkos on the ice is never going to be enough. Never was and never will be. If you can't put a better 20 out there every night in a system that accentuates what they do well, you'll lose.
Roman's not just the Country Club President, he's also a member.
He has been one of the few constants over the past several years and when he is on the ice under Bruno seems to be on a stat padding crusade.
I think it’s indeed a part of the hubris of coaches who fundamentally need to believe that they are the true difference-makers in team performance, not the players, and that hard work or character, or adhering to a system or experience are the real differentiators for success instead of sheer talent.
Ex-coaches rarely make for good GM’s. Coaches need to have some impulsiveness, a trait that is usually a negative for a GM.
