Confirmed with Link: Bannister Out, Monty In

A Real Barn Burner

Registered User
Apr 25, 2016
2,590
3,178
I am ready to run through a wall for this man
1732588798440.gif
 

Oberyn

Prince of Dorne
Mar 27, 2011
14,431
4,012
I was no fan of Bannister but I did understand his approach at the end of the day. He wasn't the long-term guy here and he knew that. He basically had 2 years to build up his resume before the Blues likely kick him down the road and get the guy they really wanted (Montgomery). So I get why he coached the way he did and limited ice time to youngsters. He's trying to win as many games as possible so he doesn't hit the job market with a terrible losing record. That didn't align with what the Blues are trying to achieve and therefore didn't reflect well on us as fans. It's a tough situation as the Blues were hoping Montgomery would get fired after the playoffs but the Bruins held on to him. Keeping Bannister for a couple more years probably didn't break the bank as much as getting someone external so Army just retained him while keeping tabs on the Monty situation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stl76

ChicagoBlues

Terraformers
Oct 24, 2006
15,984
6,775
I was no fan of Bannister but I did understand his approach at the end of the day. He wasn't the long-term guy here and he knew that. He basically had 2 years to build up his resume before the Blues likely kick him down the road and get the guy they really wanted (Montgomery). So I get why he coached the way he did and limited ice time to youngsters. He's trying to win as many games as possible so he doesn't hit the job market with a terrible losing record. That didn't align with what the Blues are trying to achieve and therefore didn't reflect well on us as fans. It's a tough situation as the Blues were hoping Montgomery would get fired after the playoffs but the Bruins held on to him. Keeping Bannister for a couple more years probably didn't break the bank as much as getting someone external so Army just retained him while keeping tabs on the Monty situation.
Disagree.

I didn't get why he coached the he way coached, at all.

Like someone else posted, Bannister could have hung his hat on player development. Instead, he failed to build his resume by not focusing on player development, failed again by playing old guys too much in a bad scheme and then failed yet again by not adjusting to the younger players with fresh legs.

Bannister did not build his resume. He created potential roadblocks by having to explain his poor logic during future interviews.
 

Oberyn

Prince of Dorne
Mar 27, 2011
14,431
4,012
Disagree.

I didn't get why he coached the he way coached, at all.

Like someone else posted, Bannister could have hung his hat on player development. Instead, he failed to build his resume by not focusing on player development, failed again by playing old guys too much in a bad scheme and then failed yet again by not adjusting to the younger players with fresh legs.

Bannister did not build his resume. He created potential roadblocks by having to explain his poor logic during future interviews.
I never said what he did was correct or that I agreed with his approach. I am looking at it from his perspective to understand why he coached the way he did.
 

TheDizee

Trade Jordan Kyrou ASAP | ALWAYS RIGHT
Apr 5, 2014
20,489
13,092
People feel sorry for Bannister? Why? He should have never been resigned after last year anyways.

He was a terrible coach and a part of the reason the start of this season was the most boring uninspiring display of Blues hockey since 2006.

I don't feel sorry for him one bit. He gets a nice fat contract for 2 years to do NOTHING. He is living the dream.
 

Reality Czech

Registered User
Apr 17, 2017
5,900
9,573
I was no fan of Bannister but I did understand his approach at the end of the day. He wasn't the long-term guy here and he knew that. He basically had 2 years to build up his resume before the Blues likely kick him down the road and get the guy they really wanted (Montgomery). So I get why he coached the way he did and limited ice time to youngsters. He's trying to win as many games as possible so he doesn't hit the job market with a terrible losing record. That didn't align with what the Blues are trying to achieve and therefore didn't reflect well on us as fans. It's a tough situation as the Blues were hoping Montgomery would get fired after the playoffs but the Bruins held on to him. Keeping Bannister for a couple more years probably didn't break the bank as much as getting someone external so Army just retained him while keeping tabs on the Monty situation.

You don't think Army and the Blues front office don't share the same goal of winning as much as possible now? It's only a segment of the fan base that would rather lose now in the hopes of getting a higher draft pick that may or may pan out in a few years. Pretty sure the Blues and Bannister were trying to achieve the same thing.

I really don't get the big deal about Bolduc's usage this year. It's fairly normal for a young guy who's not producing to have limited ice time and to sit out a few games here and there. The fact that so many people are so fixated on it is a bit weird to me. I don't think many NHL teams just gift ice time to young guys right away unless they are in a total rebuild like Chicago and San Jose right now.
 

Majorityof1

Registered User
Mar 6, 2014
8,978
7,907
Central Florida
Interesting in the above video that Friedman said Montgomery turned down a multi year extention with the Bruins in the summer. This is wild speculation, but could both Montgomery and Armstrong have both been waiting for his Bruins deal to end, so he could coach the Blues?

It puts a lot of pieces in place. Why the Bruins fired him so quickly, how he got hired so quickly, comments they both made about not wanting to discuss the timeline of discussions. Just speculating.
 

TheOrganist

Don't Call Him Alex
Feb 21, 2006
4,304
1,895
Interesting in the above video that Friedman said Montgomery turned down a multi year extention with the Bruins in the summer. This is wild speculation, but could both Montgomery and Armstrong have both been waiting for his Bruins deal to end, so he could coach the Blues?

It puts a lot of pieces in place. Why the Bruins fired him so quickly, how he got hired so quickly, comments they both made about not wanting to discuss the timeline of discussions. Just speculating.
This is pretty much common knowledge...those of us pining for Montgomery knew it wasn't a wing & a prayer situation but that is quite plausible.
 

PocketNines

Cutter's Way
Apr 29, 2004
13,935
6,014
Badlands
We openly watched last year's Bruins Leafs series knowing if the Leafs won we were probably going to get Montgomery in the summer. The Bannister contract was always awkward in that context
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad