“We” aren’t entitled to ask.
“We” can certainly speculate all we want to however.
Both of Daccord’s sons are with NHL teams in the east. His goalie development business is in Canada. My own personal feeling is BA asked him to come help him get the situation settled here in Arizona and for all we know there might have been an agreement to that that allowed Daccord to go leave if it became too much for him to run his business, help both his son’s development and work the Coyotes at the same time. Given that traveling between the US and Canada the last 9-12 months has been next to impossible without holing up in a hotel room for two weeks after each crossing.
So, it sounds to me like this is selective reading/listening. People may have an issue with Craig Morgan, but why would it be considered a "stunning development" if it is known that his time here was meant to be limited? A "stunning" development does not imply that this was something with a "gentleman's agreement" to stay for a short time.
Infidelity. Mental illness. Suicide attempts. Substance abuse. Family illness. Torched relationships with those closest to him over business failings or corruption. Cancer. Dementia. Super extreme DUIs. Irreconcilable family rifts. Conditional personal or marital agreements previous compromised not being met and serious ultimatums being issued.
You live on planet earth right? Crisis and tragedy strikes all of us who live long enough. We know NOTHING about what happened.
My speculation is absolutely baseless. Which is no different than all of the other speculation here. There’s no point in this conversation unless new details emerge.
You at least named things that fit with the idea of "stunning." But, look at every single one of those items mentioned. Why would anyone bring up both the need to be with family and something related to business?
As an example, within 24 hrs, we were aware of Khabibulin's extreme DUI. Within moments of the death of Leighton Accardo, it was known. If someone in family had cancer, there would be a segment on NHL on NBC where they wish for the best.
You said it yourself - in this day and age, there is so much info out there. I do understand the logic of keeping certain things (like illness or death) private. But each one of those elicits reactions from others.
When someone gives two glaringly opposite answers (business items and family), that is usually a sign of saying, "out of respect for those who hired me, I no longer wanted the position any more." Likely due to something that was unexpected with the actual job.
Otherwise, why would it be "stunning?"
This is just taking the information provided at face value and saying that if something were "stunning," yet it doesn't involve health of person or immediate family, and then to also say that it is related to business is the 2+2=5 logic. If something happened to your child, you would say, family first, and take time off from your job. Not say, "I need to go to my family, and also there are business implications to attend to along with a family issue."
If you read through everything that came across Twitter, you would eventually realize that the parts don't logically add up to where this is simply, "Meh, nothing to see and this is solely related to what Daccord says it is."