OMG67
Registered User
- Sep 1, 2013
- 12,697
- 8,468
Idk I read that as JW was telling DB like hey man, this is your final crack at it. DB based on prior hires, doesn’t have a large pool of young, up and coming candidates so he decides ya know what, let me reach out to my buddy, SB, who I know has so much experience just getting teams to play to a higher more consistent floor. Basically, it was a safer hire for DB and one I’m sure he thought would buy him a few more years. I don’t see how that connects to SB as a future GM .. All it means is Dave was on the hot seat and hired a close friend, a guy who he thought was “safe” so it wouldn’t blow up. Ironically, it’s blowing up as we speak. But with Jim gone, I don’t know what this means for Dave’s job.
no offense to Jim’s family but I don’t get the sense they would be able to step in and make the appropriate hockey operation moves here. Do they know what they are doing? It’s easy to fire a guy but then who do you hire? I don’t have a lot of faith. It’s a disaster right now. The only hope is someone in the family just says hey, we need to clean house and reset here. And then they are smart enough to reach out to a firm or some independent agency to help them do it right when they hire the next GM
I think if they were to clear house, it would make more sense to do it in the offseason.
WRT replacing the head coach for performance related issues, it makes no sense to do it if Brown is on the hot seat. Bring in a new coach on a 3-year contract and you plan to fire the GM in the offseason? So, back to point #1, it makes more sense to clear out your hockey ops in the offseason and bring in a new team starting with the new GM that hires or at least has significant impact on the coaching hire.
This points more to something other than performance. If a coach were fired at this point in the season without the GM being on solid ground, the only thing they could do is assign an interim head coach for the remainder of the year. With this roster, doing that would be pretty much unheard of. Big risk. It also points to the lack of decisiveness of the management/ownership.
For Butler to be pulled away from the team while they do their internal review, it sounds more like the ownership wants to ensure there is a spatial buffer between Butler and the players right now. If it weren’t something that required separation, why separate him from the team? If it is an internal review for performance reasons, why make it public? Just let him coach until you fire him and find a replacement. That is what teams do all the time for mid-season firings. In other words, why would they put out a statement if it is performance based? And, if it is geared more toward Brown being fired, why separate Butler from the bench? Can he not be the GM for a weekend while coaching? Seems absurd.
This points to something non-performance based. I see no other reason to separate Butler from the bench.