A few ave suggested that fans who wanted Torts gone should feel something akin to shame or embarrassment b/c we didn't "realize Sather would make the next hiring decision." My counter is
Torts lost the locker room and wasn't likely going to get us a cup. it was likely the team was going to worsen and Hank was going to leave therefore annihilating any cup hopes we have.
Firing Torts is independent of whether or not Sather makes a horrific hiring decision. One move had to be m,ade the other does not have to be made.
1. The majority of the "fire torts" crowd was screaming at the top of their lungs for his head
long before there were any kinds of hints that there may have been problems in the locker room. Get out of here with the revisionist history.
2. We have no definitive answer for why Torts was fired. It seems likely that at least a few players turned on him based on the speculation that is out there; but that is all it is - speculation. We really don't know anything for sure unless or until more definitive information comes out. So with that in mind, no, I'm not sure that firing Torts was a move that
had to be made.
Personally, I don't see a team that fights to make the playoffs and comes back from a 2-0 and then a 3-2 first round series deficit as a team who is tuning Torts out. Does that mean it happened in the Boston series? If so, Torts gets fired/"loses the team" because of a bad playoff series against a team with an arguably better constructed roster? In what universe does that make sense? So I'll just say I'm not completely convinced there was some big move to oust him a la Messier in the early 90s.
But, for the sake of argument; say I'm wrong and there was some discontent. Count me in the camp that would be incredibly unimpressed with whichever player(s) had a big enough beef with him that they felt they needed to move to get rid of him after the team achieved the most success in two successive years that it has in 15 years -- and is one season removed from going to the ECF. If a player can look at that success and decide that it is outweighed by a bastardized season in which:
- The ECF roster was blown up.
- More than half of their forward corps were new faces and had no training camp to get them in shape or teach them the system.
- Their 1C was a ghost of his former self.
- Their 40 goal sniper was invisible.
- Their 1D ends up being out for the season.
- Their captain apparently played through an injury all season.
- The roster was blown up again at the trade deadline.
...and despite all that still decide that the coach was the problem with the team this year - and removing him from the equation was the only possible move; then I seriously question that player(s)' mindset. Unless there was some absolutely god awful thing that happened behind closed doors - which we may never know about - I really find it pretty disturbing that a team could have turned on the coach that quickly and with, based on the limited information we have, such little good reason (at least in my mind). It would be one thing if this were the Tampa Bay Lightning, finishing second to last in the East; or even the Canucks - winning just one playoff game in their last 9. But they weren't.
3. The same goes for your comments about Hank leaving. Not convinced. His comments were possibly troubling, but still pretty ambiguous. But again, all we can do is guess at what happened behind closed doors. If I've missed anything here that is more definitive - please let me know; while I've read a lot of the stuff out there since the end of the season, by no means have I read all of it. Hank is one of the few players for whom I have considered breaking my "no new jerseys" stand (it is in large part meaningless, but a principle I want to stick to nonetheless; since the 04-05 lockout, I decided to limit as much of my own spending that could go to the NHL as possible). But if he was ready to pack it up after one rough season (which, by the way - wasn't even all that bad -- still better than 22 other teams this year in the end), then I've lost some respect for him and question his mental toughness.
4. I didn't want Torts fired, and still think it was a bad decision; but much of this misses the point -- WHO replaces him? And yes, because we all live in the real world, that should include in your thinking who is SATHER
likely to pick and who are
actually available options? Not, who, in an ideal world, you would like as coach. So no, firing Torts is not independent of who Sather hires or what replacements are available. That is living in fantasy land. If firing Torts meant the team was guaranteed a downgrade at head coach, do you do it? In most cases, I'd assume the answer is no -- unless you literally thought it could get absolutely no worse than Torts (which, really? where were you from 98 to 04?). And before I get people freaking out at me -- yes; that was a false hypothetical, but it was meant to prove a point. You can't make decisions in a vacuum.
This, more than anything, is why I was not a fan of firing him; I do not see any amazing replacement options out there. In the other coaching options I have seen bandied about, the ones that seem most likely for Sather to choose I see as either pretty significant downgrades, or at best, a lateral move (this is obviously my opinion; I'm sure there are plenty who disagree).
I have zero faith in Sather to pick an appropriate coach for this team. And by all accounts, he has no plan and has no clue what he wants in a coach (hilariously, this was one of the few questions he answered in the conference call). If I either thought there were good replacements out there for Torts that Sather would pick OR thought Sather had any sort of plan I would probably not see this as an awful move. I don't think either is the case.
Torts had his issues, but - in my opinion - he was still a good coach who helped this team to achieve some pretty damn good things. Despite the vitriole around Torts being stubborn; I'm not convinced that if given a stable roster (which had maybe a couple tweaks from the one we saw at the end of the season), a training camp, and half of next season to work some things out, that he wouldn't have made some changes that people were calling for, worked to fix some problems, or at the very least - if Sather wanted him to - brought in someone for the PP. He wasn't exactly gumby - there was no way he was going to a run and gun system - but he was more flexible than people give him credit for.
But who knows, maybe Sather shocks me and finds a suitable replacement. We'll just have to wait and see who he goes with and how things turn out.
