I agree with this in principle. I once had to let a guy go who was a hard worker, tried his best, turned up on time and was well liked. At one point he also gave leadership to the team in some areas. The problem was that he was no longer able to do his job at the required level, no matter how much he tried or how much support I gave him. Things had moved forward, he was getting older and his skill set no longer matched. It’s a pretty good analogy really.
Genuinely the hardest thing I ever had to do professionally (granted harder for the guy in question). Worse than a professional athlete because he had a mortgage, a young kid and wasn’t a millionaire. But you do it, because it was my job, responsibility and everyone else could keep covering for him. My team hated it also, but they understood and essentially agreed from a professional standpoint.
So I agree that once a player becomes a diminishing return (combined on and off the ice) then they should be sat and moved on. Loyalty, history, popularity ultimately shouldn’t stop the decision being made. The players would be ok with it, so long as it’s done the right way. Any player not ok with it, in such a scenario, is probably the next one you want to phase out because the team should be the priority.
In terms of Brown specifically, given I don’t know his off ice impact,
I really don’t know. However, we must be getting close to the tipping point if we aren’t there yet. I hate saying that as a complete Brown homer.