Is it possible there was some collusion between the two??
It would actually make sense as to why Monty stopped coaching this season
either way...it sure looked like he was TRYING to get fired
Honestly I think all three parties here were ready and preparing for this as far back as this summer.
It's clear that Sweeney/Neely had lost confidence in Jim and would've fired him outright if they lost to Toronto, but winning that series and taking Florida to six games a year removed from a historic regular season tied Boston's hands and they couldn't fire him in the offseason especially after Cassidy had instant success after leaving. Their roster moves they made this summer, bringing in guys who didn't fit Jim's system like Zadorov and Lindholm, showed they were looking at a future without him.
Monty, for his part, stalled any extension talks knowing he had a backup plan(and I don't think Sweeney was particularly serious about the extension either, they were just doing formalities), and St. Louis dragged their feet this summer in naming a coach, going with a low-commitment backup option in Bannister who would be easy to ditch on short notice.
I don't know if there was proper collusion like any words actually being exchanged by Armstrong and Monty's agents that say with a smoking gun that you have a job here if Boston fires you, but I'm pretty sure all parties had an understanding of the lay of the land. I doubt the Bruins pursue any tampering charges.
www.si.com
