Management Travis Green [Head Coach]

[ijif]

Ya, I was pretty emotional with that quoted comment. I've walked some of it back as I'm not as convinced it was about money and am warming up to the choice of Green. I'm just happy it wasn't Moe and Curly choosing the coach again.

I have a problem with the Rays example, simply because while yes it's the gold standard and what should be aimed for and you're absolutely correct, it's also a rare achievement and baseball seems to be a bit of a different animal. That and they've always fallen short in the end when it matters, which I think is related to the core issue and is the reality for budget teams in most cases. Like us falling short against the Penguins.

I don’t think anything you are saying here is inaccurate; however, I think it should be noted, and while it is somewhat obvious, there are 30 teams in the MLB, so not winning in 20 years is not really a negative. All else equal, one should only expect 1 win every 30 years.

As an aside, I am not a baseball fan, so the league may have expanded in the last 20 years, so the 30 number might have a bit of nuance.

Many of my friends are baseball fans, and they tell me the Rays method cannot directly apply to hockey, but I still think we can learn things from the way they operate.

 

[BonHoonLayneCornell]

I don’t think anything you are saying here is inaccurate; however, I think it should be noted, and while it is somewhat obvious, there are 30 teams in the MLB, so not winning in 20 years is not really a negative. All else equal, one should only expect 1 win every 30 years.

As an aside, I am not a baseball fan, so the league may have expanded in the last 20 years, so the 30 number might have a bit of nuance.

Many of my friends are baseball fans, and they tell me the Rays method cannot directly apply to hockey, but I still think we can learn things from what they way they operate.

Ya, I've gotten away from baseball so my knowledge is limited too. In general with baseball, I am not interested in watching leagues without salary caps, basically at all. A league where one team can spend 150 million while another spends 50, is not competitive sports to me. It's pay to win or at minimum, incredibly unfair, even if the games still have to be played and it doesn't always mean the richest wins. I just can't be interested in that context and think it's silly when it gets framed like it's an even playing field with the best beating the best. I guess it always struck me that the Rays do fall short in the end, but fair point about the 1 in 30. I don't see a ton of other good examples around sports which is probably more what I'm getting at than criticizing what the Rays have or haven't accomplished.

Ultimately, what I think will serve the Senators the best, is just having a better management/ownership team. Less restrictive philosophies/finances, and more competent individuals, better supported with higher quality in other positions like pro scouting and vacant positions filled or new positions created. It'll have a trickle down effect. Hell, Dorion's vision might have worked out better had every move to expedite it not blown up in his face.

 

[McDuffz88]

The thing is the picture that's important is the one the players are seeing in this case. Did players on the Devils understand why Nemec was treated the way he was, while Hughes was treated the way he was? Did Nemec understand? Fans tend to try to build the puzzle with a third of the pieces, we don't know if Nemec was nursing an injury, or if he was blatantly going against what the coaches were asking him to do, we don't see the conversations they have between games, the tape sessions they do to help identify the gaps, we just see TOI and scratches, and need to put the pieces together.

Did Green handle Nemec and Hughes appropriately? Idk. I don't even think I can know as a fan. Long term results is what would have been the proof one way or another, but we'll never see that now since Green has moved on.

What I do know, is Green has a reputation of being tough but fair, and while perhaps he wasn't that in the case of Nemec, it remains true that he does carry that reputation, and players who have spoken about their experiences seem to have liked playing under him. If that reputation wasn't actually earned, I would hope that it would have come to surface during the hiring process,

Here is the link for when Nemec was scratched for no reason. Nemec wasn't particularly happy about the benching and Greens reasoning for the scratching applied to Luke Hughes way more. Luke was directly responsible for us losing games. Our board was talking about how we should bench him and this discussion went on for weeks yet instead of a scratch we got an interview from Green saying how certain players will never get benched nor their minutes reduced no matter what happens.

Why Devils’ Travis Green scratched Simon Nemec in 1st game — and what Nemec thought about it

Nemec has 16 points in 40 games in his rookie season.

www.google.com

 

[BondraTime]

Here is the link for when Nemec was scratched for no reason. Nemec wasn't particularly happy about the benching and Greens reasoning for the scratching applied to Luke Hughes way more. Luke was directly responsible for us losing games. Our board was talking about how we should bench him and this discussion went on for weeks yet instead of a scratch we got an interview from Green saying how certain players will never get benched nor their minutes reduced no matter what happens.

Why Devils’ Travis Green scratched Simon Nemec in 1st game — and what Nemec thought about it

Nemec has 16 points in 40 games in his rookie season.

www.google.com

Isn't the reason:

[Wyshynski] Travis Green on rookie Simon Nemec, who is expected to be a healthy scratch for Devils: “I told him that I think his game has dipped in the last three weeks. I told him he’s going to get back in. A lot of it has to do with his skating. He doesn’t have that pop he had earlier.”​

​

Agree with the reason or not, there was a given reason

​

 

[Pierre from Orleans]

Here is the link for when Nemec was scratched for no reason. Nemec wasn't particularly happy about the benching and Greens reasoning for the scratching applied to Luke Hughes way more. Luke was directly responsible for us losing games. Our board was talking about how we should bench him and this discussion went on for weeks yet instead of a scratch we got an interview from Green saying how certain players will never get benched nor their minutes reduced no matter what happens.

Why Devils’ Travis Green scratched Simon Nemec in 1st game — and what Nemec thought about it

Nemec has 16 points in 40 games in his rookie season.

www.google.com

Sounds like Nemec is a headcase. Perhaps he needs a change of scenery.

JBD also needs a change of scenery and he is loved on here by a hand full. We can work something out.

 

[McDuffz88]

Isn't the reason:

[Wyshynski] Travis Green on rookie Simon Nemec, who is expected to be a healthy scratch for Devils: “I told him that I think his game has dipped in the last three weeks. I told him he’s going to get back in. A lot of it has to do with his skating. He doesn’t have that pop he had earlier.”​

​

Agree with the reason or not, there was a given reason

​

So a coach says a reason that makes 0 sense but because he said something that means it's okay? That's the bar that you set for your coach? If a reason is given it should be one that actually makes sense. Also given his reasoning Luke should've been benched day 1 not rewarded with more ice time when his play (started off real strong) fell off a cliff to unplayable levels.

 

[BonHoonLayneCornell]

So a coach says a reason that makes 0 sense but because he said something that means it's okay? That's the bar that you set for your coach? If a reason is given it should be one that actually makes sense. Also given his reasoning Luke should've been benched day 1 not rewarded with more ice time when his play (started off real strong) fell off a cliff to unplayable levels.

How does that make 0 sense? He said his play dipped, and pointed out his skating. Coaches say that all the time. X player needs to start moving his feet out there, etc.

Is he supposed to break down plays on camera or something? Go in more depth and shred the guy in the media?

 

[BondraTime]

So a coach says a reason that makes 0 sense but because he said something that means it's okay? That's the bar that you set for your coach? If a reason is given it should be one that actually makes sense. Also given his reasoning Luke should've been benched day 1 not rewarded with more ice time when his play (started off real strong) fell off a cliff to unplayable levels.

I mean, you disagree so that's all that matters

You generally don't bench your PP1 22 minute a night guys, regardless of their play. Especially when dealing with injuries all year

You obviously know more about the Devils, so I'll leave that to you and your team, luckily you guys have a new coach coming!

 

[Micklebot]

Here is the link for when Nemec was scratched for no reason. Nemec wasn't particularly happy about the benching and Greens reasoning for the scratching applied to Luke Hughes way more. Luke was directly responsible for us losing games. Our board was talking about how we should bench him and this discussion went on for weeks yet instead of a scratch we got an interview from Green saying how certain players will never get benched nor their minutes reduced no matter what happens.

Why Devils’ Travis Green scratched Simon Nemec in 1st game — and what Nemec thought about it

Nemec has 16 points in 40 games in his rookie season.

www.google.com

Link seems to be paywalled for me, but Green did provide a reason, you can argue that reason equally or moreso applied to Hughes, but there was a reason and it sounds like Green communicated the reasons. I don't expect any player to be happy when they get scratched, but in this case from the rationale provided makes it sound like a conditioning thing.

 

[McDuffz88]

How does that make 0 sense? He said his play dipped, and pointed out his skating. Coaches say that all the time. X player needs to start moving his feet out there, etc.

Is he supposed to break down plays on camera or something? Go in more depth and shred the guy in the media?

You miss the point I'm making. If Nemec was the one whose play dipped I would 100% agree with the decision, or even if he was the worst culprit of it. But when you have Luke Hughes hands down playing the worst hockey of his career (being gifted even more minutes for being so) going on a few week bender of passing to the other team, losing the puck, directly costing us games, not looking like himself at all, and he gets rewarded more minutes then what Green is saying looks moronic. Because why isn't Luke being scratched? Why is it Nemec (whose play didn't even dip). Then when it was announced he was going to sit someone but didn't name a person. The entire board thought it would be Luke but when it was announced as Nemec our whole fanbase flipped out. After all the backlash Green went out and did an interview saying some players will NEVER get benched, and NEVER get minutes reduced no matter what. The problem isn't that he benched a player. The problem is he clearly has his favorites who are untouchables which is never a good trait as a coach.

 

[BonHoonLayneCornell]

You miss the point I'm making. If Nemec was the one whose play dipped I would 100% agree with the decision, or even if he was the worst culprit of it. But when you have Luke Hughes hands down playing the worst hockey of his career (being gifted even more minutes for being so) going on a few week bender of passing to the other team, losing the puck, directly costing us games, not looking like himself at all, and he gets rewarded more minutes then what Green is saying looks moronic. Because why isn't Luke being scratched? Why is it Nemec (whose play didn't even dip). Then when it was announced he was going to sit someone but didn't name a person. The entire board thought it would be Luke but when it was announced as Nemec our whole fanbase flipped out. After all the backlash Green went out and did an interview saying some players will NEVER get benched, and NEVER get minutes reduced no matter what. The problem isn't that he benched a player. The problem is he clearly has his favorites who are untouchables which is never a good trait as a coach.

I think that's a different argument though. Green did provide a reason. It's your assessment that it was the wrong decision or that the explanation didn't have merit, but it was a reason and was typical of what coaches provide in those instances, so I would argue that it is pretty ho hum in the context of the pr perspective of Green.

All coaches seem to have confusing favorites that don't match fans' eye tests, even acclaimed coaches that have had success, so that's a tough one, and I don't watch the Devils basically at all, so I couldn't weigh in on the actual play of said players.

 

[PlayOn]

You miss the point I'm making. If Nemec was the one whose play dipped I would 100% agree with the decision, or even if he was the worst culprit of it. But when you have Luke Hughes hands down playing the worst hockey of his career (being gifted even more minutes for being so) going on a few week bender of passing to the other team, losing the puck, directly costing us games, not looking like himself at all, and he gets rewarded more minutes then what Green is saying looks moronic. Because why isn't Luke being scratched? Why is it Nemec (whose play didn't even dip). Then when it was announced he was going to sit someone but didn't name a person. The entire board thought it would be Luke but when it was announced as Nemec our whole fanbase flipped out. After all the backlash Green went out and did an interview saying some players will NEVER get benched, and NEVER get minutes reduced no matter what. The problem isn't that he benched a player. The problem is he clearly has his favorites who are untouchables which is never a good trait as a coach.

Is it favouritism or is it circumstances though?

Ie did Green have reason to believe Luke lost his confidence and was struggling as a result, where as Nemec, knowing the season was lost, wasn’t putting in the same efforts in practice or in the game as he could, even if he was playing relatively well.

I don’t know, but there are some things that are hard for us to see watching on our tvs.

 

[Loach]

I think that's a different argument though. Green did provide a reason. It's your assessment that it was the wrong decision or that the explanation didn't have merit, but it was a reason and was typical of what coaches provide in those instances, so I would argue that it is pretty ho hum in the context of the pr perspective of Green.

All coaches seem to have confusing favorites that don't match fans' eye tests, even acclaimed coaches that have had success, so that's a tough one, and I don't watch the Devils basically at all, so I couldn't weigh in on the actual play of said players.

It's like benching Branny when Chabot has turned the puck over 3 times for 3 goals. Then says Branny has to work on his skating. I get what he is saying. I think we have flipped out about the same thing.

 

[Micklebot]

Is it favouritism or is it circumstances though?

Ie did Green have reason to believe Luke lost his confidence and was struggling as a result, where as Nemec, knowing the season was lost, wasn’t putting in the same efforts in practice or in the game as he could, even if he was playing relatively well.

I don’t know, but there are some things that are hard for us to see watching on our tvs.

There's a lot of nuance that could be lost from the outside. Why they think a player is struggling, or even, just not playing as well as they are capable is important, that information helps inform how they choose to address it. It's also clear that at that point in time, NJD had probably switched from trying their absolute best to make the playoffs, to trying their best to develop their players. If the goal isn't necessarily to win the next game, you might look more towards making the move that had long term benefits rather than the one that might have shorter term gain.

Green very well may have made the wrong decision wrt Nemec and Hughes, I remember being highly critical of Jacques Martin in how he dealt with Spezza his rookie year, and how Boucher dealt with Chabot his rookie year, both coaches were taking long term approaches with their rookies, that didn't seem to be aligned with how fans viewed things from the outside, but more goes into those decisions than we see.

 

[Micklebot]

It's like benching Branny when Chabot has turned the puck over 3 times for 3 goals. Then says Branny has to work on his skating. I get what he is saying. I think we have flipped out about the same thing.

So, that's a case of different roles though. You live with your skilled guys taking chances, that's what you've asked them to do. You don't accept your bottom pair guys taking chances, though and you might identify area's they need to improve on to take the next step.

Treating players equally isn't realistic, there's too much context and nuance that needs to be taken into account

Being treated fair, is more about setting realistic expectations for a player and their role, and taking appropriate actions to help that player grow to meet those expectations,

 

[BonHoonLayneCornell]

It's like benching Branny when Chabot has turned the puck over 3 times for 3 goals. Then says Branny has to work on his skating. I get what he is saying. I think we have flipped out about the same thing.

I think most know that Chabot is flat out the better player and is always going to get more rope, but it frustrates some regardless because Branny is down there doing okay in a sheltered role. Realistically though, you throw Branny up in that role and it's not going to look better.

I remember a lot of moaning and groaning about where Pyatt was in the lineup in Boucher's time. That was a big one here as far as coaches pets go.

Redden's effectiveness had taken such a hit that I argued Corvo should be getting his minutes, but realistically, that wasn't going to lead anywhere better if Corvo is out there 26 minutes a night playing against the other teams best players.

 

[Loach]

I think most know that Chabot is flat out the better player and is always going to get more rope, but it frustrates some regardless because Branny is down there doing okay in a sheltered role. Realistically though, you throw Branny up in that role and it's not going to look better.

I remember a lot of moaning and groaning about where Pyatt was in the lineup in Boucher's time. That was a big one here as far as coaches pets go.

Redden's effectiveness had taken such a hit that I argued Corvo should be getting his minutes, but realistically, that wasn't going to lead anywhere better if Corvo is out there 26 minutes a night playing against the other teams best players.

It was just an example. I'm not saying Nemec and Branny are the same quality players or in the same role. It's just a situation that we have seen before and I get where that guy is coming from. Somebody plays like shit and the coach picks somebody else to sit a game or cuts ice time. Happens to all teams. Cool to see the wagons circle around Green already though. Jk. Don't make me sit on the stairs in timeout.

 

[Agent Zuuuub]

You miss the point I'm making. If Nemec was the one whose play dipped I would 100% agree with the decision, or even if he was the worst culprit of it. But when you have Luke Hughes hands down playing the worst hockey of his career (being gifted even more minutes for being so) going on a few week bender of passing to the other team, losing the puck, directly costing us games, not looking like himself at all, and he gets rewarded more minutes then what Green is saying looks moronic. Because why isn't Luke being scratched? Why is it Nemec (whose play didn't even dip). Then when it was announced he was going to sit someone but didn't name a person. The entire board thought it would be Luke but when it was announced as Nemec our whole fanbase flipped out. After all the backlash Green went out and did an interview saying some players will NEVER get benched, and NEVER get minutes reduced no matter what. The problem isn't that he benched a player. The problem is he clearly has his favorites who are untouchables which is never a good trait as a coach.

I agree with you.

That is sus behaviour.

 

[BonHoonLayneCornell]

It was just an example. I'm not saying Nemec and Branny are the same quality players or in the same role. It's just a situation that we have seen before and I get where that guy is coming from. Somebody plays like shit and the coach picks somebody else to sit a game or cuts ice time. Happens to all teams. Cool to see the wagons circle around Green already though. Jk. Don't make me sit on the stairs in timeout.

For sure, I was just going on a bit of a tangent lol, so maybe I get the time out.

I think the poster had a point, that like you say, is that the coach appears to play favorites from their perspective. I can't tell someone that's wrong, especially since I don't watch them. The part I took issue with was claiming Green's explanation was somehow out of line or unnacceptable. That was pretty standard for a coach in that position and what they would say. Nothing burger from that perspective imo. But then I think coaches having favorites sort of is too, cuz they all do it to an extent. He will be judged on the results, and I'm not concerned about a 25 game stretch in a lost season in NJ to draw much for conclusions from.

 

[Micklebot]

For sure, I was just going on a bit of a tangent lol, so maybe I get the time out.

I think the poster had a point, that like you say, is that the coach appears to play favorites from their perspective. I can't tell someone that's wrong, especially since I don't watch them. The part I took issue with was claiming Green's explanation was somehow out of line or unnacceptable. That was pretty standard for a coach in that position and what they would say. Nothing burger from that perspective imo. But then I think coaches having favorites sort of is too, cuz they all do it to an extent. He will be judged on the results, and I'm not concerned about a 25 game stretch in a lost season in NJ to draw much for conclusions from.

I think what's important is whether the players feels the coach is playing favourites, not whether the fans think he is. That's the point I was making that he was responding to. It's fine if fans think he's playing favourites, but if the players do you might have a problem.

 

[Loach]

For sure, I was just going on a bit of a tangent lol, so maybe I get the time out.

I think the poster had a point, that like you say, is that the coach appears to play favorites from their perspective. I can't tell someone that's wrong, especially since I don't watch them. The part I took issue with was claiming Green's explanation was somehow out of line or unnacceptable. That was pretty standard for a coach in that position and what they would say. Nothing burger from that perspective imo. But then I think coaches having favorites sort of is too, cuz they all do it to an extent. He will be judged on the results, and I'm not concerned about a 25 game stretch in a lost season in NJ to draw much for conclusions from.

Favourites.... I've been accused of that before. My favourites where the ones that did the job I wanted them to and didn't cause me headaches. You work hard, give me an honest effort and I got time for you're mistakes...until you don't learn. You're a fcktard that makes work for everybody and won't work with me to get better...I got no time...take a hike. Shit. I'm gonna quit my job of vacation and coach the leafs.

 

[BonHoonLayneCornell]

I think what's important is whether the players feels the coach is playing favourites, not whether the fans think he is. That's the point I was making that he was responding to. It's fine if fans think he's playing favourites, but if the players do you might have a problem.

I think that's a good point to make. It matters what those on the inside think and see, not what we think. For how critical we can be from the outside, there's bound to be so much nuance and so many conversations internally that we aren't privy to that impacts these decisions.

Favourites.... I've been accused of that before. My favourites where the ones that did the job I wanted them to and didn't cause me headaches. You work hard, give me an honest effort and I got time for you're mistakes...until you don't learn. You're a fcktard that makes work for everybody and won't work with me to get better...I got no time...take a hike. Shit. I'm gonna quit my job of vacation and coach the leafs.

Lol, there is definitely a balance to be found. In the context of paid normal world employment, it can be tough to see those dynamics at play because it's our livelihood most people walk a thin line on. I've been on the good and bad sides of it like I'm sure all have. What you describe is sort of backing up the decisions with merit, more than just simply bias, so I think that's respectable as far as "playing favorites" goes. We've played favorites at work with employees we thought were quiet and efficient and increased their freedom over others, but we've also had some heavy theft in those instances from the increased freedom, while the ones we didn't see having a future with us just kept trucking along reasonably efficiently while not stealing from us. It feels like a bit of a mine field for employers. Here I am on another tangent.

 

[Loach]

I think that's a good point to make. It matters what those on the inside think and see, not what we think. For how critical we can be from the outside, there's bound to be so much nuance and so many conversations internally that we aren't privy to that impacts these decisions.

Lol, there is definitely a balance to be found. In the context of paid normal world employment, it can be tough to see those dynamics at play because it's our livelihood most people walk a thin line on. I've been on the good and bad sides of it like I'm sure all have. What you describe is sort of backing up the decisions with merit, more than just simply bias, so I think that's respectable as far as "playing favorites" goes. We've played favorites at work with employees we thought were quiet and efficient and increased their freedom over others, but we've also had some heavy theft in those instances from the increased freedom, while the ones we didn't see having a future with us just kept trucking along reasonably efficiently while not stealing from us. It feels like a bit of a mine field for employers. Here I am on another tangent.

Oooo. This is good. Some people steal because it's there, others because they feel they are owed so they take it. Now this is stuff they are taking. Bosses, some of them anyway, are surprised when presented with the idea that hours worked can be stolen. You paid employee H for 8 hrs...but H takes a 15 minute smoke brake every hour.....you paid H to smoke for 2 hours. Well...errr. That's not really stealing. It's your money and H's coworkers brakes... That's up to you. I got this! Lol.

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

Well, Corrodo who played for him suggested he was firm but fair, Garrioch had an article suggesting that's how he's discussed around the league, so while fans might not think he's fair, I'm not convinced their opinion on whether he is fair is the one that matters.

are you convinced it isn't?

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

To be fair, Staios also said he didn’t expect the team to be where they were. And Friedman said, albeit earlier in the year, that the Sens intended on trying to get back on track quickly, saying Andlauer paid a lot of money for the team and they want to make the playoffs next year.

Staios won’t outright say it because there are too many question marks with this roster. I think ultimately it’s just smart of him to try and buy himself time with the fans. If he says they want to make playoffs and they don’t, he deals with the backlash. But if he says this is gonna take some time, if we do miss, he can always fall back on “hey, I told you guys this wasn’t a quick fix”.

That and most everyone in the hockey world can see it isn't. We witnessed it. Jacques Martin showed us and told us it was not ready to compete. Staios isn't soft shoeing it.. And if the message is softened at all its because of the unrealistic expectations of the fan base.