Reexamining the 2014 NHL draft

[Thorny]

They fired him because the star player and coach did not get along and the GM backed the wrong horse.  It's not as though he frowned on national TV and they let him go.  There was a wee bit of gap in there. 

 

There are plenty of emotional leaders in important positions.  Just because your preference is not to have one does not make it wrong.  What you call professional is not an absolute definition, plain and simple.

 

Good grief?  Okay.  A 20% chance is a 20% chance is a 20% chance.  Ups and downs can be had anywhere.  There's a list of teams whose cards are shown on TV by Bill Daly that is supposed to lead to the tension.  There are ups and downs.  Just because those ups and downs are not important to you does not mean they weren't important to him.  People have hope, and when that hope is defeated they will be upset.

 

Even if it's only a 1% chance to win.  This is who most of us are.

 

I don't define Murray by my standards.  I accept that he is his own person and acted accordingly.  The only question was whether he was able to fulfill the role of GM and to what level.  At the very surface, he failed as a GM.  Clearly. Whether he was incompetent is another story that can be debated and how his face contorted and how he reacted to a flip of a card is not really in my criteria for what makes a good GM. 

 

I am sure we won't agree and that's fine.

To the bold: Erroneous.

[LTS]

To the bold: Erroneous.

 

Thanks for the final ruling Judge Judy. 

[Thorny]

Thanks for the final ruling Judge Judy.

 

You can't just make stuff up and post it as fact.

Edited December 24, 2017 by Bjorn Borg

[nfreeman]

LTS -- i don't disagree that the emotional reaction doesn't necessarily signify incompetence. 

 

But the key point remains that IF his plan relied on getting McD, it was a bad and foolish plan.

[LTS]

You can't just make stuff up and post it as fact.

 

When an owner fires a coach and GM at the same time it's usually because the owner wants the coach fired but the GM doesn't agree.  He backed Bylsma as a coach.  He might have had some criticism of how he was handling players but he didn't fire Bylsma after the season.  He hedged and suggested how things could improve and then the supposed Eichel statement is put out there and boom Pegula pulled the trigger.

 

LTS -- i don't disagree that the emotional reaction doesn't necessarily signify incompetence. 

 

But the key point remains that IF his plan relied on getting McD, it was a bad and foolish plan.

 

IF?  Let's put it this way.  Simple decision tree planning... step 1, determine the draft outcome.  There are 2 variables in the first decision, one option is 20% likely, second is 80% likely (no value given to a team winning but not picking McDavid or Murray not picking Eichel or McDavid).  The plan then expands from there.  I don't think there is any evidence that he had no plan.  Does anyone think that?  If so, based on what rationale?

 

And yes, if it was stated that he only ever thought about getting McDavid and had no clue what to do if he didn't have a chance at him then I would agree with him being incompetent.