Billy is Gone

A Star is Burns

Formerly Azor Aho
Sponsor
Dec 6, 2011
12,269
38,822
My view, whether people agree with it or not, is that he IS going to be involved in hockey decisions. Typically, hiring of a coach is the GM's job. Typically exit interviews are Coach/GM's jobs. I also think he'll be involved in player decisions as we go forward. That said, I'm NOT saying it's a bad thing or a problem.

Like you said, it could work just fine so I'm not against it just because it's different than the norm. I won't judge anything until we see the results. Just stating that I think he'll be very involved.
I won't be surprised, nor do I care (considering the other route hasn't gotten us anywhere) if he's hands on either. I'm just saying, sometimes what you point to as evidence of that it hasn't really seemed like it to me. I don't think him being involved in the exit interviews as a new owner with no GM in place was too crazy, nor is him being involved in the GM or coach search. Like you say, we may just disagree on what's a hockey decision to this point. I won't be surprised if he's involved in more hockey decisions, or if he's not. I just don't think this sheds too much light either way.

I will say, anyone that puts the whole "meddling" owner thing in an automatic negative light (I'm not saying you are, as you stated you aren't necessarily), Friedman has mentioned on his 31 thoughts podcast, even before our situation evolving as it has, that one of the most important things for a lot hockey management these days is being able to "manage up", including up to the owners. I think it's becoming more common, even if we are being touted as the poster child.
 

A Star is Burns

Formerly Azor Aho
Sponsor
Dec 6, 2011
12,269
38,822
28svx9.jpg
 

Buenos Necas

lets go canes
Jul 18, 2009
2,724
1,885
Raleigh, NC
My view, whether people agree with it or not, is that he IS going to be involved in hockey decisions. Typically, hiring of a coach is the GM's job. Typically exit interviews are Coach/GM's jobs. I also think he'll be involved in player decisions as we go forward. That said, I'm NOT saying it's a bad thing or a problem.

Like you said, it could work just fine so I'm not against it just because it's different than the norm. I won't judge anything until we see the results. Just stating that I think he'll be very involved.

I guess it depends on your definition of being involved in hockey decisions. I could see him wanting to be in on the discussions of trades and signings, making sure he understands the reasoning behind the moves. And I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. But I haven't seen anything to suggest he wants to force moves on his GM like MJ with the Hornets, which would obviously be a problem.

It seems like the media isn't really making a distinction between being an owner wanting to be kept in the loop and an owner actually vetoing decisions. It's pretty standard for a GM to go to the owner for approval on big moves, yet that isn't labeled as an owner "making hockey decisions." I don't think Dundon has suggested he wants to do anything radically different in this area, despite the sensationalism.

He does seem pretty set on changing up the traditional structure of the hockey ops department though. Rather than having it be Owner>President>GM>Coach, it sounds like he wants each position to be on more equal footing and report directly to him. Probably why he doesn't mind hiring a coach before a GM. Maybe a non-Francis president of hockey ops is hired eventually to oversee everything and "manage up" to Dundon.

And the exit interview thing is pretty easily explained in my mind. We didn't have a GM, Peters was all but gone, and Dundon wanted players to feel like they could speak freely so he could get a better understanding of everything.
 

Roboturner913

Registered User
Jul 3, 2012
25,853
55,526
Are people really upset about this? I don't get it.

I am kind of on the fence. I didn't feel like he was bad enough to deserve being fired, but I didn't feel like we were gonna go anywhere with him either. He might be an excellent tactician or whatever but he is 100% uninspiring. The whole "make a ****ing save" bit turned me off a lot, that's not what I'm looking for in terms of leadership. I'm not too upset.
 

Negan4Coach

Fantastic and Stochastic
Aug 31, 2017
5,783
14,668
Raleigh, NC
Are people really upset about this? I don't get it.

I am kind of on the fence. I didn't feel like he was bad enough to deserve being fired, but I didn't feel like we were gonna go anywhere with him either. He might be an excellent tactician or whatever but he is 100% uninspiring. The whole "make a ****ing save" bit turned me off a lot, that's not what I'm looking for in terms of leadership. I'm not too upset.

You know, the "Make a f***ing save" moment was the only time I liked the guy. The only time he showed any balls.

I agree with the uninspiring bit. We need a coach with a good system, but one who can jerk a knot in the asses of a young team when they are not executing.

I can't say I'm bullish on what Dundon is doing- but we can't keep going down the same road anymore. I agree with the concept of radically changing the dynamic of how things run in the front office. I mean it can't really go worse than it has been. Maybe it'll work out, maybe it won't. Can't blame the guy for being like "this is bullshit we're going to change it up now"

I don't know about these other coaches. Maybe wait and see if Bruce Boudraeu gets fired? Or maybe Torts if he blows the 2-0 lead the Jackets had over the playoff choker extrodinaires?

I still get agita when I think that this team could have had Torts in the first place instead of 4 years of wheel spinning.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Breakdowns

Boom Boom Apathy

I am the Professor. Deal with it!
Sep 6, 2006
48,174
97,099
I will say, anyone that puts the whole "meddling" owner thing in an automatic negative light (I'm not saying you are, as you stated you aren't necessarily), Friedman has mentioned on his 31 thoughts podcast, even before our situation evolving as it has, that one of the most important things for a lot hockey management these days is being able to "manage up", including up to the owners. I think it's becoming more common, even if we are being touted as the poster child.

I think that's how it's viewed for many. Because of it, there are some that don't even want to acknowledge that Dundon is very likely going to be move involved in "hockey decisions" such as coach and player personnel decisions. It's his money after all so if I was in his shoes, I certainly would want to have some say. In one of the interviews I've read, he said outright that he is going to be for the short term, until things are running like he wants them to run and I do think many of his actions and words over the past few weeks also indicate he will be as well.

I don't think it's a bad thing. Nor do I think it's a good thing. I just think it's a "thing". No matter the process used, the results are what counts. If he can turn this team into a consistent playoff team/contender, I don't care if he's 100% hands off, 100% hands on or somewhere in between.

I think there is a stigma associated with the terms "hands on" or "meddling" owner, partially created by the media, partially because of some high profile cases in the past; and because of it, people don't want to accept that Dundon may be more hands on. I don't have a problem with it as long as the results are there.
 

NotOpie

"Puck don't lie"
Jun 12, 2006
9,218
17,638
North Carolina
I think there is a stigma associated with the terms "hands on" or "meddling" owner, partially created by the media, partially because of some high profile cases in the past; and because of it, people don't want to accept that Dundon may be more hands on. I don't have a problem with it as long as the results are there.

This seems to be the gist of things. While I doubt TD will be suggesting players in the "what about this guy" sense, I do believe he will and should consistently ask the difficult "why" questions. Why do you like this guy? Why is that guy a good fit? Why do you like this guy over that guy? Why is that trade a good one? Why is this contract a good value for the team? Those types of questions force the suggester to do the appropriate amount of objective justification. If the answer is, "I've got a feeling about him....", it is incumbent on the owner to ask for more reasoning.

That's what I think Dundon is doing and I think the hockey cognoscenti are offended that their people and methods are being questioned. I, for one, am excited to see things get shaken up. I actually liked Peters and felt he was a good coach. I think he lost the room and didn't know how to regain it. I'm also one of the few who wouldn't be scared of having Rod as the head coach (although, I wouldn't mid seeing what Vellucci could do in Raleigh). In the end, I think he hires a different type of GM and a more traditional coach....but, boy, have I been spectacularly wrong about this so far...
 

Canes

Registered User
Oct 31, 2017
24,996
69,428
An Oblate Spheroid
Billy is the new head coach for the Calgary Flames.

They have more high end talent offensive talent but they are actually pretty similar to the Canes.
Should be interesting to see how it goes.

I'm especially interested in seeing what he'll have to say about his time here. I wouldn't be surprised to see him throw a little shade our way after he thanks us for giving him a chance, etc.
 
Last edited:

Canes

Registered User
Oct 31, 2017
24,996
69,428
An Oblate Spheroid
“He’s intense. All the time, he’s intense,” said former NHL defenceman John-Michael Liles, who called Peters his boss for two campaigns with the Carolina Hurricanes. “I mean, it’s 7 a.m. and you’re walking into the rink and you haven’t had any coffee yet, and he’s intense. That was one of the things you really learn early on.
Former player on Bill Peters: ‘He’s intense. All the time, he’s intense’

lolwut? Intense is one of the last words I'd used to describe Peters, but then again I wasn't in the locker room or at practices. But behind the bench during games, in the media, in that one embarrassingly bad pre-game speech they let us see, in threatening to "swing the icetime hammer" but not doing it he was anything but intense. Laviolette made him seem catatonic in comparison.
 

Boom Boom Apathy

I am the Professor. Deal with it!
Sep 6, 2006
48,174
97,099
I've always thought Peters was a pretty intense guy from what I've seen from him. Once in a while he loosens up in front of the media and by the end of the season, he was worn down from all the losing, but I got the impression from watching him on the bench, in practice, and from some dressing room clips that he was a pretty direct and intense guy. Not a screaming at the top of your lungs type intense, but more of a quiet intense sort of guy that is always on.
 

A Star is Burns

Formerly Azor Aho
Sponsor
Dec 6, 2011
12,269
38,822
I agree, Peters strikes me as very intense when it comes to hockey. We know he can be very direct and blunt. I can get wanting a break from that occasionally if he was like that all the time.

And, as I've said before, I still can't believe someone is using one of those pregame line announcements to glean anything. Those have been shown for plenty of teams, and they all look about the same. If there even was a speech for some throw away regular season game, I don't know that it would have been there. Those are always just quick recaps of the strategies and a few claps and such as they announce the starters.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->