You also are stating opinion as fact. We've heard this argument recycled the last year, that Holland was just following orders. The excuses have gone as far as the sob-story that the streak was preserved to honor the dying wishes of Mike Illich. It's preposterous.
I believe the Illich's know next to nothing about ice hockey. You can't compare their declared passion/interest in baseball and DD getting fired to anything within the realm of the Red Wings.
It's more believable that as WW and RtJ are saying, Holland's hands aren't tied by anyone but himself.
I'm not stating my opinion as fact, I find it odd that you are interpreting it that way. In the section you quoted from me, my literal first words were "I believe" which flat out means I am giving an opinion, not giving a fact.
So on that note, I will be clear and state again, the following is an opinion and not a fact.
I can't speak as to which arguments were or were not recycled last year as I just joined this board in December. What I can say though, is I just don't buy the narrative that you are selling. Too far fetched for me.
I work in business, and I work with many other business owners/managers etc. and every single business that I have every been a part of or worked with, the owner always gives the direction of the company. I don't believe that Holland is told who to sign, who to bring up, who to hire as coach, who to waive etc. by ownership. But, when you have an owner who has owned a team for 20+ years, I have a very hard time believing that the owner has nothing to do with the overall direction of the team. I believe that an owner will give a GM direction in the sense of "I want to win now" "I want to make the playoffs" "I want ticket revenue's at _______" "I want a re-build" etc. Then its the GM's job to take it from there. If Holland was going against ownership, I think he would have been fired years ago.
I will be the first one to admit that Holland has made mistakes, but I will also admit that that he has done a lot of good. Bottom line, I hate talking about Holland because this is what always happens, it turns into the same conversation over and over and over again. When this happens, it typically turns into everything Holland has done is bad and 100% on him, or he has done nothing wrong at all. Both are arguments that I don't believe. Like anything, I think the truth falls somewhere in the middle. I don't even specifically mean you here, I can just tell where this is going.
I really dont feel like getting into another senseless Holland debate, so if you think Holland had 100% control with zero direction from ownership, cool. I don't.