Rumor: 2019-2020 Trade Rumours and Free Agent Discussion | give me Hall your players

[Ararana]

Hockey Guy says Bednar is the 2nd most likely coach to get fired before the end of the season, just after Blashill in Detroit who's a dead man walking.

Why do people listen to this guy? Does he have a proven track record or something? He seems like a nut in his garage.

 

[RockLobster]

FWIW some of us who thought he had to be replaced didn't necessarily think he was Sacco 2.0; it's just that from the outside we couldn't know that they hadn't lost the core the way he had lost the old-farts...which he did at a rather unprecedented speed. When you lose the room, it doesn't matter how brilliant a coach's tactics, in-game instincts or strategic understanding of the sport...and (at the time, from the outside) it looked like Bednar had lost the entire room; which is rarely fixable.

I'm thrilled that it worked out as well as it has, but I don't think hindsight has made that decision any less of gamble & I'm pretty sure that it ends in disaster more often than not even with the knowledge that he still had full buy-in from core kids after the vets had already packed it in. That toxicity is really hard to eradicate once it's been planted, and even if the kids didn't buy it at the time that Bednar-doubt is quite likely still there in the backs of their minds...despite everything that's happened since then to earn their trust.

Credit where credit is due (from someone who thought he absolutely should have been let go after the 48 point season): I am under the belief that he did a lot behind the scenes to improve himself as a coach. SOME of the vets he lost weren't his fault, necessarily (again, as it has been explained to me in the past), but there were others who, well I can't blame them for tuning him out so quickly.

Again, credit where credit is due--he seemingly took a good, long, hard, look at himself after the season and worked to correct the missteps he had in his first, and that's a great thing. He's had some good success. But Henchy has a point when it comes to a coach's life: even though it really doesn't seem that long ago, Bednar is already one of the longest tenured coaches in the league. If we don't start seeing results with a team that should be better off in the standings than they are, then we absolutely have to move on and find someone who can hopefully get more out of them.

 

[AllAboutAvs]

FWIW some of us who thought he had to be replaced didn't necessarily think he was Sacco 2.0; it's just that from the outside we couldn't know that they hadn't lost the core the way he had lost the old-farts...which he did at a rather unprecedented speed. When you lose the room, it doesn't matter how brilliant a coach's tactics, in-game instincts or strategic understanding of the sport...and (at the time, from the outside) it looked like Bednar had lost the entire room; which is rarely fixable.

I'm thrilled that it worked out as well as it has, but I don't think hindsight has made that decision any less of gamble & I'm pretty sure that it ends in disaster more often than not even with the knowledge that he still had full buy-in from core kids after the vets had already packed it in. That toxicity is really hard to eradicate once it's been planted, and even if the kids didn't buy it at the time that Bednar-doubt is quite likely still there in the backs of their minds...despite everything that's happened since then to earn their trust.

I agree with you regarding the optics but I don't necessarily agree with your second paragraph. I'm sure Sakic did his homework with the core and found out the they were still onboard with Bednar. IMO he knew he had enough leadership in the main guys (Landy, Mack, EJ, etc) to bring along the rest of the roster back on track. Was it a gamble? Yeah sure it was but IMO it was a very well calculated gamble. A GM doesn't stick with a coach that just had one of the worst season in history without knowing exactly where the rest of the team stands on the coach. I suspect Sakic asked them to fully buy in until Dec of that year and by then they would re-evaluate and make the appropriate changes if need be.

 

[Pokecheque]

The way things tend to go in the NHL, Bednar will get them to a certain point, then someone else will take it from there. Terribly unfair but that's just the way things seem to work.

I still think coaching overall is a little overrated. But I guess that's probably why they're always treated as disposable assets. I just wish teams would find better ways to work through rough patches, or recognize that these rough patches will right themselves over time.

One thing that's only been mentioned in passing in regards to the Gallant situation--apparently he is a pretty opinionated guy and there was talk of him getting into spats with management both in FLA and VGK before he was kicked to the curb. I guess the ability to get along with your boss is a very underrated trait.

 

[the_fan]

What do you guys think about getting Kane from the Sharks? He's one of those players you hate as an opposition but love when on your team. I think he can be a good addition specially for the playoffs. Put him on a line with Kadri and no one will want to play against that line

Kane-Kadri-Burakovsky/Donskoi

 

[AllAboutAvs]

Credit where credit is due (from someone who thought he absolutely should have been let go after the 48 point season): I am under the belief that he did a lot behind the scenes to improve himself as a coach. SOME of the vets he lost weren't his fault, necessarily (again, as it has been explained to me in the past), but there were others who, well I can't blame them for tuning him out so quickly.

Again, credit where credit is due--he seemingly took a good, long, hard, look at himself after the season and worked to correct the missteps he had in his first, and that's a great thing. He's had some good success. But Henchy has a point when it comes to a coach's life: even though it really doesn't seem that long ago, Bednar is already one of the longest tenured coaches in the league. If we don't start seeing results with a team that should be better off in the standings than they are, then we absolutely have to move on and find someone who can hopefully get more out of them.

But that's the thing....should we be better off in the standings? One could argue that we are about where we should be which is around 5th-7th overall. With a defense and goaltending that are still suspect IMO we are doing pretty good. We just went into a slump (I believe we are coming out of it) so dropping to 7th-10th for a short while was to be expected IMO. Unless we get a stop-gap top-4 dman and the goalies get a bit more reliable (especially Gru) I think 4th-7th overall is exactly where we should be.