But there are coaches (not limited to the NHL) that have given up when the going gets tough. As was said in the article, he showed ways to stay positive. If he didn't try to stay positive, I would constitute that as being lazy. Let's face it, no one enjoys losing, but there are people in charge who concede to "mailing it in" and that leads to losing a locker room/losing respect. When a coach walks into the room, a player can tell whether or not he cares. A gameplan may be created, but that in no way guarantees that the coach hasn't given in to the outcome. Demeanor and attitude mean a lot.
I don't know how he has a disproportionate amount of power. The interview even states that he does the most possible with what he is given. If he had a disproportionate amount of power, he would be leading the charge for who to get in the offseason, etc. He is a part of that, but not the entire committee.