Confirmed with Link: Coyotes fire Steve Sullivan

Mosby

<3 Uncle Gary
Feb 16, 2012
23,378
18,081
Toronto
I’m more surprised that Army isn’t hiring someone else right now. So he’s gotta run both the Coyotes and Roadrunners. Perhaps his ideal candidate is under contract elsewhere.
 

BUX7PHX

Registered User
Jul 7, 2011
5,581
1,350
I’m more surprised that Army isn’t hiring someone else right now. So he’s gotta run both the Coyotes and Roadrunners. Perhaps his ideal candidate is under contract elsewhere.

This was my initial thought. We have a shortened season on both levels, and i don't think there will be much movement for the players who are on the taxi squad. Varady is up here, so he can probably provide just as much, if not more information on players in Tucson, should the need arise to bring players up.

So, we have the resources to deal just fine with or without Sullivan. The kicker is that with a diminished role that consists of doing work more toward pro scouting, Sullivan's salary is probably the equivalent of the remaining pro scouts that we have available. I don't know what the going price tag is for NHL scouts specifically for the pro game, but I would guess that Sullivan makes about 5-10x the salary of a single pro scout.

Still in a pandemic, minimal crowd to increase revenue. So, you cut the cost of the guy doing less work, but getting paid more.

Edit: when i first saw this, i thought elsewhere could also mean in-house already. You probably meant it as on a different team, but the point is the same. If you don't need Sullivan, you don't have to keep him on.
 

rt

The Kinder, Gentler Version
May 13, 2004
96,889
45,261
A Rockwellian Pleasantville
Army seems pretty high on Walker.
I forgot about that. He mentioned Walker’s name WAAAY more than Sullivan’s. I remember being disturbed by it. I guess I was right.

I think with BA, Walker, Doan, Tocchet and Varady, our staff could officially beat the shit out of any other staff. Even Montreal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jakey53

hanshin44

Registered User
Mar 17, 2017
140
114
Well that'll certainly fix them!
Sandwich or no sandwich, Yotes will win a ring before the decade is over.
One of those hemorrhoids rings that will help with the constant flow of diarrhea.
 

rt

The Kinder, Gentler Version
May 13, 2004
96,889
45,261
A Rockwellian Pleasantville
Well that'll certainly fix them!
Sandwich or no sandwich, Yotes will win a ring before the decade is over.
One of those hemorrhoids rings that will help with the constant flow of diarrhea.
99 posts in 4 years and they’re all like this. Peep this dude’s post history. It’s a wild ride. Stick around, man. Good stuff.
 

SpaceCoyote

Registered User
Jul 10, 2013
594
362
Wasting away
According to the new Athletic article Sullivan is going to arbitration over the matter.

Stacy Gabriel, his attorney, said she will be filing a demand for arbitration with the commissioner’s office.
“It’s our position that the Coyotes breached the contract – he has an employment agreement and they breached that agreement – and we intend to pursue remedies through the arbitration process,” Gabriel said.
 

BUX7PHX

Registered User
Jul 7, 2011
5,581
1,350
According to the new Athletic article Sullivan is going to arbitration over the matter.

Like I said, let go because the staff diminished his role, which creates an easy out to let someone go if they are paid more than what their job functions require.
 

Jamieh

Registered User
Apr 25, 2012
11,234
6,261
Like I said, let go because the staff diminished his role, which creates an easy out to let someone go if they are paid more than what their job functions require.
No one ever argued that part, we argued you just can't do that without paying,
 
  • Like
Reactions: RemoAZ

BUX7PHX

Registered User
Jul 7, 2011
5,581
1,350
No one ever argued that part, we argued you just can't do that without paying,

BS, and you know it.

Not one person did not say something to the effect of, "Oh, must be from Chayka," or "this is because of the selection of Miller," or some other speculative item. People know who assumed what. Very few put cost saving as #1, and most probably had that as reason #4 or 5 on their list of reasons, if even on the list of reasons at all.

The only reason people assumed that is because ot had not been revealed thst he was retaining counsel.

Go ahead, scroll back through all of this and see how many people stated that it was purely an opportunity to save $.

Keep spinning to make it sound like you have the correct answer right from the beginning.
 

Jamieh

Registered User
Apr 25, 2012
11,234
6,261
BS, and you know it.

Not one person did not say something to the effect of, "Oh, must be from Chayka," or "this is because of the selection of Miller," or some other speculative item. People know who assumed what. Very few put cost saving as #1, and most probably had that as reason #4 or 5 on their list of reasons, if even on the list of reasons at all.

The only reason people assumed that is because ot had not been revealed thst he was retaining counsel.

Go ahead, scroll back through all of this and see how many people stated that it was purely an opportunity to save $.

Keep spinning to make it sound like you have the correct answer right from the beginning.
I didn't have any answer and had no knowledge but did assert from the beginning that you cannot just terminate someone because you have a cheaper option. It just does not work that way. Feel free to read my posts. Your assertion was that it is perfectly OK to do so as you have seen it happen in the real world.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RemoAZ

Mosby

<3 Uncle Gary
Feb 16, 2012
23,378
18,081
Toronto
I didn’t get the sense that cutting Sullivan was a cost saving measure. His salary is probably quite small anyway. Like a few hundred grand. Army makes 1 mil by comparison. And cutting salary doesn’t equal termination with cause. You’d still have to pay him.

I think it’s fully Sullivan did something to break Army’s trust as indicated in the article and thus they feel they have grounds to fire him with cause.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RemoAZ and Jakey53

XX

Waiting for Ishbia
Dec 10, 2002
54,886
14,502
PHX
News about Tocchet came right before Sullivan was terminated. Very possible he was a source.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SniperHF

BUX7PHX

Registered User
Jul 7, 2011
5,581
1,350
I didn’t get the sense that cutting Sullivan was a cost saving measure. His salary is probably quite small anyway. Like a few hundred grand. Army makes 1 mil by comparison. And cutting salary doesn’t equal termination with cause. You’d still have to pay him.

I think it’s fully Sullivan did something to break Army’s trust as indicated in the article and thus they feel they have grounds to fire him with cause.

I guess I see this in a different light. Did Sullivan truly break Armstrong's trust outright? Because there can be a lot of interpretations behind what breaking someone's trust can mean. That's one of those things where the "breaking of trust" can only be interpreted by the individual who feels that trust was broken.

So, in essence, it becomes whatever the person with the higher title says it is.

I just look at what we know. We have an owner who comes in, and has less hockey experience than most. The guy was built off of finding ways to incorporate cost savings into methodologies, so that was my first thought. Combine that with the idea that Armstrong seems less apt to Chayka's concepts of having group think, and you arrive at the concept that Armstrong is following a page from Meruelo's book. Since Armstrong trusts himself (as evidenced by the concepts shown in the article, which I was unaware of and speculated that BA was less prone to inclusion of others in decisions), this explains the how and why of BA managing both AZ and Tucson rosters, why there is no backfill for Sullivan, and why the move was likely made, even though one can disagree as to how that bridge of distrust was crossed.

I use the same thought processes with regard to Chayka and the scouting issue. There is a belief that Chayka was the leader of a way to get data that was against the rules. Why wouldn't this have started in 2016 or 2017, when he joined? The guy ate the same lunch, brought everyone together to try and get on the same page. Then, he randomly decides this is the year we are going to test differently and see if we can get away with it, but not have every scout be aware of the plan? In my eyes, Chayka decided to put our strength and conditioning coach on these visits. For the past few years, our strength and conditioning coach would make offseason visits to the players whom we had under contract, and conduct similar measurements. So, he probably had the idea in his head that the same thing could be done with prospects, to some degree. Now, does Chayka deserve blame for that? Absolutely. But it is possible that Chayka and scouts were aware of the rules much more than this individual was. Maybe he was asked if he understood what could or could not be done, and lied about his study of what was prohibited. Maybe he had been on some scouting visits prior, and was not directly told what not to do (again, doesn't excuse Chayka or other scouts), but if we were planning on doing something illegal to gain an advantage, why would it have started this past season, when Chayka was already in the org for a few years, and to that point, I hadn't seen a bunch of picks that underwhelmed to the point where we had to re-think the way things are done. I think that if people just put the base knowledge together of what you know about the individuals being dealt with, there is a logic to what happened. As opposed to Chayka saying that 3 years down the line after being hired, we are going to try and create a huge advantage by doing something illegal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PuckLife

_Del_

Registered User
Jul 4, 2003
15,425
6,736
So did Sully tell this reporter something, and this is part of their petty squabble? Because just getting the highlights, that's what it sounds like: "I was able to find disgruntled employees who miss their comfortable old boss and don't like the new one". That's every company if you know what rug to look under.
Now they've just got to find and take out the trash.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RemoAZ and Blueston

technoviking

Whatever's Clever
Aug 14, 2013
474
264
Scottsdale
So did Sully tell this reporter something, and this is part of their petty squabble? Because just getting the highlights, that's what it sounds like: "I was able to find disgruntled employees who miss their comfortable old boss and don't like the new one". That's every company if you know what rug to look under.
Now they've just got to find and take out the trash.

I think Sully declined comment and his lawyer said he was filing for arb
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->