Fire/Don't Fire/Discuss Torts II

[MAHJ71]

Last year the NHL let in extra teams to the playoffs. The Jackets beat the 8th place team to advance to the round of 8.

Now if you want to say they won a round, go ahead. Give everyone a trophy while you're at it.

A series win is a series win.

The NHL considered it the playoffs, extra teams or not.

Seeding numbers or not, the fact is the Leafs had 10x the skill/talent we had and CBJ outworked them to win the series -- that is an accomplishment, not a handout.

Participation trophy analogy is just not a fit, but I understand that it fits the doom and gloom narrative some people on this board love to pander about -- much like the anti-Torts narrative.

 

[MoeBartoli]

One real series win. The other was a covid bonus round win to get to field of 8 in the east.
The goal isn't getting to the playoffs. It's winning the cup.

May not be the ultimate goal, but being in the playoffs four consecutive years sure beats once in 15.

 

[koteka]

I swear to G-d, we must be the only fanbase that has a large number of homers who constantly overemphasize the negative rather than the positive.

I don’t read game day threads anymore once the puck drops. It lessons my enjoyment of watching hockey. I’ll read them before the game to see if someone is injured or which goalie is starting, etc., but that is it. I might go and read the other team’s thread between periods. If we win, I might read some of the other team’s post game meltdown. (Especially when we beat Toronto.) Every fan base is hyper critical of their own team. It way more fun to read the other team’s fans complaints about missed shots or awful back checking than our own.

Everyone is so negative because there is only one Cup and 31 teams. Somehow anything less than winning a Cup is failure. There are about 25 teams with very little chance of winning the Cup this year unless they have amazing goalie play when it counts. So there are tons of frustrated fans. Me, I’ll just enjoy watching games or turn them off and find something else to do.

 

[KJ Dangler]

I swear to G-d, we must be the only fanbase that has a large number of homers who constantly overemphasize the negative rather than the positive.

What’s over emphasizing the negative ? We are at defcon 1 . No reason in hell Torts should have handled this situation in the manner he has . He was looking for a fight , an example , because he knows Pld doesn’t want to be here mainly due to the coach , and his style of play, not to mention his porous management of the bench on game day . Torts called his shot... made sure the media knew with his Told You statement , went to media and called out PLD , he’s belittled PLDs character saying he should man up and tell the team , he then waits to make his example to embarrass the player . Don’t think the locker room is behind Torts on this . We got a sense from some post that Ms Jones liked . Torts needs to go TODAY... Torts sacrificed the teams ability to win last night , to make his point . Could have benched him rest of period , nope , Torts benched him the whole game , had to double shift other players , and Boone Jenner leads the mighty blue jacket offensive attack with 21 minutes of ice time

 

[Viqsi]

I don’t read game day threads anymore once the puck drops. It lessons my enjoyment of watching hockey. I’ll read them before the game to see if someone is injured or which goalie is starting, etc., but that is it. I might go and read the other team’s thread between periods. If we win, I might read some of the other team’s post game meltdown. (Especially when we beat Toronto.) Every fan base is hyper critical of their own team. It way more fun to read the other team’s fans complaints about missed shots or awful back checking than our own.

Everyone is so negative because there is only one Cup and 31 teams. Somehow anything less than winning a Cup is failure. There are about 25 teams with very little chance of winning the Cup this year unless they have amazing goalie play when it counts. So there are tons of frustrated fans. Me, I’ll just enjoy watching games or turn them off and find something else to do.

I actually have a relevant quote with regard to that in my signature nowadays.

 

[Viqsi]

What’s over emphasizing the negative ? We are at defcon 1 . No reason in hell Torts should have handled this situation in the manner he has . He was looking for a fight , an example , because he knows Pld doesn’t want to be here mainly due to the coach , and his style of play, not to mention his porous management of the bench on game day . He called his shot , went to media and called out PLD , he’s belittled PLDs character saying he should man up and tell the team , he then waits to make his example to embarrass the player . Don’t think the locker room is behind Torts on this . We got a sense from some post that Ms Jones liked . Torts needs to go TODAY... Torts sacrificed the teams ability to win last night , to make his point . Could have benched him rest of period , nope , Torts benched him the whole game , had to double shift other players , and Boone Jenner leads the mighty blue jacket offensive attack with 21 minutes of ice time

I'm sorry, I don't even bother to read your posts anymore as soon as I see you mention Tortorella in any capacity whatsoever.

 

[BluejacketNut]

If you’re not planning to renew his contract, you need to get rid of him now and try and salvage your top center. I fully think this is a Torts/PLD thing, Torts’ reputation is well known and one of our few cornerstones has had enough of his shit. Trading him is saying you’re siding with torts and at that point you may as well extend his contract. Just don’t be surprised if this isn’t the last time something like this happens.

Columbus already has its black eye of not having success or because of its market or why ever players don’t want to play here, add in a coach no top player wants to play for and we’ll continue hoping and praying that JK finds a gem somehow and that torts doesn’t run him out of town either.

 

[Monk]

I don’t read game day threads anymore once the puck drops. It lessons my enjoyment of watching hockey. I’ll read them before the game to see if someone is injured or which goalie is starting, etc., but that is it. I might go and read the other team’s thread between periods. If we win, I might read some of the other team’s post game meltdown. (Especially when we beat Toronto.) Every fan base is hyper critical of their own team. It way more fun to read the other team’s fans complaints about missed shots or awful back checking than our own.

Everyone is so negative because there is only one Cup and 31 teams. Somehow anything less than winning a Cup is failure. There are about 25 teams with very little chance of winning the Cup this year unless they have amazing goalie play when it counts. So there are tons of frustrated fans. Me, I’ll just enjoy watching games or turn them off and find something else to do.

Pretty much same boat for me unless I'm drinking... hard.

 

[majormajor]

I didn't see this TSN bit with Lebrun that came out earlier. It helps confirm my thinking that Torts is making this much harder for Jarmo than it otherwise would be. Lebrun is close friends with Brisson so perhaps this is coming from him, keep that in mind.

Lebrun said that Jarmo and Dubois/Brisson had an agreement on how they were going to handle things up until the trade and that Torts pretty much deep-sixed that by publicly confirming that there was a literal trade request (not just a "we'd welcome an eventual change of scenery", which some players have more gently used) and by insisting that Dubois explain his reasons to the team. That and basically Torts' entire radio interview on the topic went against Jarmo's wishes.

 

[Johansen2Foligno]

...rehire Torts!!!

 

[KJ Dangler]

I didn't see this TSN bit with Lebrun that came out earlier. It helps confirm my thinking that Torts is making this much harder for Jarmo than it otherwise would be. Lebrun is close friends with Brisson so perhaps this is coming from him, keep that in mind.

Lebrun said that Jarmo and Dubois/Brisson had an agreement on how they were going to handle things up until the trade and that Torts pretty much deep-sixed that by publicly confirming that there was a literal trade request (not just a "we'd welcome an eventual change of scenery", which some players have more gently used) and by insisting that Dubois explain his reasons to the team. That and basically Torts' entire radio interview on the topic went against Jarmo's wishes.

Fireable offense ... it’s coming . Torts ego finally caught up with him . There was absolutely 0 reason to get this out in the media , trying to embarrass the player in the media . Hopefully Jarmo salvages a good trade and then we tackle problem #2

 

[Johansen2Foligno]

"I won't fire you, but I also don't have to extend you."

 

[majormajor]

Fireable offense ... it’s coming . Torts ego finally caught up with him . There was absolutely 0 reason to get this out in the media , trying to embarrass the player in the media . Hopefully Jarmo salvages a good trade and then we tackle problem #2

I'm still on the fence about Torts but he's certainly giving Jarmo plenty of good reasons to get out the axe. If he is inclined in that direction, which I don't know about, then he has fireable offenses to point to.

 

[BluejacketNut]

I go back to if they’ve talked with PLD and torts is the problem, torts goes

 

[majormajor]

I didn't see this TSN bit with Lebrun that came out earlier. It helps confirm my thinking that Torts is making this much harder for Jarmo than it otherwise would be. Lebrun is close friends with Brisson so perhaps this is coming from him, keep that in mind.

Lebrun said that Jarmo and Dubois/Brisson had an agreement on how they were going to handle things up until the trade and that Torts pretty much deep-sixed that by publicly confirming that there was a literal trade request (not just a "we'd welcome an eventual change of scenery", which some players have more gently used) and by insisting that Dubois explain his reasons to the team. That and basically Torts' entire radio interview on the topic went against Jarmo's wishes.

This is sort of why I'm extra nervous about Laine coming. Jarmo has the intel on Laine and he knows the best way to handle him. It is absolutely a special care situation. So he can go to Torts and tell him this is what we've got to do, and watch again as Torts blows things up. A little bit of grace Torts!

 

[ThisIsMyAlibi]

I go back to if they’ve talked with PLD and torts is the problem, torts goes

Awful take. Seriously.

 

[Mayor Bee]

I swear to G-d, we must be the only fanbase that has a large number of homers who constantly overemphasize the negative rather than the positive.

No, see, it's important to fire this head coach five games into a season to hire a double-retread in Gerard Gallant, who it seems that teams can't wait to be rid of even when they're is performing well.

 

[Socks]

No, see, it's important to fire this head coach five games into a season to hire a double-retread in Gerard Gallant, who it seems that teams can't wait to be rid of even when they're is performing well.

Holy blast from the past!

 

[Johansen2Foligno]

EXTEND TORTS!!

 

[burple]

I didn't see this TSN bit with Lebrun that came out earlier. It helps confirm my thinking that Torts is making this much harder for Jarmo than it otherwise would be. Lebrun is close friends with Brisson so perhaps this is coming from him, keep that in mind.

Lebrun said that Jarmo and Dubois/Brisson had an agreement on how they were going to handle things up until the trade and that Torts pretty much deep-sixed that by publicly confirming that there was a literal trade request (not just a "we'd welcome an eventual change of scenery", which some players have more gently used) and by insisting that Dubois explain his reasons to the team. That and basically Torts' entire radio interview on the topic went against Jarmo's wishes.

Hey, long time listener, first time caller. I think it's clear that Torts helped bring the issue to a head by confirming publicly that there was a trade request. But I'm not sure that was a bad thing. Look, everyone on the team knew, and it was hurting the team. They were carrying it around and it was hurting the team. By confirming it and calling PLD out about it, it put the ball in PLD's court. He could have responded by playing his best hockey, and maybe the team could have gotten through it that way. Or he could have responded the way he did, by sulking and quitting. Either way, Torts made sure that the issue didn't fester for weeks and months and kill the season. And that ended up being, I think, a VERY good thing.

 

[majormajor]

Hey, long time listener, first time caller. I think it's clear that Torts helped bring the issue to a head by confirming publicly that there was a trade request. But I'm not sure that was a bad thing. Look, everyone on the team knew, and it was hurting the team. They were carrying it around and it was hurting the team. By confirming it and calling PLD out about it, it put the ball in PLD's court. He could have responded by playing his best hockey, and maybe the team could have gotten through it that way. Or he could have responded the way he did, by sulking and quitting. Either way, Torts made sure that the issue didn't fester for weeks and months and kill the season. And that ended up being, I think, a VERY good thing.

We might be pleased with Laine either way but I think it would have been better if Jarmo wasn't forced to act so quickly, and it seems Torts was the accelerant on the Dubois fire. It had to burn at some point to clear the air but I'd feel much better if it was Jarmo determining that timetable and not Torts. A few weeks of awkward play is not the worst thing in the world, and we're going to be living with the aftermath of this trade for a long time.

 

[burple]

We might be pleased with Laine either way but I think it would have been better if Jarmo wasn't forced to act so quickly, and it seems Torts was the accelerant on the Dubois fire. It had to burn at some point to clear the air but I'd feel much better if it was Jarmo determining that timetable and not Torts. A few weeks of awkward play is not the worst thing in the world, and we're going to be living with the aftermath of this trade for a long time.

I agree that if Jarmo said "Handle it this way" and Torts did what he wanted, that would be a problem. But we don't know that, do we? I don't think we know that Torts didn't have Jarmo's approval to answer the question if asked directly. I mean, it's possible that Torts helped force Jarmo's hand, but that assumes things we don't know. Jarmo's pretty smart and seems to have a pretty good relationship with Torts, so I think it's equally possible that Torts had Jarmo's approval to handle it the way he did. Maybe I missed something, happy to be corrected if so.

 

[majormajor]

I agree that if Jarmo said "Handle it this way" and Torts did what he wanted, that would be a problem. But we don't know that, do we? I don't think we know that Torts didn't have Jarmo's approval to answer the question if asked directly. I mean, it's possible that Torts helped force Jarmo's hand, but that assumes things we don't know. Jarmo's pretty smart and seems to have a pretty good relationship with Torts, so I think it's equally possible that Torts had Jarmo's approval to handle it the way he did. Maybe I missed something, happy to be corrected if so.

That is not how I interpret Lebrun's words on the topic. It seemed to me that he was saying that Torts went directly against Jarmo's charted direction on the subject. Jarmo and Dubois/Brisson agreed to keep certain parts of it secret so as not to create a bad atmosphere while Jarmo was working on a deal, and then Torts comes in with "absolute honesty", insists that Dubois spill the beans, and publicly criticizes Dubois for not doing so.

Porty has often described the "f you" fights between Torts and Jarmo. Torts often doesn't do what Jarmo wants. If Jarmo didn't have a deep appreciation for Torts as a coach he would have fired him long ago because Torts has caused Jarmo many headaches over the years.

 

[burple]

That is not how I interpret Lebrun's words on the topic. It seemed to me that he was saying that Torts went directly against Jarmo's charted direction on the subject. Jarmo and Dubois/Brisson agreed to keep certain parts of it secret so as not to create a bad atmosphere while Jarmo was working on a deal, and then Torts comes in with "absolute honesty", insists that Dubois spill the beans, and publicly criticizes Dubois for not doing so.

Porty has often described the "f you" fights between Torts and Jarmo. Torts often doesn't do what Jarmo wants. If Jarmo didn't have a deep appreciation for Torts as a coach he would have fired him long ago because Torts has caused Jarmo many headaches over the years.

Well, that's very interesting - seems I didn't have a read on the history. I guess there are two separate questions - one is whether Jarmo's approach or Torts's approach was the best one for the team, and the other is whether a coach should feel so free to ignore instructions from the boss. I guess -- and I'm tacking from my initial post -- the answer to the first question is unknowable from the outside (we don't know the counterfactuals: would Jarmo have gotten the team a better deal on his timeline? Did Torts know better than Jarmo about what was best for the locker room? I initially argued that Torts's strategy was a good one, but I concede I don't know that it was the BEST one because I don't know what Jarmo was cooking on his own schedule). I could see both sides of the second question too. One way to look at it is to say that a coach should do what the GM tells him to do, but Torts might say that when a GM's instructions infringe on his ability to coach the team according to his philosophy, then he's got to stick to his guns (I would guess Torts would say that if JK can't accept that, then JK can find another coach, but he's not going to compromise what he sees as his integrity). I'm not sure how I feel about that either. In my line of work, there are things I accept my superiors can tell me to do or not do, and there are things that I quite legitimately regard as within my scope of authority to decide without interference. I'm not sure where the line is here.

 

[majormajor]

Well, that's very interesting - seems I didn't have a read on the history. I guess there are two separate questions - one is whether Jarmo's approach or Torts's approach was the best one for the team, and the other is whether a coach should feel so free to ignore instructions from the boss. I guess -- and I'm tacking from my initial post -- the answer to the first question is unknowable from the outside (we don't know the counterfactuals: would Jarmo have gotten the team a better deal on his timeline? Did Torts know better than Jarmo about what was best for the locker room? I initially argued that Torts's strategy was a good one, but I concede I don't know that it was the BEST one because I don't know what Jarmo was cooking on his own schedule). I could see both sides of the second question too. One way to look at it is to say that a coach should do what the GM tells him to do, but Torts might say that when a GM's instructions infringe on his ability to coach the team according to his philosophy, then he's got to stick to his guns (I would guess Torts would say that if JK can't accept that, then JK can find another coach, but he's not going to compromise what he sees as his integrity). I'm not sure how I feel about that either. In my line of work, there are things I accept my superiors can tell me to do or not do, and there are things that I quite legitimately regard as within my scope of authority to decide without interference. I'm not sure where the line is here.

I wouldn't say this sort of thing is within Torts' full scope of control, because it touches on a player movement issue that Jarmo is in the middle of working on. If Jarmo says this is how we have to do it, that ought to be the line of the organization.

I think Torts definitely was thinking about what was good for the locker room, he's not dumb, but Jarmo is cognizant of the locker room too. They're just thinking on different time scales. It would be bad for the room but better for trade value if Jarmo had more time to work with. The Jackets probably would have lost more games as a result of taking longer. But if today is good evidence, they snap back quickly after the deal is done. It's a matter of whether you're willing to tolerate waiting through that awkward period, to pay that price which gives you a better deal for the long run. Torts just doesn't think on that timescale. It's not his job to think like that, and that's why it's unfortunate that he won't defer to the person whose job it is to think about the long run.