joshjull
Registered User
I’m not missing your point since I addressed it in the post after the one you quoted. The one I addressed directly to you. I said the issues under Murray ultimately fall in the lap of the Pegulas.You are missing my point. The point is that LaFontaine hired Murray to work under him. As I remember, and I will admit I may not be remembering accurately, LaFontaine intended to be actively involved with the team. Less than two months into Murray's tenure LaFontaine is suddenly fired and no one replaces him. Presumably Murray's job description changed at that time since I think one can reasonably conclude that Murray had to take over at least some of what LaFontaine planned to do himself.
The point is that Murray was brought in to do X under LaFontaine and was suddenly asked to do X and Y. Why LaFontaine was not replaced, either immediately, or later one when Murray's inability to handle certain tasks should have been clear, at least on the inside, is a question worth asking. Did Murray ask the Pegulas not to replace LaFontaine thinking that he could take on the additional tasks required? Or did the Pegulas opt not to replace LaFontaine for whatever reason?
A lot of the issues you raise as things that Murray was bad at are matters that a President of Hockey Operations, especially a hands on one, would have some input into, at least. So was Murray hired to do a job he was, in hindsight, largely unqualified for or was he hired to do a job he was largely qualified for that quickly turned into one he was not qualified for? If the latter is the case, I do not think it excuses Murray's failure in the larger role, but it points to Murray's failings being part of a much larger systemic, organizational failure.
But I disagree with what comes across to me as excuse making for basic incompetence. Murray wasn’t some newbie to the NHL with zero managerial experience. His last job before us was AGM for the Sens running their farm team with his uncle as the GM.
Even if his role expanded with the firing of Patty L. That still doesn't excuse taking over 2 years from that firing to come up with an effective or even coherent discipline policy. Or for having no idea what was going on in his locker room or being shocked the players hated Disco. It can explain the farm system and development being neglected to a point. But even there he was actually an AGM running a farm team. It never dawned on him to replicate that set up here?
Any level of managerial or even coaching experience would have taught the importance of an effective discipline policy as well as communication with players. This is like ground level bare minimum competence he didn’t have. Which is amazing considering he was the AGM in charge of an AHL team for years under the watchful eye of a pretty good GM in his uncle.
All that without getting into some of the “characters” he collected for this team. Players who would have better served an older vet teams with established leadership. Instead of being the leadership like the became here by default.
One oddity of the small amount of time Patty L. And Murray spent together was the reported difference in direction each wanted. Supposedly Patty wanted to re-sign Miller and wasn't in favor of tanking. We all know Murray was in quite the opposite frame of mind and attacked the tank with gusto. Would have been very interesting to see how that dynamic would have played out if Patty stuck around.
Last edited: