GDT: Les C4pit0lz @ Mango. 10.30pm EST. 3.22.1014

[txpd]

I think it's pretty obvious what's happening. You've got a coach that doesn't believe in motivating his players. So naturally, they go through the motions for the vast majority of the year. Then, as the season winds down, they realize there's a real possibility of missing the playoffs, so they're motivated by that pressure to actually put forth an honest effort on the ice.

It makes you wonder where the team would be with a competent coaching staff.

I totally agree on the mature coaching perspective of oates being the problem. Most people I know don't bring their best to their work on a day to day basis. to get it most of the time takes motivation. I am not sure why oates doesn't see that.

On the other hand the coaching staff below oates is oates responsibility. you have to figure they are coaching under the direction of oates. they are no more allowed to create their own schemes than they are allowed to motivate the players against their boss's philosophy.

I find it interesting that in this thread you have many throwing the entire staff under the bus as incompetent while others take away the pp credit from oates as the work of the staff.

 

[BobRouse]

And I've said this before. Why the **** would Ted forbid the hiring of an experienced coach for financial reasons but allow McPhee to spend to the cap every year and stash Nylander in the AHL? The cost difference between a new coach and an experienced coach is much smaller than the cost of paying expensive players. That difference is probably the equivalent of paying to keep a couple of extra guys on the roster at league minimum or not. You probably won't answer again, but why???

I agree with you here for sure. There is no budget for the coach. Ted wouldn't pay 20 mil to get rid of Jagr, bury Nylander in the minors and spend to the cap each year if he was a cheapskate.

This is McPhee's doing. He likes to have a puppet patsy as a head coach.

 

[txpd]

And I've said this before. Why the **** would Ted forbid the hiring of an experienced coach for financial reasons but allow McPhee to spend to the cap every year and stash Nylander in the AHL? The cost difference between a new coach and an experienced coach is much smaller than the cost of paying expensive players. That difference is probably the equivalent of paying to keep a couple of extra guys on the roster at league minimum or not. You probably won't answer again, but why???

why would McPhee always hire a rookie? why would Leonsis allow it?

I didn't say it was a good strategy. I just said that ive been told that the Caps hiring budget for coaching is 6 figures. That most established coaches get 7.

You blame who you choose to blame. I cant change your mind.

 

[txpd]

I agree with you here for sure. There is no budget for the coach. Ted wouldn't pay 20 mil to get rid of Jagr, bury Nylander in the minors and spend to the cap each year if he was a cheapskate.

This is McPhee's doing. He likes to have a puppet patsy as a head coach.

If this is true, you would think Leonsis would know it was about having a puppet as a coach rather than a quality coach. You think Leonsis doesn't know that?

 

[Liberati0n*]

why would McPhee always hire a rookie? why would Leonsis allow it?

I didn't say it was a good strategy. I just said that ive been told that the Caps hiring budget for coaching is 6 figures. That most established coaches get 7.

You blame who you choose to blame. I cant change your mind.

Why would the budget for the coach be so restricted but the one for players only be so by the league-wide cap? It's like if Ted said McPhee could spend as much money as he wanted on the whole roster but the 4LW and only the 4LW could be paid no more than league minimum. Why the **** would he do that? It makes no sense.

That's the question. Answer it.

 

[BobRouse]

If this is true, you would think Leonsis would know it was about having a puppet as a coach rather than a quality coach. You think Leonsis doesn't know that?

But lets look at your stance...

McPhee is allowed to spend to the cap ($60-70 mil)

McPhee is allowed to pay Nylander $5 mil for playing in Hershey/Grand Rapids or whatever.

McPhee is allowed to expand the scouting staff post lockout.

McPhee is NOT allowed to pay a coach $1-2 mil?? Doesn't make much sense.

I don't know about your sources but these guys beg to differ. Look at #9:

http://www.therichest.com/sports/hockey-sports/top-10-highest-paid-coaches-in-the-nhl-for-2013/

Makes sense. Oates was never one who was willing to play on the cheap and was never shy about complaining about $$$

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

ive said this before. what ive been told is that ted sets a budget that wont buy an experienced coach with a winning track record. believe that its another reason to tear down George if you want. its cheap and easy.

btw....how many former caps head coaches has he hired? two. right? of the two how many were patsies and coached them like they wanted to be coached...easy??

I've asked around since I've heard you say this a few times now with no substance to back it up. Name me a high priced coach GMGM wanted to bring in and Leonsis said no to. I don't believe there is one, nor that this self-imposed team coaching salary cap exists.

 

[Langway]

Two things on the possible backwards preference towards limiting management resources:

- Boudreau must have received seven figures on his second contract after getting the Jack Adams. Clearly there's some flexibility here, albeit maybe only with "their guys" once they're known quantities.
- If management resources are scarce then that's another reason to let McPhee go and get a cheaper, up-and-coming GM (as long as it's not Fishman and a clear cost-cutting move). Maybe that then allows them to spend on coaching instead.

Frankly, were I McPhee, I would lobby for greater management resources even if it meant spending less cap money. To skimp there in principle is pretty irresponsible.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

But lets look at your stance...

McPhee is allowed to spend to the cap ($60-70 mil)

McPhee is allowed to pay Nylander $5 mil for playing in Hershey/Grand Rapids or whatever.

McPhee is allowed to expand the scouting staff post lockout.

McPhee is NOT allowed to pay a coach $1-2 mil?? Doesn't make much sense.

I don't know about your sources but these guys beg to differ. Look at #9:

http://www.therichest.com/sports/hockey-sports/top-10-highest-paid-coaches-in-the-nhl-for-2013/

Makes sense. Oates was never one who was willing to play on the cheap and was never shy about complaining about $$$

HAH...awesome find.....9th highest paid coach.

 

[BobRouse]

HAH...awesome find.....9th highest paid coach.

Oates makes more than Roy who he himself makes in the range of 1.75-3mil according to this:

http://sportsgmtalk.wordpress.com/head-coach-and-manager-contracts/nhl-head-coach-contracts-salaries/

Makes complete sense. Oates has ALWAYS been money grubbing. Can't fault him for it but his past lends credence to the aforementioned reports.

 

[BrooklynCapsFan]

HAH...awesome find.....9th highest paid coach.

Fishman strikes again

 

[txpd]

Why would the budget for the coach be so restricted but the one for players only be so by the league-wide cap? It's like if Ted said McPhee could spend as much money as he wanted on the whole roster but the 4LW and only the 4LW could be paid no more than league minimum. Why the **** would he do that? It makes no sense.

That's the question. Answer it.

ok...I am wrong. next?

 

[g00n]

Budget restriction for the coach has not made sense since the firesale. GMGM's method all along has been to hire up and comers in order to preserve his authority in the organization. If a coach with a track record comes in and the team doesn't produce then what do people look at? The roster and the guy who created it. Simple as that.

And Ted goes along with it because he trusts GMGM and doesn't want to have to mess with the financial model that's been built since we lucked into Ovechkin and reluctantly fired Hanlon. GMGM keeps satisfying Ted's metrics and (I deduce) selling Ted on various long-term plans that involve the strong points of the new coach.

Plus there's the Redskins track record of failure in hiring big name coaches to point to locally. I'm sure that probably comes up in conversation since Ted is very aware of local star power, trends and markets.

 

[g00n]

I cant answer it. I don't know. anymore than I can answer my McPhee chooses rookie coaches or why Leonsis would sign off on that.

Ive seen general managers in my business micro managing product and staff. we have seen owners micro managing rosters and lineups and even plays. we've seen gm's micro manage.

Ive had several people that work in the league tell me that the caps don't have a budget to hire a high end coach and that the budget is leonsis. I have at least a little hearsay to go on here.

Anyone have even that to base the idea that McPhee hires rookie coaches because he wants to control a puppet?

The hearsay you have doesn't pass the smell test. It doesn't match what we see or the logic involved, and the link provided putting Oates in the top 10 in the league (while presuming BB was paid well, too) doesn't fit, either.

Saying Ted doesn't want to spend on a big NAME coach doesn't mean there isn't a potentially large budget. It could mean that he's been convinced by GMGM that it doesn't mean anything, again possibly looking at examples close to home such as the Redskins. The rumor you heard may have been slightly twisted for all we know.

edit: plus there is the Caps connection for Hanlon, BB, Hunter and Oates. Two were coaches in the system which fit the "rebuilding from within" model GMGM and Ted had in place, and the last two have connections as former Caps who were also involved in coaching elsewhere. It's still an insular system based on people GMGM has employed before in some way that allows GMGM to retain authority and deniability if it doesn't work out. It looks good on paper due to name recognition and upward trends in career arcs, which can be spun to outweigh the risks.

 

[BobRouse]

Budget restriction for the coach has not made sense since the firesale. GMGM's method all along has been to hire up and comers in order to preserve his authority in the organization. If a coach with a track record comes in and the team doesn't produce then what do people look at? The roster and the guy who created it. Simple as that.

And Ted goes along with it because he trusts GMGM and doesn't want to have to mess with the financial model that's been built since we lucked into Ovechkin and reluctantly fired Hanlon. GMGM keeps satisfying Ted's metrics and (I deduce) selling Ted on various long-term plans that involve the strong points of the new coach.

Plus there's the Redskins track record of failure in hiring big name coaches to point to locally. I'm sure that probably comes up in conversation since Ted is very aware of local star power, trends and markets.

+1 . Its very logical that it would work this way.

 

[Liberati0n*]

On the other hand, I've never really bought into the idea that McPhee needs to preserve his fragile authority either. This is a guy who tried to fight the entire Chicago Blackhawks locker room. I don't think he walks around in fear of his own powerlessness (as Oates does). The budget thing may be an explanation for earlier hires, pre-cap and pre-Ovechkin/success, and Boudreau was an interim coach first. Oates can be explained by the stupid familiarity with the organization crap and the fact that he's a pretty good snake oil salesman. Also note that Keenan was supposedly interviewed. If anything, McPhee wanting to preserve his authority wouldn't hire a passive aggressive control freak like Oates, having dealt with his antics previously.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

ok...I am wrong. next?

Quoted for first time posterity.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

Fishman strikes again

Our next GM according to one....

 

[g00n]

On the other hand, I've never really bought into the idea that McPhee needs to preserve his fragile authority either. This is a guy who tried to fight the entire Chicago Blackhawks locker room. I don't think he walks around in fear of his own powerlessness (as Oates does). The budget thing may be an explanation for earlier hires, pre-cap and pre-Ovechkin/success, and Boudreau was an interim coach first. Oates can be explained by the stupid familiarity with the organization crap and the fact that he's a pretty good snake oil salesman. Also note that Keenan was supposedly interviewed. If anything, McPhee wanting to preserve his authority wouldn't hire a passive aggressive control freak like Oates, having dealt with his antics previously.

Physical confrontation years ago has nothing to do with long-term strategies for preserving his job. GMGM is not called the "undertaker" simply because he's the guy that drops the hammer on players who are traded. He's called that because of his stoic, unemotional demeanor most of the time. His cold, calculating manner is in play here, not the fighting swagger he's since abandoned.

Oates is a rookie head coach who GMGM claimed had remarkable knowledge of the game and was an impressive interview. That's his excuse. He also claims he's pretty hands off once the coach is in place, which sets him up for comments about how he was surprised Hunter would be so defense-oriented.

tl;dr: losing your cool once doesn't prove you're secure or mean you spend the rest of your life and career looking to make things harder for yourself

 

[BobRouse]

On the other hand, I've never really bought into the idea that McPhee needs to preserve his fragile authority either. This is a guy who tried to fight the entire Chicago Blackhawks locker room. I don't think he walks around in fear of his own powerlessness (as Oates does). The budget thing may be an explanation for earlier hires, pre-cap and pre-Ovechkin/success, and Boudreau was an interim coach first. Oates can be explained by the stupid familiarity with the organization crap and the fact that he's a pretty good snake oil salesman. Also note that Keenan was supposedly interviewed. If anything, McPhee wanting to preserve his authority wouldn't hire a passive aggressive control freak like Oates, having dealt with his antics previously.

There was Ted Nolan interviewed too but neither he nor Keenan (IMO) were ever going to get hired. I suspect that was for show. Both those guys have usurped the power of their GM before too. Just for show.

Keenan would have been brutal. I read about the guy. Scotty Bowman wannabe who is literally insane. He's far more creepy than I ever imagined. Roenick is about the only guy who likes him (well Messier too I bet)

 

[Liberati0n*]

Physical confrontation years ago has nothing to do with long-term strategies for preserving his job. GMGM is not called the "undertaker" simply because he's the guy that drops the hammer on players who are traded. He's called that because of his stoic, unemotional demeanor most of the time. His cold, calculating manner is in play here, not the fighting swagger he's since abandoned.

Oates is a rookie head coach who GMGM claimed had remarkable knowledge of the game and was an impressive interview. That's his excuse. He also claims he's pretty hands off once the coach is in place, which sets him up for comments about how he was surprised Hunter would be so defense-oriented.

tl;dr: losing your cool once doesn't prove you're secure or mean you spend the rest of your life and career looking to make things harder for yourself

I didn't mean that one incident "proved" anything. It's just an iconic moment. I've seen McPhee talk a lot and so on, and I just don't see it. Oates is the guy who would embrace the **** out of that logic (and isn't it exactly what happened with Linden?). If it's just a "cold, calculated" strategy to preserve his job and not done out of emotional insecurity, then I think it's a terrible strategy. The best way to preserve your job as GM is to hire the best possible coaches. Even beyond the team success it facilitates, GMs aren't generally fired unless the coach is first or too, so having a known, stable presence there is to his advantage in this sense.

His public rationale for hiring Oates could be an excuse, or it could be basically the real reason(s). As I said, Oates is pretty good at selling his **** initially. He sold me and other fans on it decently. Not important, but that he's hands-off is a pretty established fact. Boudreau said as much earlier this year.

There was Ted Nolan interviewed too but neither he nor Keenan (IMO) were ever going to get hired. I suspect that was for show. Both those guys have usurped the power of their GM before too. Just for show.

For show to whom? The 10% of this board (which is maybe 1% of the fanbase or less) that knows about those interviews?

 

[g00n]

I didn't mean that one incident "proved" anything. It's just an iconic moment. I've seen McPhee talk a lot and so on, and I just don't see it. Oates is the guy who would embrace the **** out of that logic (and isn't it exactly what happened with Linden?). If it's just a "cold, calculated" strategy to preserve his job and not done out of emotional insecurity, then I think it's a terrible strategy. The best way to preserve your job as GM is to hire the best possible coaches. Even beyond the team success it facilitates, GMs aren't generally fired unless the coach is first or too, so having a known, stable presence there is to his advantage in this sense.

His public rationale for hiring Oates could be an excuse, or it could be basically the real reason(s). As I said, Oates is pretty good at selling his **** initially. He sold me and other fans on it decently. Not important, but that he's hands-off is a pretty established fact. Boudreau said as much earlier this year.

GMGM's tenure post-Jagr and firesale has been all about marketing Ovechkin and a few other stars and growing the business for Ted. Job #1 is preserving that asset and job #2 is winning a Cup. That means if you can cobble together rosters and coaching combinations that satisfy #1 while giving you a CHANCE at #2, you're good.

GMGM is not going to bring in any coach that comes from too far outside his already existing sphere of influence and risks #1 in the name of #2. What happens if a Keenan type is hired and he protests to GMGM that he can't work with the roster as given, and rocks the boat by either screwing with the team too much or benching stars and causing further trade demands? It's bad enough for guys like Erat, Neuvirth and Orlov but what happens if the "young guns" stage a revolt? Then what? It looks bad for GMGM and it presents a big risk to Job #1 given the contracts he's worked out and the attendance figures he's built (which, btw, are dropping compared to the last full season per ESPNs stats).

I know you probably realize all this and just disagree.

 

[Liberati0n*]

GMGM's tenure post-Jagr and firesale has been all about marketing Ovechkin and a few other stars and growing the business for Ted. Job #1 is preserving that asset and job #2 is winning a Cup. That means if you can cobble together rosters and coaching combinations that satisfy #1 while giving you a CHANCE at #2, you're good.

GMGM is not going to bring in any coach that comes from too far outside his already existing sphere of influence and risks #1 in the name of #2. What happens if a Keenan type is hired and he protests to GMGM that he can't work with the roster as given, and rocks the boat by either screwing with the team too much or benching stars and causing further trade demands? It's bad enough for guys like Erat, Neuvirth and Orlov but what happens if the "young guns" stage a revolt? Then what? It looks bad for GMGM and it presents a big risk to Job #1 given the contracts he's worked out and the attendance figures he's built (which, btw, are dropping compared to the last full season per ESPNs stats).

I know you probably realize all this and just disagree.

Yeah, I just don't see that scenario. An established coach is much more knowable in the sense you describe than a rookie one, especially one who has never even been a head coach. (And, arguably, Oates' dysfunctional tenure is a leading cause of those trade demands you cite.) In what you lay out, stability should be the top priority for him. An experienced, known coach provides that far better than an unproven, less predictable one. Keenan obviously wouldn't be stable, but I don't mean him (and if anything, if they were serious about considering him it would suggest more of a focus on your #2 than #1 at least by that time).

 

[BobRouse]

For show to whom? The 10% of this board (which is maybe 1% of the fanbase or less) that knows about those interviews?

Don't underestimate Ted's savvy when it comes to the internet! He's far more in tune with this medium than any other owner in sports.

He's gone as far as inviting message board posters to events where they discuss stuff with him and GMGM!

I'd say there was about a 0% chance of a Keenan hire! haha

 

[g00n]

Don't underestimate Ted's savvy when it comes to the internet! He's far more in tune with this medium than any other owner in sports.

He's gone as far as inviting message board posters to events where they discuss stuff with him and GMGM!

I'd say there was about a 0% chance of a Keenan hire! haha

I can think of two instances. The alleged BOD meeting and the dinner event. I heard about the first one and was invited to the 2nd but didn't go.