- Jul 4, 2014
- 7,871
- 8,209
I get what you're saying, but sometimes the boss has to save his direct reports from making a catastrophic error that can negatively impact an entire organization. The relationship between the GM and the agent has been contentious for some time and there are reliable accounts out there that the relationship between the GM and the player is not great. Here is where I disagree with letting this continue on the normal path:If Pietrangelo tried that then I would hope that Stillman shuts it down immediately. Encourage him to contact Armstrong directly, not through his agent, and have a discussion. Otherwise, Stillman should simply be saying this is what we pay Doug Armstrong for.
The extend of the involvement of ownership should be telling Armstrong what the organisation is comfortable with in terms of signing bonuses, and (if it's okay) then they should be offered if they need to be offered.
Ownership shouldn't undermine the GM and the GM shouldn't undermine the coach. Start going down that road and it rarely ends well.
1. There is (or should be) less concern about damaging the reporting hierarchy simply because even if a contract extension is worked out, there is no need for Petro and Army to have to be able to work together again unless it involved waiving a NTC or a legacy contract 8 years down the road.
2. If I am Stillman and I am responsible for the entire organization, I want to make sure that how I evaluate the people who work for me isn't being clouded by what they are telling me. In the normal business world, this would be considered a "skip level" meeting to make sure that blind spots aren't being created by the chain of command. I had to let someone go earlier this year because I found out they had been lying to me for months - and I found this out by talking to his direct reports and hearing things for myself. In the context of this situation, I think Stillman owes it to himself and his partners to hear Petro's side of the story straight from Petro.
Again, I'm not suggesting that Stillman push DA out of the way and finish the negotiations for Army. Healthy organizations don't do those sorts of things. But Stillman has to be confident that he is getting the whole story from Army as to what the player is asking for and that Army understands what is expected of him (what he can and can't offer in the form of signing bonus and NMCs in this rare exception) in negotiations with his most valuable asset before that asset is lost for good and for nothing. Maybe all of that has already happened and the line being drawn in the sand by Army is with the full knowledge and support of Stillman. If so, that's fine - it's his team. But an owner should do his due diligence to make sure that all parties understand his intentions and his limits before something this important blows up in somebody's face.