I am done with Hartsburg... he is dead to me.

If Torts had been hired as coach, I would have paid real money for a picture of the look on Martin Gerber's face.

dennycrane wrote:If Torts had been hired as coach, I would have paid real money for a picture of the look on Martin Gerber's face.

Or any goalie for that matter. Gerber would have packed up and headed back to Switzerland pretty quick though. :lol!:

Our esteemed colleague Hemlock is correct in bringing up Mr Tortorella's Stanley Cup, which I duly gave Torts credit for. Mr T had a talent-laden Cup team.

But after that, he managed less well, with less talent. For example, though Marc Denis should have been more than adequate, Tortorella could not make it work with him. He could not adjust his system to compensate for the changes in the talent at his disposal.

Hence my point. Why would you hire Tortorella to coach a Sens team with issues, most specifically in goal?

If Melnyk and Murray hired Hartsburg and not Tortorella, it is logically because they felt Hartsburg's fundamentals and system were more suited to an Ottawa team that was and is going through a transition and rebuilding.

Tortorella is not necessarily that kind of coach. He has some special qualities as a motivator. Would he have done a better job of handling Spezza and Heatley? There are good arguments for that.

IMHO a more lucid view of the Ottawa coaching situation is that very few candidates were prepared to take on what is a truly complex and, as we have seen, often thankless, challenge with the problematic Senators.

There are other 'new' coaches, who like Hartsburg, are finding the ride more than rough.

Look at John Anderson in Atlanta, who has endured enormous frustration in his first year. The Thrashers have as many/few points as the Senators.

Scott Gordon is another excellent coach hampered by a serious lack of personnel in Long Island.

My point is there are no 'bad' coaches in the NHL, and neither are there 'magically endowed' coaches who single handedly turn bad teams into good ones.
:pirat:

davetherave wrote:Our esteemed colleague Hemlock is correct in bringing up Mr Tortorella's Stanley Cup, which I duly gave Torts credit for. Mr T had a talent-laden Cup team.

But after that, he managed less well, with less talent. For example, though Marc Denis should have been more than adequate, Tortorella could not make it work with him. He could not adjust his system to compensate for the changes in the talent at his disposal.

Hence my point. Why would you hire Tortorella to coach a Sens team with issues, most specifically in goal?

If Melnyk and Murray hired Hartsburg and not Tortorella, it is logically because they felt Hartsburg's fundamentals and system were more suited to an Ottawa team that was and is going through a transition and rebuilding.

Tortorella is not necessarily that kind of coach. He has some special qualities as a motivator. Would he have done a better job of handling Spezza and Heatley? There are good arguments for that.

IMHO a more lucid view of the Ottawa coaching situation is that very few candidates were prepared to take on what is a truly complex and, as we have seen, often thankless, challenge with the problematic Senators.

There are other 'new' coaches, who like Hartsburg, are finding the ride more than rough.

Look at John Anderson in Atlanta, who has endured enormous frustration in his first year. The Thrashers have as many/few points as the Senators.

Scott Gordon is another excellent coach hampered by a serious lack of personnel in Long Island.

My point is there are no 'bad' coaches in the NHL, and neither are there 'magically endowed' coaches who single handedly turn bad teams into good ones.
:pirat:

The problem is that we'll never know what might have been. For the sake of argument, had Tortorella been brought in and was able to properly motivate this group, we might have seen improved play from everyone and perhaps breakout years from some young players as well. Had all that happened then the argument could be - Well he just got handed the keys to a Cadilac and all he has to do is stay on the road.

cash wrote:I definitely don't see him being re-signed. If you think he will be, then there are definite parts of his game that you aren't catching. So long as the other 5 "regulars" - Smith, Phillips, Volchenkov, Lee, and Picard - are still with this team, there won't be a spot for Bell.

I see the flaws in his game but at 500K per year and what he was brought here to bring, he is fine. He has played within himself for the most part and for the amount of games he has actually played, aside from Picard, he is on pace to score more than any other D man we have.

Bell at 500K on the 2nd PP unit of most teams isnt a bad situation. He isnt any worse than Picard, Lee, Schubert or Smith at this point.