Home
Publications
O.k. Well, let me first preface this by saying I am not trying to induce yet another Sens thread on bad coaching or to bash Murray or past management people in any capacity, but having just had a conversation with a few colleagues, it got me thinking and thus I thought I would post this thought here and see if anyone agrees or does not.
We all can agree that Murray did not have the best luck in picking coaches for this club (hindsight and all), but thus far into Clouston's tenure, it seems like he could be a perfect fit, but we'll see how continues to fare before officially judging that. However, while NO ONE could have foreseen the sudden and drastic change in this club once Hartsburg was shown the door, as a few friends pointed out, it nonetheless could beg the question of whether Murray waited too long before making said move?
Now, I would have answered almost a resouding yes, but that also takes into account their stellar play of late that could have led to a legitimate playoff push had the move happened sooner, but again, no one knew how the Sens would react, let alone to this degree. So, what do you think? Should Murray have done this at the 30 game mark? or even sooner?
I will say this, having watched an interesting interview with Murray by Gord Wilson, Wilson did ask Murray his sentiments on letting Hartsburg go, and besides all the PR and niceties which are the norm, he did mention something that stuck with me. Murray was saying that it's never easy to let someone go, let alone someone you vouched for and recruited, so to speak, but when you consider that you become entrenched like a family and they become a blood brethren of sorts, it's that much harder. Bryan went on to say that when you consider that you get to know him as an individual more in depth, and can put faces to the names of his spouse, his children, his family and friends, then whether hockey is a business or not, it's still stings to have to look at that 'friend' of sorts with dissapointment and inform them that their services are no longer needed.
Either way, I'm curious to see how the resident Sens fans feel, as we have shared a multitude of opinions regarding Murray's capabilities as GM and such and his coaching issues so should this be added to his woes, or did he do just fine?
We all can agree that Murray did not have the best luck in picking coaches for this club (hindsight and all), but thus far into Clouston's tenure, it seems like he could be a perfect fit, but we'll see how continues to fare before officially judging that. However, while NO ONE could have foreseen the sudden and drastic change in this club once Hartsburg was shown the door, as a few friends pointed out, it nonetheless could beg the question of whether Murray waited too long before making said move?
Now, I would have answered almost a resouding yes, but that also takes into account their stellar play of late that could have led to a legitimate playoff push had the move happened sooner, but again, no one knew how the Sens would react, let alone to this degree. So, what do you think? Should Murray have done this at the 30 game mark? or even sooner?
I will say this, having watched an interesting interview with Murray by Gord Wilson, Wilson did ask Murray his sentiments on letting Hartsburg go, and besides all the PR and niceties which are the norm, he did mention something that stuck with me. Murray was saying that it's never easy to let someone go, let alone someone you vouched for and recruited, so to speak, but when you consider that you become entrenched like a family and they become a blood brethren of sorts, it's that much harder. Bryan went on to say that when you consider that you get to know him as an individual more in depth, and can put faces to the names of his spouse, his children, his family and friends, then whether hockey is a business or not, it's still stings to have to look at that 'friend' of sorts with dissapointment and inform them that their services are no longer needed.
Either way, I'm curious to see how the resident Sens fans feel, as we have shared a multitude of opinions regarding Murray's capabilities as GM and such and his coaching issues so should this be added to his woes, or did he do just fine?
