Pat Quinn as Sens' Coach?

davetherave wrote:Interesting how the thread has become a debate over whether Clouston should become the 09/10 coach, as opposed to if he will become the 09/10 coach.

I think we all agree he has shown he can do a good job as Sens' interim bench boss.

My question was if the politics of the situation might preclude him from getting the job as Melnyk might want a high-profile guy like Quinn.

Hence my suggestion Quinn might be offered the HC gig and Clouston the assistant or 'associate' title.

As for guessing what Bryan Murray will do, he's survived in the hockey business this long, by being a shrewd politician and choosing his words carefully.

Whatever he decides to do, he'll have a well constructed explanation.

I would suggest we consider then, that this is the same guy who hired Craig Hartsburg on a three year deal and a mandate for change, only to fire him two thirds of the way into the season--with a reasonable explanation in hand.

Bryan Murray will do what he thinks works for him.

To be fair, wasn't there a rumour about Murray wanting Peter Deboer as his first choice, and Melnyk balked after meeting him in the Barbados due to the money demands ?

I'm sure someone can confirm/deny this.

RobbyJ wrote:

davetherave wrote:Interesting how the thread has become a debate over whether Clouston should become the 09/10 coach, as opposed to if he will become the 09/10 coach.

I think we all agree he has shown he can do a good job as Sens' interim bench boss.

My question was if the politics of the situation might preclude him from getting the job as Melnyk might want a high-profile guy like Quinn.

Hence my suggestion Quinn might be offered the HC gig and Clouston the assistant or 'associate' title.

As for guessing what Bryan Murray will do, he's survived in the hockey business this long, by being a shrewd politician and choosing his words carefully.

Whatever he decides to do, he'll have a well constructed explanation.

I would suggest we consider then, that this is the same guy who hired Craig Hartsburg on a three year deal and a mandate for change, only to fire him two thirds of the way into the season--with a reasonable explanation in hand.

Bryan Murray will do what he thinks works for him.

To be fair, wasn't there a rumour about Murray wanting Peter Deboer as his first choice, and Melnyk balked after meeting him in the Barbados due to the money demands ?

I'm sure someone can confirm/deny this.

Whether it was Murray or Melnyk wanted DeBoer is the part of the story I haven't heard...my understanding was that money was not the only issue.

MurderOnIce wrote:Hartsburg was remarkably unsuccessful. In Murray's defense I think he held on as long as he could. If Hartsburg was behind the bench another day, we would have a new coach and GM today. There was no explanation required, we all saw the results and pressured the team for change. None of that suggests he would push aside a successful young coach he hired at the whim of ownership.

MOI, don't you remember how Bryan Murray proclaimed that Hartsburg was the 'right' coach for the team? Here's what he said at the time:

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/HomeMainStories/2008/06/14/5877936-sun.html

"It appeared to me that one guy thrived on the scrutiny, thrived on the pressure and one guy wanted the opportunity to be in Ottawa," said Murray. "Whether we agree or not, there's a little more interest in hockey than there are in some markets. With the fan support comes the need to be successful.

"This franchise has been very successful and we want to continue that trend. I just felt after talking to the last couple of candidates, Craig's history in the game (as a player) and coach along with the (experience of coaching Canada at the world juniors). I felt with him going through that pressure cooker and the fact he wanted this job badly, he was the right person and the kind of person we want here. We wanted a guy that wants to be here and wants the opportunity to lead this team to where we want to be."

You don't think Bryan Murray knew what Hartsburg's challenges were? You don't think Murray didn't know the team had issues?

He picked Hartsburg. He is responsible--to a degree--for Hartsburg's failure (inasmuch as Hartsburg was the architect of his own demise). But you'll never hear him say that.

Make no mistake about it, Bryan Murray says what he thinks he should say to support his position. That's what survival in the executive suite is all about.

And Bryan Murray, is above all, a survivor.

I have often found it educational to look carefully at when he uses "I" and when he uses "we"; similarly, watch for "he" and "they". I doubt he switches between them carelessly.

He also has had a subtle way of switching between a collegial tone and a slightly more formal tone as the tension is mounting and he is getting closer to firing the coach.

Acrobat wrote:I have often found it educational to look carefully at when he uses "I" and when he uses "we"; similarly, watch for "he" and "they". I doubt he switches between them carelessly.

He also has had a subtle way of switching between a collegial tone and a slightly more formal tone as the tension is mounting and he is getting closer to firing the coach.

Bryan Murray is an acrobat

Now you're learning.

Ever go to law school?
Or watch other high-level executives when under extreme pressure?
Very interesting study in human behaviour and boundaries. Also in responsibility.

Bryan Murray is actually quite a gentleman compared to some; at least he keeps to his word.

Edit: smilies aren't always coming through when I post from this computer...apologies to anyone who took the first sentence above in anything other than a lighthearted way.

Acrobat wrote:Now you're learning.

Ever go to law school?
Or watch other high-level executives when under extreme pressure?
Very interesting study in human behaviour and boundaries. Also in responsibility.

Bryan Murray is actually quite a gentleman compared to some; at least he keeps to his word.

Edit: smilies aren't always coming through when I post from this computer...apologies to anyone who took the first sentence above in anything other than a lighthearted way.

Never too late to learn

Actually--to answer your question--I have worked for many years with top level execs and CEOs of multinationals...I know first hand how they parse their words in public. Those words have an elasticity which is extraordinary.

So 'keeping your word' is equally elastic.

Bryan Murray (along with the head honchos at Senators Sports) is responsible for a sports team worth several hundred million dollars. Business comes first, and he'll do what he thinks is right for the business.

That explains the way you are able to dissect issues so precisely, and word your posts so well.

I'll bet you have hundreds, if not thousands, of anecdotes that would be hilarious as well as disturbing - if only you were at liberty to share them...
(spoken from experience)

Acrobat wrote:That explains the way you are able to dissect issues so precisely, and word your posts so well.

I'll bet you have hundreds, if not thousands, of anecdotes that would be hilarious as well as disturbing - if only you were at liberty to share them...
(spoken from experience)

Discretion is key, my friend... 8)

Were truer words ever spoken?

Discretion is key, my friend... 8)

Cronie wrote:Were truer words ever spoken?

discretion is the word people use when not enough has been offered to make that person speak, that being said, what's your price DTR? lol kidding.

SensFan71 wrote:

Discretion is key, my friend... 8)

Cronie wrote:Were truer words ever spoken?

discretion is the word people use when not enough has been offered to make that person speak, that being said, what's your price DTR? lol kidding.

When I retire and write my memoirs LOL

davetherave wrote:

SensFan71 wrote:

Discretion is key, my friend... 8)

Cronie wrote:Were truer words ever spoken?

discretion is the word people use when not enough has been offered to make that person speak, that being said, what's your price DTR? lol kidding.

When I retire and write my memoirs LOL

ah dang, well if you sign my copy of your memoirs, then all will be forgiven

done deal

davetherave wrote:

MurderOnIce wrote:Hartsburg was remarkably unsuccessful. In Murray's defense I think he held on as long as he could. If Hartsburg was behind the bench another day, we would have a new coach and GM today. There was no explanation required, we all saw the results and pressured the team for change. None of that suggests he would push aside a successful young coach he hired at the whim of ownership.

MOI, don't you remember how Bryan Murray proclaimed that Hartsburg was the 'right' coach for the team? Here's what he said at the time:

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/HomeMainStories/2008/06/14/5877936-sun.html

"It appeared to me that one guy thrived on the scrutiny, thrived on the pressure and one guy wanted the opportunity to be in Ottawa," said Murray. "Whether we agree or not, there's a little more interest in hockey than there are in some markets. With the fan support comes the need to be successful.

"This franchise has been very successful and we want to continue that trend. I just felt after talking to the last couple of candidates, Craig's history in the game (as a player) and coach along with the (experience of coaching Canada at the world juniors). I felt with him going through that pressure cooker and the fact he wanted this job badly, he was the right person and the kind of person we want here. We wanted a guy that wants to be here and wants the opportunity to lead this team to where we want to be."

You don't think Bryan Murray knew what Hartsburg's challenges were? You don't think Murray didn't know the team had issues?

He picked Hartsburg. He is responsible--to a degree--for Hartsburg's failure (inasmuch as Hartsburg was the architect of his own demise). But you'll never hear him say that.

Make no mistake about it, Bryan Murray says what he thinks he should say to support his position. That's what survival in the executive suite is all about.

And Bryan Murray, is above all, a survivor.

At the end of the day the selection of coach hangs on him. I will tell you something though, I have hired many people in my day and have made mistakes. The interview process is always flawed and you get what read you can in a brief period. You meet someone a few times and then you choose, you rely on intuition and what you can get from their history.

Hartsburg said all the right things and had a resume including recent world junior gold medal. He was on paper and perhaps in the interview a good hire. He had a defensive system (we were horrible defensively at the time) and he PREACHED accountability. Turns out the only system he had was the one and it could not adapt. He didn't hold players accountable and he couldn't adjust the coaching style he used with eager juniors to match an indifferent professional club.

If you like history read the reviews of every pundit about the hire... I remember no real negative ones. It seemed fairly safe. Hartsburg was not good plain and simple and did not live up to the talk he displayed in the interview. Anyone who has hired people runs into the same thing. You think you have the perfect fit, comes well recommended and doesn't turn out for whatever reason. So I don't blame Murray in the least and don't think that he sacrificed Hartsburg to save himself. Hartsburg was going no matter who was the GM. Christ, I am sure his mother would have fired him after the crappy job he did.

At the end of the day Murray is a sly fox for sure and ask Jimmy Fox whether or not he is a tough customer. But I don't think he was disloyal or dishonest. He didn't speak out of both sides of his mouth. He said he was the right guy at the start (everyone thought he was (I was a Tortarella guy from day one though read my posts from back then but who knows for sure if that would have worked either?)). He didn't work out and he HAD to be fired. There was no hope of him turning this around. What do you think Murray should have done? I can't see a better way to handle this. I am confident that he was professional throughout.

MurderOnIce wrote:[At the end of the day the selection of coach hangs on him. I will tell you something though, I have hired many people in my day and have made mistakes. The interview process is always flawed and you get what read you can in a brief period. You meet someone a few times and then you choose, you rely on intuition and what you can get from their history.

Hartsburg said all the right things and had a resume including recent world junior gold medal. He was on paper and perhaps in the interview a good hire. He had a defensive system (we were horrible defensively at the time) and he PREACHED accountability. Turns out the only system he had was the one and it could not adapt. He didn't hold players accountable and he couldn't adjust the coaching style he used with eager juniors to match an indifferent professional club.

If you like history read the reviews of every pundit about the hire... I remember no real negative ones. It seemed fairly safe. Hartsburg was not good plain and simple and did not live up to the talk he displayed in the interview. Anyone who has hired people runs into the same thing. You think you have the perfect fit, comes well recommended and doesn't turn out for whatever reason. So I don't blame Murray in the least and don't think that he sacrificed Hartsburg to save himself. Hartsburg was going no matter who was the GM. Christ, I am sure his mother would have fired him after the crappy job he did.

At the end of the day Murray is a sly fox for sure and ask Jimmy Fox whether or not he is a tough customer. But I don't think he was disloyal or dishonest. He didn't speak out of both sides of his mouth. He said he was the right guy at the start (everyone thought he was (I was a Tortarella guy from day one though read my posts from back then but who knows for sure if that would have worked either?)). He didn't work out and he HAD to be fired. There was no hope of him turning this around. What do you think Murray should have done? I can't see a better way to handle this. I am confident that he was professional throughout.

MOI, just for the record, I never believed Hartsburg was the right choice for this team. IMHO Bryan Murray said 'all the right things' that justified his hiring of Hartsburg, and said 'all the right things' when he fired Hartsburg.

It's not a question of being honest or dishonest...it's just the politics of the hockey business.

Agreed?

SensFan71 wrote:

Discretion is key, my friend... 8)

Cronie wrote:Were truer words ever spoken?

discretion is the word people use when not enough has been offered to make that person speak, that being said, what's your price DTR? lol kidding.

I believe that Trump once stated that his business plan included the notion that "even the Pope has his price".

:KJK:

davetherave wrote:

MurderOnIce wrote:[At the end of the day the selection of coach hangs on him. I will tell you something though, I have hired many people in my day and have made mistakes. The interview process is always flawed and you get what read you can in a brief period. You meet someone a few times and then you choose, you rely on intuition and what you can get from their history.

Hartsburg said all the right things and had a resume including recent world junior gold medal. He was on paper and perhaps in the interview a good hire. He had a defensive system (we were horrible defensively at the time) and he PREACHED accountability. Turns out the only system he had was the one and it could not adapt. He didn't hold players accountable and he couldn't adjust the coaching style he used with eager juniors to match an indifferent professional club.

If you like history read the reviews of every pundit about the hire... I remember no real negative ones. It seemed fairly safe. Hartsburg was not good plain and simple and did not live up to the talk he displayed in the interview. Anyone who has hired people runs into the same thing. You think you have the perfect fit, comes well recommended and doesn't turn out for whatever reason. So I don't blame Murray in the least and don't think that he sacrificed Hartsburg to save himself. Hartsburg was going no matter who was the GM. Christ, I am sure his mother would have fired him after the crappy job he did.

At the end of the day Murray is a sly fox for sure and ask Jimmy Fox whether or not he is a tough customer. But I don't think he was disloyal or dishonest. He didn't speak out of both sides of his mouth. He said he was the right guy at the start (everyone thought he was (I was a Tortarella guy from day one though read my posts from back then but who knows for sure if that would have worked either?)). He didn't work out and he HAD to be fired. There was no hope of him turning this around. What do you think Murray should have done? I can't see a better way to handle this. I am confident that he was professional throughout.

MOI, just for the record, I never believed Hartsburg was the right choice for this team. IMHO Bryan Murray said 'all the right things' that justified his hiring of Hartsburg, and said 'all the right things' when he fired Hartsburg.

It's not a question of being honest or dishonest...it's just the politics of the hockey business.

Agreed?

Have we just gone full circle here?