Who will get the C in Ottawa?

rooneypoo wrote:

Cap'n Clutch wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:This is tricky business, this dealing with a leadership & team in a veteran-to-youth transitional stage, as we're seeing in SJ.

Phillips and Neil have been good soldiers and are good leaders, but they are not the future (or even the present, really) of this team. If you could erase/forget everything else and just focus on the play on the ice last year, you'd probably have to divvy up the 2 As and C between Karlsson, Turris, and MacArthur. But that's a tough move to make. But if you give it to Phillips, it sends a weird message about no culture change ('more of the same') and doesn't acknowledge the clear movement toward youth ('more of the old guard'). And it also looks like he's just a placeholder.

Lots of potential for hurt feelings here. The optics of what SJ is doing right now are bad, largely because it sounds like they didn't talk to Thornton or Marleau about this, but it also is a powerful statement about breaking with the past and seeing who steps up to lead.

It will take some savvy management of people, feelings, expectations, etc., to hit the right note with all this, inside the dressing room and with the larger public.

Doesn't this contradict the give it to Philips coment you just made?

I should have prefaced that last post with a 'you know what, I've changed my mind on this.' I have. Phillips, done.

Flo The Action wrote:..... If Karlsson us really ready he'll really stand out.

SeawaySensFan wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:

Cap'n Clutch wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:This is tricky business, this dealing with a leadership & team in a veteran-to-youth transitional stage, as we're seeing in SJ.

Phillips and Neil have been good soldiers and are good leaders, but they are not the future (or even the present, really) of this team. If you could erase/forget everything else and just focus on the play on the ice last year, you'd probably have to divvy up the 2 As and C between Karlsson, Turris, and MacArthur. But that's a tough move to make. But if you give it to Phillips, it sends a weird message about no culture change ('more of the same') and doesn't acknowledge the clear movement toward youth ('more of the old guard'). And it also looks like he's just a placeholder.

Lots of potential for hurt feelings here. The optics of what SJ is doing right now are bad, largely because it sounds like they didn't talk to Thornton or Marleau about this, but it also is a powerful statement about breaking with the past and seeing who steps up to lead.

It will take some savvy management of people, feelings, expectations, etc., to hit the right note with all this, inside the dressing room and with the larger public.

Doesn't this contradict the give it to Philips coment you just made?

I should have prefaced that last post with a 'you know what, I've changed my mind on this.' I have. Phillips, done.

Everybody agrees with me sooner or later.

NEELY wrote:Spezza was still the right call at the time, you had to see what was going to happen.

rooneypoo wrote:

SeawaySensFan wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:

Cap'n Clutch wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:This is tricky business, this dealing with a leadership & team in a veteran-to-youth transitional stage, as we're seeing in SJ.

Phillips and Neil have been good soldiers and are good leaders, but they are not the future (or even the present, really) of this team. If you could erase/forget everything else and just focus on the play on the ice last year, you'd probably have to divvy up the 2 As and C between Karlsson, Turris, and MacArthur. But that's a tough move to make. But if you give it to Phillips, it sends a weird message about no culture change ('more of the same') and doesn't acknowledge the clear movement toward youth ('more of the old guard'). And it also looks like he's just a placeholder.

Lots of potential for hurt feelings here. The optics of what SJ is doing right now are bad, largely because it sounds like they didn't talk to Thornton or Marleau about this, but it also is a powerful statement about breaking with the past and seeing who steps up to lead.

It will take some savvy management of people, feelings, expectations, etc., to hit the right note with all this, inside the dressing room and with the larger public.

Doesn't this contradict the give it to Philips coment you just made?

I should have prefaced that last post with a 'you know what, I've changed my mind on this.' I have. Phillips, done.

Everybody agrees with me sooner or later.

You remember that I was the guy saying, when Alfie was still here, that Phillips and not Spezza should be the next capt of this team, right?

NEELY wrote:Wrong reasons or not I still don't think there was much of a call at all there.  Had to do it and I am glad they did, he was completely exposed for what he truly is.

SeawaySensFan wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:

SeawaySensFan wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:

Cap'n Clutch wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:This is tricky business, this dealing with a leadership & team in a veteran-to-youth transitional stage, as we're seeing in SJ.

Phillips and Neil have been good soldiers and are good leaders, but they are not the future (or even the present, really) of this team. If you could erase/forget everything else and just focus on the play on the ice last year, you'd probably have to divvy up the 2 As and C between Karlsson, Turris, and MacArthur. But that's a tough move to make. But if you give it to Phillips, it sends a weird message about no culture change ('more of the same') and doesn't acknowledge the clear movement toward youth ('more of the old guard'). And it also looks like he's just a placeholder.

Lots of potential for hurt feelings here. The optics of what SJ is doing right now are bad, largely because it sounds like they didn't talk to Thornton or Marleau about this, but it also is a powerful statement about breaking with the past and seeing who steps up to lead.

It will take some savvy management of people, feelings, expectations, etc., to hit the right note with all this, inside the dressing room and with the larger public.

Doesn't this contradict the give it to Philips coment you just made?

I should have prefaced that last post with a 'you know what, I've changed my mind on this.' I have. Phillips, done.

Everybody agrees with me sooner or later.

You remember that I was the guy saying, when Alfie was still here, that Phillips and not Spezza should be the next capt of this team, right?

I do because it was some time after I had said it and I remember thinking "Finally, somebody agrees with me."

rooneypoo wrote:

NEELY wrote:Wrong reasons or not I still don't think there was much of a call at all there.  Had to do it and I am glad they did, he was completely exposed for what he truly is.

That is true, LOL.  

SpezDispenser wrote:I think so as well.  The team had to look at that and shake their collective heads.  Now it's time to play as a TEAM again.

Flo The Action wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:I think so as well.  The team had to look at that and shake their collective heads.  Now it's time to play as a TEAM again.

yes but it really does make me wonder why Bm stated he wanted to keep spezza and sign him to an extension.

I've come to the conclusion that BM made those comments and knew they were empty. he didn't want to leave a spezza looking empty and by saying he wanted to keep him tried to keep his trade value as high as possible. i can only reason that deep down in the GM's office there were no contracts offered to spezza and they agreed on a story to stick by. that story has benefited both parties if only being a bit of a head scratcher for some fans. hockey politics.

now let this team find their own captain. let them play with only A's. i do not see how that could hurt the team. in one of the most intense hockey market in montreal it had no bad repercussions. they should try it here.

rooneypoo wrote:

Flo The Action wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:I think so as well.  The team had to look at that and shake their collective heads.  Now it's time to play as a TEAM again.

yes but it really does make me wonder why Bm stated he wanted to keep spezza and sign him to an extension.

I've come to the conclusion that BM made those comments and knew they were empty. he didn't want to leave a spezza looking empty and by saying he wanted to keep him tried to keep his trade value as high as possible. i can only reason that deep down in the GM's office there were no contracts offered to spezza and they agreed on a story to stick by. that story has benefited both parties if only being a bit of a head scratcher for some fans. hockey politics.

now let this team find their own captain. let them play with only A's. i do not see how that could hurt the team. in one of the most intense hockey market in montreal it had no bad repercussions. they should try it here.

I dunno. From everything he's ever said, BM always seems to have had a blind eye to Spezza's more apparent failings. If there were ever a time to express your frustration that Spezza could never live up to his potential and/or his talk, I would think it would be on the day you trade him. But who knows.

SpezDispenser wrote:I'm not sure why Murray said that.  There's almost no scenario where the Sens could offer him a 5-7 year contract at 7 million plus per.  It doesn't make sense at all.  If it was true, I bet Murray offered him a contract at 5.5 a year or less.