Quote from: Andy on Yesterday at 11:32:42 AM1. The person an employer is negotiating with for a contract extension suddenly questions if he wants the job an...
I do kind of have to cut you off there because that's where we kind of get into the stuff we don't actually know and has just been floated by various "insiders" who may or may not have agendas here. We don't know the specifics of what Dubas asked for money-wise or autonomy-wise and absent those specifics I'm not sure it's a super fertile ground for meaningful discussion outside of going back and forth on my positions that A) I don't give the slightest damn how much MLSE pays the guy they identified as the right guy to take the team forward and B) I, generally speaking, think the GM should have autonomy in making hockey decisions.
Quote from: Andy on Yesterday at 11:32:42 AM2. The context by which you used "good ol boy" characters the hiring, and Treliving, in a negative light. Other than the lack of an "exhaustive search" (and, I guess, the fact that Treliving's father isn't a loner with less effluent friends), I don't see what it is about Treliving's track record that makes him that much of a worse candidate than Dubas or a "musical chair" hiring, for that matter. Treliving has had exactly one stint in the GM position and was fairly successful (arguably no less successful than our outgoing GM, who, apparently, was also a musical chair hire, considering how quickly the Pens' process was done and him having the same amount of GM'ing experience as Treliving).
I mean, it strikes me as slightly disingenuous to suggest the Tanenbaum thing is about his wealth and not, you know, the fact that he owns the Maple Leafs which seems somewhat relevant to the discussion of whether this hire feels merit based or insider-y but sure, we can get deeper.
To start, I'm not sure that Treliving is a much worse candidate than Dubas for the job. Again, if the Leafs had said "We don't think Kyle's the guy we need to take the next step" after the season and just fired him, I'd have been ok with it. If I had to grade his tenure I'd give him a B or something. I'd still have preferred stability going into this off-season but the idea that he was the best of all possible candidates has never been my position. To not thoroughly search for either A) A bright young mind in the vein of Dubas or B) Someone with a proven track record of big success in the NHL but to instead come back with a guy without that track record and who the best thing you could say about him is "Well, he's not significantly worse than Dubas anyway" then does strike me as going with the worst of both worlds. Instability and no real reason to think the Leafs have made an upgrade.
Again, if the Leafs wanted to move on from Dubas because he was a B student and they think that the Leafs need someone who consistently turns in As then great! And if you go out and find a guy who either has some of that success on his resume or is Dubas 2.0 with better calculators ok but to come back with a guy who has 8 years on his resume where he absolutely conclusively did not show any elements of GM-savanting then I don't see how it's possible to not see this in a negative light.
Secondly, Regarding the Pens and their decision to hire Dubas I think it's important to note that I don't really care if Dubas is or isn't a good hire for them. I suppose if I had to play some sort of Devil's Advocate I'd say that Dubas had some pretty good press so far as being a very good hockey mind and that if the Leafs did decide to move on from him a smart organization would snap him up which both proved prophetic but also does distinguish it from the Treliving hire to some extent. Even if you think the talk about Dubas and his magic calculators was hype, at least you could say the Pens bought into the hype. You can't say that with Treliving whose name, when kicked about, was met with shrugs at best.
But beyond that I think Dubas does have a legitimate track record of doing the thing the Pens will need him to do in the next few years and that's to cultivate a team of young players into a team that consistently makes the playoffs. There is nothing comparable to Treliving. The Leafs are a talented team looking to get over the playoff hump and retain their best players. Does Treliving have a history of building teams that go on deep playoff runs? He doesn't. Does he have a bunch of "Oh wow, look at the deal he got that star to sign" contracts under his belt? Again, no unless one slips my mind(And it's probably worth mentioning that he couldn't get Gaudreau to re-sign). This strikes me as a pretty significant difference if you can credibly make a case that Dubas has broadly speaking done what the Penguins will want him to do when the best thing you can say about Treliving and what the Leafs will want him to do is "Well, he hasn't proven he can't do it either!".
Also I suppose I could mention that if you look at their second-to-last jobs then Dubas was perceived as running a pretty successful OHL team while Treliving helped run the Coyotes who are to success what Abraham Lincoln is to satisfied theatre goers but, you know, again, I don't care about the Penguins much.