HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Los Angeles Kings
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Manchester Monarchs coaching staff fired

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-11-2005, 10:31 AM
  #1
monarchs0102
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Manchester, NH
Country: United States
Posts: 81
vCash: 500
Manchester Monarchs coaching staff fired

Who do you think would make a good coach for the Manchester Monarchs when soon to be fired Bruce Boudreau is Gone?

monarchs0102 is offline  
Old
06-11-2005, 11:25 AM
  #2
Albi
Registered User
 
Albi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Lavena - Italy
Country: Italy
Posts: 4,627
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Albi
Quote:
Originally Posted by monarchs0102
Who do you think would make a good coach for the Manchester Monarchs when soon to be fired Bruce Boudreau is Gone?
Soon to be fired?

Albi is offline  
Old
06-11-2005, 11:33 AM
  #3
Chartrand
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Country: Bahrain
Posts: 2,209
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Albi
Soon to be fired?
Obviously a little premature speculation, but hopefully accurate.

Chartrand is offline  
Old
06-11-2005, 11:52 AM
  #4
Old Hickory
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by monarchs0102
Who do you think would make a good coach for the Manchester Monarchs when soon to be fired Bruce Boudreau is Gone?
Unless you can provide proof he is going to be fired, I will have to close this thread.

 
Old
06-11-2005, 12:40 PM
  #5
monarchs0102
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Manchester, NH
Country: United States
Posts: 81
vCash: 500
Will be fired within the week!!!!

monarchs0102 is offline  
Old
06-11-2005, 01:06 PM
  #6
David A. Rainer
Registered User
 
David A. Rainer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Huntington Beach
Country: Italy
Posts: 7,293
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to David A. Rainer
I would say you need to change this thread into if the coach needs to be fired and why. The current title of the thread is too mis-leading.

__________________
Saxon Sports Information and Research
David A. Rainer is offline  
Old
06-11-2005, 01:16 PM
  #7
Chartrand
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Country: Bahrain
Posts: 2,209
vCash: 500
Good call.

"Should there" and "will there" are certainly two different questions.

On one hand, Boudreau seems to do a respectable job preparing the prospects for playing in the big league, which is what would probably keep him here.

On the other hand, for whatever reason, he is...simply put...a miserable failure in the postseason, whether it's his fault, the players', or Gilmore's/Murray's/Taylor's, etc.

Chartrand is offline  
Old
06-11-2005, 04:19 PM
  #8
monarchs0102
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Manchester, NH
Country: United States
Posts: 81
vCash: 500
Why was my post changed????

Isn't there such a thing as FREE SPEECH?

monarchs0102 is offline  
Old
06-11-2005, 04:26 PM
  #9
jfont
Registered User
 
jfont's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Country: United States
Posts: 15,392
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by monarchs0102
Isn't there such a thing as FREE SPEECH?
this is a private forum...mods can do whatever necessary...btw, it wasn't me that edited your post.

__________________
Due to budget cuts, the light at the end of the tunnel will be turned off
jfont is offline  
Old
06-11-2005, 04:33 PM
  #10
King Blazer
Registered User
 
King Blazer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 6,420
vCash: 500
I think that for the past 4-years Boudreau has done a good job with the team. The Kings have basically sucked for as long as they've been affiliated with Manchester. Boudreau had a little talent to work with last season and a little more this year. They did a great job in the regular season and choked in the playoffs once again. Hauser had the best numbers for the goalies the last two years and was pushed aside two years in a row for Hnilicka and Garon. Garon faded down the stretch and was really no more than an average goaltender for the second half of the season. Lehoux went down about mid way through the season and they wait until just before the playoffs to sign veteran scoring sensation David friggin Hymovitz???? (read recycle ex King prospect dive by the Kings yet again) The Hymovitz signing came weeks after Gilmore was adamant about how the organization had all sorts of faith in the team to get it done...GILMORE, DT and the rest BLEW IT when they pinned their hopes on Matt Ryan to fill in for Lehoux....IT FAILED MISERABLY!!! They needed to add at the deadline and used the excuse of not wanting to take playing time away from "their players"...Well lah-tee-dah Gilmore. Your PLAYERS might have seen MORE playing time if you added a GOOD-OFFENSIVE center and a GOOD DEFENSEMAN as many of us suggested to you in person, in emails to you and others and expressed to HUBIE at the STH forum that you BLEW OFF!!!

The folks in L.A. need to take a look in the mirror....If they try to pin the playoff crap on Boudreau, it will be about as transparent as it gets...


Last edited by King Blazer: 06-11-2005 at 04:42 PM.
King Blazer is offline  
Old
06-11-2005, 04:39 PM
  #11
Reaper45
Registered User
 
Reaper45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: South Bay
Country: United States
Posts: 30,858
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Reaper45
I agree KB, it all comes down to the fact that we didn't do a damn thing when the injuries started happening. I wouldn't put the blame on Boudreau.

Reaper45 is offline  
Old
06-11-2005, 05:04 PM
  #12
David A. Rainer
Registered User
 
David A. Rainer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Huntington Beach
Country: Italy
Posts: 7,293
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to David A. Rainer
Quote:
Originally Posted by monarchs0102
Isn't there such a thing as FREE SPEECH?
Private forum, follow the guidelines.

David A. Rainer is offline  
Old
06-11-2005, 10:45 PM
  #13
danaluvsthekings
Registered User
 
danaluvsthekings's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 4,162
vCash: 500
Question. If the Kings were going to fire Boudreau as Monarchs coach, why would they wait about a month and a half after the team was eliminated to do it? If they thought now, a month and a half later, that his performance in the playoffs was bad enough to be fired, why wouldn't they have thought that right after they were eliminated? It's not like anything has changed between the end of the 1st round and now that would make Dave Taylor and Kevin Gilmore say "hey, you know what, we should fire Boudreau".

danaluvsthekings is offline  
Old
06-11-2005, 11:01 PM
  #14
dafranchz
Registered User
 
dafranchz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 3,301
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by danaluvsthekings
Question. If the Kings were going to fire Boudreau as Monarchs coach, why would they wait about a month and a half after the team was eliminated to do it? If they thought now, a month and a half later, that his performance in the playoffs was bad enough to be fired, why wouldn't they have thought that right after they were eliminated? It's not like anything has changed between the end of the 1st round and now that would make Dave Taylor and Kevin Gilmore say "hey, you know what, we should fire Boudreau".

Which is why I believe this is nothing but nonsense. Based on what he has done with the team on-ice and upstairs, it wouldn't warrant a firing. Unless there is something going on behind the scenes, such as different philosiphies and approach or so on, then I could see it happening.

The Kings have two great writers here at HF, who also happen to be very dialed into the organization and the system. As well, there are a lot of passionate great fans like King Blazer who take great interest in both the Kings and the Narchs. If they are balking at it then....I would take a bet to Vegas Bruce isn't going anywhere. That is unless monarchs0102 cares to share more.


Last edited by dafranchz: 06-11-2005 at 11:50 PM.
dafranchz is offline  
Old
06-12-2005, 01:06 AM
  #15
GoneFullHextall
Fire Berube
 
GoneFullHextall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somewhere in NH
Country: United States
Posts: 32,506
vCash: 50
I believe Boudreau SHOULD and will be let go as coach. IMO he has not done enough to warrant being brought back. The things that we have seen from the Monarchs late in the season and in the playoffs are a direct result of poor coaching. his teams are never prepared for the full grind of a regular season and in the playoffs. But as KB pointed out it is not just out it isnt just him.
Everyone knows what this team needed as the deadline for locking up rosters and who did they get? a career minor leaguerer who was toiling in the UHL and we all know what happened dont we. The Monarchs almost let a season long lead in the division slip away and needed a 1 goal win in Worcester to win the division.
Then the playoffs opened at home against a team most of us really thought they could handle. The team was not ready to play and was not prepared to play in the series and got smoked in 6 games.
Someone has to take the fall Boudreau should be the guy.

GoneFullHextall is offline  
Old
06-12-2005, 01:53 AM
  #16
dafranchz
Registered User
 
dafranchz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 3,301
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClarkeMustGoDotCom
I believe Boudreau SHOULD and will be let go as coach. IMO he has not done enough to warrant being brought back. The things that we have seen from the Monarchs late in the season and in the playoffs are a direct result of poor coaching. his teams are never prepared for the full grind of a regular season and in the playoffs. But as KB pointed out it is not just out it isnt just him.

Everyone knows what this team needed as the deadline for locking up rosters and who did they get? a career minor leaguerer who was toiling in the UHL and we all know what happened dont we. The Monarchs almost let a season long lead in the division slip away and needed a 1 goal win in Worcester to win the division.

Then the playoffs opened at home against a team most of us really thought they could handle. The team was not ready to play and was not prepared to play in the series and got smoked in 6 games.

Someone has to take the fall Boudreau should be the guy.
I don't. If that was the case....then AM would have been let along time ago. Though at times the Kings have not helped themselves at some critical points on all levels...I strongly feel that DT has a bigger plan working. With that in mind...I think that they are inching closer to a bigger result. As far as letting Bruce go because of the playoffs would be unjustifiable and only hurt and delay his plan.

dafranchz is offline  
Old
06-12-2005, 05:20 AM
  #17
Beauty, eh?
Not sure if serious.
 
Beauty, eh?'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Southern California
Country: United States
Posts: 5,367
vCash: 500
Boudreau isn't going anywhere outside of the Kings organization anytime soon. When he does leave the Monarchs, it will be because he has been brought up to be an assistant with the Kings.

Beauty, eh? is offline  
Old
06-12-2005, 11:05 AM
  #18
King Blazer
Registered User
 
King Blazer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 6,420
vCash: 500
Gleason played injured throughout the playoffs after missing game one. Boudreau said Gleason basically refused to be held out with his injury…
Nolan suffered a concussion during game four and was out from there on…
The Nolan and Gleason injuries meant Milam played in 3-games…Replacing two; bigger, physical, defensive defensemen with a smaller, soft, offensive defenseman is not a recipe for success…

They should have added a bigger defensive d-man as many of us suggested. I thought Borzecki should have been brought back to Manchester at the very least and especially when they did nothing at the deadline…

Giuliano returned from injury and re-injured his ankle only played in two games and one of those was the game he re-injured himself…
I don’t believe Clarke was 100%…
Welch plays in one game (three) and is then sent to Reading????
All of the injuries to forwards translate to:

Hymovitz plays in 4-games
Connor James plays in 3-games
Ryan Murphy plays in 2-games

Kinasewich and Miles played 29 and 28 regular season games respectively and come playoff time are dispatched to Reading to make way for Connor James and Ryan Murphy and David Hymovitz??? Out of the three (James, Hymovitz and Murphy) at the time of the switch, only James was really an upgrade and they gave-up a lot of size up front to include James…Why? Because James and Murphy are Kings prospects, Miles and Kinasewich aren’t. Like it or not, that’s what this organization is all about, getting their prospects playing time even if it means an early exit from the playoffs.

There were many injuries, questionable moves, the non-move when Lehoux went down and no moves at the deadline that had an impact on the team down the stretch and during the playoffs. I really don’t see where Boudreau factored into the injuries, or in the moves and non-moves. It was Gilmore that was singing the praises of the players they had on the team at the deadline and it was Gilmore leading the “adding would only mean we’d have to take playing time away from one of our prospects” company line. Which, by the way, was bunk when you looked down the roster at all the injuries and the revolving door of players added by then released from PTOs the second half and down the stretch. IMO, the ORGANIZATION failed miserably in evaluating the talent they had in Manchester (especially post-Lehoux), didn’t factor injuries in (if any organization should count on injuries happening, it’s the Kings. Did they not learn a thing from the past two NHL seasons???), made the wrong moves when injuries did happen (see replacing Gleason and/or Nolan with Milam as an example).

Honestly, when I look at the transactions and non-transactions, the Kings held to their philosophy of development of their prospects comes first and winning is secondary in Manchester. I was sort-of surprised that Boudreau had the cahonies to actually admit that to the fans through the media. Maybe that raised some eyebrows in L.A.???? Comments like "The first mandate here is to develop the players and winning is second", are probably not the best way to retain your STH base and MIGHT be viewed as a placing BLAME elsewhere???? Basically, Boudreau saying, “I’m following the mandate"???

In the end, I think there were several factors that lead to the early exit of the Monarchs from the playoffs this season. Maybe I’m being naïve, But I really don’t see that Boudreau had a lot to do with those factors.

I think it’s time for the folks from L.A. to stay in L.A. come playoff time in Manchester. We’ve seen what happens when the L.A. group shows-up and “takes over” during the playoffs. What message does this send to the players? When I read things like game roster decisions and starting goaltenders are a collaborative effort between Taylor, Murray, Gilmore, Boudreau et al, I just can’t help but think it’s got to be confusing to the players. Maybe it’s nothing. OR, maybe they should just try staying in L.A. and let things happen. I really think the L.A. folks meddling during the playoffs is a negative…

BTW, I’m thinking about changing my screen name to “GilmoreMustGoDotCom”

Link to Boudreau’s comments: http://www.newhampshire.com/monarchs...s.cfm?id=54143

There’s a bit about his contract renewal in this article as well…

King Blazer is offline  
Old
06-12-2005, 12:43 PM
  #19
David A. Rainer
Registered User
 
David A. Rainer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Huntington Beach
Country: Italy
Posts: 7,293
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to David A. Rainer
While I can empathize with your feelings, KB, I still think the organization as a whole is much stronger when it concentrates on the development of its prospects first and foremost. While I would expect gaining the playoff experience of getting deep into the playoffs would be extremely beneficial, apparently the organization is not willing to sacrifice playing time for all their prospects to do so. That's their call (while the majority of us might disagree with it).

Your being a fan of the Monarchs first and foremost, I can understand your feelings of not caring who's on the ice as long as it is the best team out there and gives the Monarchs the best chance of winning. I would hate if the roles were reversed, and the Kings were in a developmental league, and there was an organization tinkering with their line-up to develop prospects above winning in the playoffs. But as long as Manchester is the developmental team for the organization, it is pretty much going to be developing prospects first and winning second (I would hope the two go hand-in-hand, but apparently the Kings have a different idea, right or wrong).

Anyone who knows me, knows that I am a HUGE fan of minor league baseball. Been going to Rancho Cucamonga Quake games for years. So much so that my family decided to get season box seats for RC. Now the situation I am about to describe is not one in which organizational prospects were chosen over non-organization prospects to the perceived detriment of the team (as all players playing on an organization's developmental team in baseball are all prospects of the organization), but it is a situation where developmental considerations outweigh plain winning in the playoffs for that particular team. Every year, just as the minor league playoffs are about to begin, player rosters get shifted around as September call-ups to the major league roster mean that there is a shift up at every level of certain prospects. So every year, just as RC is preparing for the playoffs, they lose their best players to the organizational philosophy of developing first and foremost and end up losing in the playoffs. I remember not two years ago RC had one of (if not the best team) in High A ball with McPherson, Kotchman, Mathis, Santana, Shell, Woods, the list goes on. Days before the playoffs began, they lost nearly all of them to shifts upward in the organizational roster. Over night, they went from being one of the best teams to a team that nearly got swept in the first round of the playoffs.

It sucks, but you have to know and expect that to happen each and every year. The real question, from a fans standpoint (at least for me when it comes to minor league baseball), is, irrespective of the players they have out there, are those players giving 100% effort. If they are, irrespective of winning or losing, that is all I can ask for. Manchester, like RC, is a developmental team and will be prioritized as such. It sucks from a fans standpoint, but that's the way it is basically going to be. If, hypothetically, the Kings were producing prospects that keep them in the playoffs EVERY single year and which results in Manchester at rock bottom of the standings each year, I think the organization would likely overwhelmingly take it.

Sorry so long.

David A. Rainer is offline  
Old
06-12-2005, 02:07 PM
  #20
King Blazer
Registered User
 
King Blazer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 6,420
vCash: 500
Dave, just so we're clear, I'm really pretty much ok with how things have been going in Manchester. I know what the Monarchs role is and what the organization's mandate is. Sure it would be nice to get through the first round of the playoffs, but as you and the Kings have stated, that's really not what the team is about. So, having said that, my point was that IF someone is going to be let go because of poor performance in the playoffs, wouldn't that really be contradictory to the mandate/philosophy of the organization? And IF they were going to let someone go doesn't the General Manager for the Monarchs bear some of the responsibility for failing to act when the team needed an infusion of healthy players that aren't recycled former Kings prospects or kids just out of college?

My point, and I probably should have been clearer is I agree that development should be the priority in Manchester. HOWEVER, when Gilmore and company keep trotting out not taking away development time from Kings prospects as a reason for not making a move, WHEN, IN FACT, due to injuries (Barney out all season; Hogeboom and Flinn both pretty much missed the entire season; Lehoux was out for a little more than half the season; Clarke & Kanko were out for about 20-games each; Kostopoulos out for 16-games; it goes on and on)...From where I'm sitting, a couple of upper level players could have been brought into the mix without sacrificing any Prospects development time significantly...So I don't buy into the taking time away from their prospects line in this case. I think it is a good philosophy, but I think it was used an an excuse for either not being able to get a deal done or not even trying to...I'd be more understanding if they came out and said it wasn't in the budget to acquire players!!!

To let Boudreau go over the team's playoff performance would be ludicrous and that's exactly why I have a concern that it could happen...

King Blazer is offline  
Old
06-12-2005, 03:28 PM
  #21
David A. Rainer
Registered User
 
David A. Rainer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Huntington Beach
Country: Italy
Posts: 7,293
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to David A. Rainer
Quote:
Originally Posted by King Blazer
I'd be more understanding if they came out and said it wasn't in the budget to acquire players!!!
I think there is a lot of truth in this. But no organization is going to come out and say that (as much as sometimes we would just like to hear the truth and be done with it). I don't think it is budget constraints so much as it is budget waste. Had the Kings been struggling for playoff survival when all the injuries hit, you might have seen some moves. But as they were safely in a playoff spot, I think the organization felt that they had a safe enough lead to not make any moves during the regular season, ride out the injuries, and add more prospects as they become available (Murphy, Petiot if they got to round 2, etc). The feeling is, why acquire additional players when, come playoff time, some of the injured players will be back as well as new players coming from the college/juniors ranks. I think they felt it would have been a waste of money when they had some reinforcements of their own coming in anyway. Of course, results tell the story and this belief obviously backfired, but at the time I think they believed that there would be plenty of talent to draw from without making a move.

Quote:
Originally Posted by King Blazer
To let Boudreau go over the team's playoff performance would be ludicrous and that's exactly why I have a concern that it could happen...
I think you're right. He can't control the injuries and he can only do with what he has available to him. If the organization felt he did all he could with what he had, I would expect that they keep him. But if the organization felt that he should have done better with what was available to him, they should ask the question of whether he is at least developing the prospects given him. I think the answer is yes to both, but only DT's answer matters.

David A. Rainer is offline  
Old
06-12-2005, 04:40 PM
  #22
Chartrand
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Country: Bahrain
Posts: 2,209
vCash: 500
To be fair, even if you excuse Boudreau for this season's playoff failings due to Gilmore's non-moves, that does not excuse him for the prior two seasons of failure.

First season, the Monarchs weren't an overwhelmingly talented team and they gave a better Hartford team a challenge in the playoffs...nothing to fault there.

Second season, the Monarchs host a weaker team, Bridgeport, in a short series. Manchester loses a close game at home, gets blown out in the Verizon in game two, then is swept out of the playoffs in the third game down in Connecticut.

Strike one.

Third season, Monarchs host a weaker team, Worcester, in a seven game series. Manchester loses both home games to start the series, ties the series up in Worcester, then blows the remaining two games for the second playoff upset in a row.

Strike two.

Which brings us to this season. Even without Lehoux, Manchester still had the talent to atleast hang with Providence ( but perhaps not the grit ). Third playoff upset in a row.

Hartford is letting go of their coach, who did more with less than what Boudreau had. Losing in the first round four seasons in a row, three of those with home ice, will get 90 percent of coaches fired. If Boudreau returns, he'll be one of the lucky ones.

Ignoring this, there isn't a whole lot of evidence that would point to letting him go, but there is much less evidence that would point to why he should return. Injuries were certainly a problem, but let's not pretend that "Gabby" was trying to patch up the roster each weekend with ECHL talent. Half a Monarchs team was still a pretty good squad.

Obviously, though, it could be far worse. Atleast they're making the playoffs. By 2010 they might have acquired enough postseason experience to simulate two or three rounds of NHL playoffs.

As far as Gilmore goes, is it safe to assume he's out of the running for the Ducks' GM?

Chartrand is offline  
Old
06-12-2005, 04:54 PM
  #23
King Blazer
Registered User
 
King Blazer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 6,420
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by David A. Rainer
But if the organization felt that he should have done better with what was available to him, they should ask the question of whether he is at least developing the prospects given him.
If the organization feels that he should have done better with what was available to him, they should all be subjected to manditory drug testing...

Most of us that follow the team closely, picked-up on the notion that they beat the teams that finished out of the playoffs and were about .500 against playoff caliber teams. Basically they won the games they were expected to and split the others. This was the trend throughout the season. Just after my wife and I got out of our car in Bridgeport for the Dec. 10th game, a Bridgeport fan came by and asked something like your guys are like 20 and 2, are they really that good? I responded, no they've played some weaker teams and they're benifiting from a light early schedule...Yes there was a lot of "holy crap this team is incredible" type stuff going on early and yes, it was easy to get caught-up in all the hype, I did for a while...When firing on all cylinders, it was a slightly better than average team. As the season wore on (from Dec. 10th) and the schedule got tougher, it was obvious to many of us that the team had holes in it and wasn't going to go far in the playoffs. Now, the question becomes, if it was obvious to us, why wasn't it obvious to management? My theory is that they are "too close" to it to be objective. Maybe more pragmatism (realistim, something like that) would help?

King Blazer is offline  
Old
06-12-2005, 05:01 PM
  #24
David A. Rainer
Registered User
 
David A. Rainer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Huntington Beach
Country: Italy
Posts: 7,293
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to David A. Rainer
Quote:
Originally Posted by King Blazer
If the organization feels that he should have done better with what was available to him, they should all be subjected to manditory drug testing...
Lol! Right or wrong, it's their call to make. They'll have their reasoning either way.

David A. Rainer is offline  
Old
06-12-2005, 05:19 PM
  #25
King Blazer
Registered User
 
King Blazer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 6,420
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AHL MV
To be fair, even if you excuse Boudreau for this season's playoff failings due to Gilmore's non-moves, that does not excuse him for the prior two seasons of failure.
I keep coming back to choice of goaltenders in the past two playoff seasons. Hauser had the better numbers both years and was pushed aside for Hnilicka then Garon.

If my memory serves me correctly, Hnikicka lost the first two games then Hauser won the next two to even the series. Maybe Boudreau made the wrong choice with Hnilicka, maybe it wasn't his choice at all...

Garon was the "logical" choice given the Kings plans for him...

Now, there is another "constant" in all of this, the Kings coaches, DT and Gilmore always show-up around playoff time and from what we can gather from the media, "meddle" with things. Why? Because they haven't been able to put a team together that qualifyed for the playoffs at the NHL level recently for whatever reason and injuries are certainly a factor. I find it somewhat strange that the organization talks about messing with team chemistry (Gilmore this season when defending the non-moves in the UL for example) yet they dispatched a Kings assistant coach at the end of the regular season to do video analysis, which I think is a great tool by the way, but why wait until just before the playoffs to do it? It's not like the guy had a whole lot of coaching going on at the NHL level. IMO, all of this is disruptive to routine and I would like them to try to stay away for one playoff year. Let the head coach, the guy who has been with the players every day, coach. Let him make the calls, set the rosters and see where it goes. It can't be any worse than in the past.


Quote:
Originally Posted by AHL MV
As far as Gilmore goes, is it safe to assume he's out of the running for the Ducks' GM?
Unfortunately, it's probably a safe assumption...

King Blazer is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:20 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.