Mike O'Connell is now both retarded and unemployed
Back in December, when Joe Thornton was traded to the San Jose Sharks, I expressed my opinion that Mike O’Connell is of low intelligence. That opinion hasn’t changed much in 3 ½ months. So I was hardly shocked when it was announced he was canned.
This is a firing that should’ve come long ago, based on the way he’s mismanaged this organization, but the timing doesn’t make much sense to me.
While I understand why the L.A. Kings would fire Andy Murray (the logic because the rejuvenation involved in a new coach coming in might breathe some life into the team and get them back in a playoff spot), I don’t get the rationale behind firing O’Connell now.
When they traded Thornton, they pretty much gave O’Connell a vote of confidence for the season, I assumed. A GM cannot trade a franchise player without the blessing of the owner, and so you know Jeremy Jacobs was on board. If they’re going to trade Thornton, then it seems to me like they’ve chosen a side.
Now, by the time O’Connell was fired, it was obvious the season was a failure. He had to go. But now? Seems strange.
And if they were going to fire him, why did they allow O'Connell to sign Tim Thomas to a new contract eight days ago. The signing made zero sense to me then (a three year deal for a 31-year-old who's played well for less than 30 games?), but now that M.O.C. has been canned, it looks even dumber. Unless the decision to fire O'Connell was made in the last week, and if so, the organization is even more fucked than I thought.
The talk amongst Bruins’ fans has now gone from “fire that asshole!” to “who replaces him?”, and I must say, I wonder if some of you B’s fans have any sense at all. You want to replace him with Ray Bourque or Cam Neely? Really?
The Bruins need a qualified, experienced guy to guide them out of the mess that’s become of the franchise, not a name who, though warm and fuzzy on paper, would be in over his head on day one.
It’s one thing when Wayne Gretzky decided to coach the Phoenix Coyotes without a single game of bench experience. The ‘Yotes needed something to fill the seats, and it certainly wasn’t going to be their mediocre hockey team. Gretzky, a minority owner, knew it was a good PR move. Are things so bad in Boston now that they need a GM to fill the building?
And by the way, if you are determined to give the gig to a guy based on his name recognition, wouldn’t Bobby Orr make a whole lot more sense than Neely or Bourque? At least, as an agent, he has some experience with contracts, the CBA, etc. The transition from agent to GM has had both good results (Pierre Lacroix) and some not so great (Mike Barnett), but I have to think it's smoother than the transition from retired player with zero experience to general manager.
Ultimately, though, it doesn’t matter who replaces O’Connell. As long as Harry Sinden and more importantly Mr. Jacobs are still involved, they’ll continue their rapid descent into the permanent cellar of the NHL.
For a franchise with such a rich history, and who, once upon a time, had one of the most respected reputations in the league, it’s genuinely sad to see what they’ve become.
This is a firing that should’ve come long ago, based on the way he’s mismanaged this organization, but the timing doesn’t make much sense to me.
While I understand why the L.A. Kings would fire Andy Murray (the logic because the rejuvenation involved in a new coach coming in might breathe some life into the team and get them back in a playoff spot), I don’t get the rationale behind firing O’Connell now.
When they traded Thornton, they pretty much gave O’Connell a vote of confidence for the season, I assumed. A GM cannot trade a franchise player without the blessing of the owner, and so you know Jeremy Jacobs was on board. If they’re going to trade Thornton, then it seems to me like they’ve chosen a side.
Now, by the time O’Connell was fired, it was obvious the season was a failure. He had to go. But now? Seems strange.
And if they were going to fire him, why did they allow O'Connell to sign Tim Thomas to a new contract eight days ago. The signing made zero sense to me then (a three year deal for a 31-year-old who's played well for less than 30 games?), but now that M.O.C. has been canned, it looks even dumber. Unless the decision to fire O'Connell was made in the last week, and if so, the organization is even more fucked than I thought.
The talk amongst Bruins’ fans has now gone from “fire that asshole!” to “who replaces him?”, and I must say, I wonder if some of you B’s fans have any sense at all. You want to replace him with Ray Bourque or Cam Neely? Really?
The Bruins need a qualified, experienced guy to guide them out of the mess that’s become of the franchise, not a name who, though warm and fuzzy on paper, would be in over his head on day one.
It’s one thing when Wayne Gretzky decided to coach the Phoenix Coyotes without a single game of bench experience. The ‘Yotes needed something to fill the seats, and it certainly wasn’t going to be their mediocre hockey team. Gretzky, a minority owner, knew it was a good PR move. Are things so bad in Boston now that they need a GM to fill the building?
And by the way, if you are determined to give the gig to a guy based on his name recognition, wouldn’t Bobby Orr make a whole lot more sense than Neely or Bourque? At least, as an agent, he has some experience with contracts, the CBA, etc. The transition from agent to GM has had both good results (Pierre Lacroix) and some not so great (Mike Barnett), but I have to think it's smoother than the transition from retired player with zero experience to general manager.
Ultimately, though, it doesn’t matter who replaces O’Connell. As long as Harry Sinden and more importantly Mr. Jacobs are still involved, they’ll continue their rapid descent into the permanent cellar of the NHL.
For a franchise with such a rich history, and who, once upon a time, had one of the most respected reputations in the league, it’s genuinely sad to see what they’ve become.
posted by denisgrebeshkovfans at 1:00 PM
0 comments
