PASabreFan, on 15 June 2014 - 08:35 AM, said:
Who's on the roster in the fall isn't a hockey decision? Managing the cap isn't a hockey decision? I'm afraid this time there's no bridging our differences.
Maybe I'm punishing Terry for not being the fantasy owner that existed only in my head in the days leading up to "Pegula Day." But he, not I, actually said things like, "If I want to make more money, I'll drill…" "I don't want to come into town and raise ticket prices" and "there's no salary cap on scouting and player development" etc.
To be sitting here three years (or four years, or four seasons, or 36 dog years) later and hearing that the GM has to have multiple meetings with the owner to decide whether to get rid of this piece of hockey scum, would have been unfathomable to all of us on the day the lord delivered us our Hockey Saviour.
First, to echo Weave's statement, speak for yourself.
However, while I obviously don't agree with most of your continued narrative, I have always felt you make some valid points. If TP was forcing TM to have continuous meetings to convince him what he wanted to do, that would be a problem. What is likely happening though, is that multiple meetings consist of two. There was probably an end of year meeting where TM laid out his vision for the off season and a second meeting upcoming where he will inform TP of his decision so that the owner of the company doesn't have to read it in the papers or hear it on the radio. I hate analogies but wouldn't any upper management person want to inform the CEO of any major budgetary decisions before said CEO heard it elsewhere?
Forty years ago when owning a sports team was mostly a passionate hobby for some old money family, your vision may have made sense. Today, however, sports is a billion dollar industry where keeping the owner informed is important for job security.