Is Seattle to quick to fire coaches? Dan only got 1 season. Hakstol gets fired a year after winning a playoff series! Why so much impatience??

19 comments

  3. Hakstol had 3 years. That wasn’t too hasty to let him go. But he did fall on his sword for a failure of the front office as a whole. Bylsma was absolutely not the problem and all the players seemed to really like playing for him. 1 year is stupid fast to blame him. Ron Francis threw him to the wolves to hide from the fact that HE is the problem at the moment. The poop cherry on top is the fact he got a promotion out of it all. Thats the most unreal part

  4. The kraken are quick to fire coaches for the same reason they’re not committing* to a direction, rebuild or not. The suits seem perpetually more concerned with jerking each other off and glazing each other in the press than they do with fixing this team. Firing Danny after only 1 showing is downright shitty of ron and the boys

  6. It’s definitely a move that could age poorly. A home run hire could help, but anything that feels questionable is just going to make this linger for a long time, like until consistent performance or Francis is canned. I get more annoyed the further we get from it happening.

  7. The team stopped showing effort and the locker room got toxic at the end of Hakstol’s last season. They no longer responded to his attempts to motivate them (remember that practice when he chewed them out at center ice?). I stand by that firing.

    I would not have minded giving Bylsma another season. But when you bring in a new GM (even an internal promotion), they are typically given the chance to hire their own staff.

    Beyond that, Bylsma and his staff were unable to show forward progress on fixing the power play or defensive lapses that plagued us throughout the season. In fact, those issues seemed to get worse over the course of the season, even as the team played somewhat better after the trade deadline. They were also not successful at making in game, or opponent-specific adjustments.

    I don’t like that Bylsma only lasted a year, but I think there are valid reasons for his dismissal.

  8. Elliotte Friedman reported that Francis didn’t want to hire Bylsma in the first place, but preferred Todd McClellan.

    I don’t agree that this is a great move, but it’s more of a bad sign of a possibly dysfunctional organization.

    That said, there are only 10 current NHL coaches who have had two or more full seasons, including 24-25. In a hard cap league, changing the coach is an easy move to make when perception is that the team underperformed. I don’t think the Kraken underperformed. After 4 seasons, they still don’t have any top-line talent. That’s on the GM.

  10. Seattle thinks they should have the same success as Vegas, ignoring the circumstances and team decisions that lead to both teams current success or lack thereof.

    Sports fans have 0 clue what they are talking about. Many management teams of sports teams are also just as clueless. It takes a lot to make a championship team. I don’t think Seattle has invested in what it really takes to win. Feels like more of an investment opportunity given the pageantry they put on but refuse to get star players to want to sign here.

  12. It’s not their fault the team drafted rather poorly😅 i still can’t believe they skipped on tarasenko

  13. My opinion? They are fixated on replicating what Vegas did and refuse to undergo the trajectory of a normal professional sports expansion team

  15. I think we’re quickly learning that Kraken upper management is the real problem here.

  16. My gut tells me that ownership/executives and the hockey decision makers haven’t been on the same page

    Ron seems to have a vision for this team, and Botterill seems to share that vision. But based on what we’ve heard about Hakstol not being the original choice, and Dan not being Ron’s choice – it kind of feels like there was a difference in the executives vision and what Ron’s vision has been, especially since the 22-23 season

    Ron has always maintained that the best way to build a team is through the draft and developing young talent – but a lot of the moves we’ve made over the last few season would run counter to that. I don’t want to absolve Ron of blame here, because he hasn’t made great moves, but that does tell me (combined with the coach issues) that there has either been meddling from the executives/ownership, or just too many cooks in the kitchen

    The firing of Dan and promotion of Botterill should at least give us the early inclination that they are on the same page now – but we won’t really know until we see the moves that are made. Jason said a lot of the things that Ron had said, so will ownership allow him to make moves in that direction?

    Now, as for the promotion of Ron – people first have to understand what Ron is to this team. He isn’t just their first GM. Ron was one of the key figures responsible for even getting the team to Seattle in the first place. The ownership trusts him because of that; he’s been involved in more than just building the team

    His new role as President isn’t as big on the team direction side as GM, and I don’t think it’s a demotion by promotion. I think it’s more he will have significant responsibilities outside of just player evaluation. He is the head of all hockey operations now

    That “should” be a good sign because it would hopefully mean that ownership is all in on his and Jason’s vision for how the hockey side of the team should be run

    But honestly – all of this is conjecture because they haven’t given us any real answers yet

  17. As others have said, Dan wasn’t Ron’s choice but the brass wanted him. Seems like it was an “okay we’ll see how he does after one season and if it doesn’t work out we can go your (Ron’s) way”.

    If this team doesn’t improve in the future, Ron’s next to go. Can’t just keep switching coaches and hope for the best.

  18. I think there’s not enough data to say. By reports and evidence, Hakstol had lost at least some of the room. And Bylsma was slow to make adjustments, which even Eddie Olcyk, who is pretty damn loyal and doesn’t make waves, called out a couple of times on the broadcast in frustration. I don’t think he was our biggest problem, but he wasn’t the solution. Better to make a change now when there are a ton of coaches available.

  19. 2 coaches in 4 years isn’t unusual.

    Hak got 3 years and failed to be anything special.

    Bylsma was always a confusing hire, so no real loss there – even Cochella isn’t missing him.

    All but the most successful coaches don’t stick around long, so in all likelihood, we’ll see another coaching change 2-3 years from now as well.

Leave a Reply