Really? Shanny didn't want to fire Dubas. He had to. If a GM on an expired contract publicly says he's not sure he wants to be the GM. The owners will say ok done. Looking to blame Shanahan here is BS.
- winsix
A whole bunch of Leaf fans have suddenly turned vicious and believe Shanny's narrative a little too much.
What Shanny didn't like was that he told the truth to the media which was that it had been a hard and draining year and he would consult with his family on any decisions going forward. He had already said the same thing to Shanny - which by his own admission, he agreed with.
Two days later - TWO days - Shanny was informed that things were settled with the family and they were good to proceed.
Now there are a variety of reports here from what Dubas countered with in the initial offer, but accounts are that he wanted more money and less restrictions. This part is actually negotiating the deal. The first part was him having been presented with an offer and him saying, "Let me talk it over with my family." Shanahan can simply say here, "I like the original framework better," and leave it up to Dubas to accept it or walk away.
A GM in this case on an expired deal is no different than player on an expired deal. You talk framework, present the framework for a deal, hammer out the details (that where the negotiation is) and then write up and sign the official legal contract.
Regardless of that, the day following the counter, with no conversation or negotiation, Shanahan fired Dubas.
Flip this to that idea that you approach a free agent, talk framework, present him with the outline of a deal, and he says 'let me talk it over with my wife,' and two days later he is happy to join the organization but wants more term or money and instead of countering or explaining the reasons for the finances in the framework, your response is, 'We're going in another direction'. The player and his agent are less likely to consider you a reliable business partner in the future.
Now if Shanny made the decision that Dubas wasn't the guy, certainly you're right - he had to fire him to proceed with a GM search. He hadn't though when he presented him with the framework for the contract.
The new guy, whoever it is, has a ton - A TON - of damage to undo in terms of people left with a feeling of broken faith and promises by the Shanahan led portion of MLSE. And my true concern here is that the best employees are people who are working together for one another who believe in what they're doing. When doubt creeps in and when people aren't moving in the same direction problems are going to arise.
He has every right to do what he did, but the way he did it has inflicted a lot of damage that we haven't even seen yet.