Don Brennan hit the nail on the head over at the Sun blog. Here's the post:
Riddle me this, Batman
Something about the whole Roy Mlakar contract extension thing just doesn't seem right.
Mostly, it's the handling of the announcement.
The Senators waited until 10:13 p.m. (by my blackberry) to inform the media that their CEO and president was going to keep his job for at least one more year. Now, you have to know the deal was agreed upon well before that. Maybe hours, maybe days, maybe even weeks.
Yet they held off on the news until just after a Thursday night game against Florida? When the newspapers would have room only for a short blurb, at best? When the TV and radio guys were also more focused on a slump-busting win in February?
Mlakar is supposed to be a major "player" in the organization. He's certainly not allergic to the spotlight. What an opportunity for the team to hold him high, to boast about the good job Mlakar and his staff have done in filling Scotiabank Place again this season.
They could have held a press conference after the morning skate, in the middle of the afternoon or even at 5:30 p.m., which would be just in time for it to make the evening news and guarantee better play in the papers.
And yet they handle his story with about as much fanfare given the demotion of Josh Hennessy to Binghamton.
Doesn't make sense. Or does it?
Most who follow the team on a regular basis have assumed this season was Mlakar's swan song. The thinking is he lost hand when John Muckler lost his power struggle with Bryan Murray. If Mlakar couldn't save his buddy's job, then he surely must not have the same clout as he once possessed, right? And what about his rosy relationship with Eugene Melnyk? Had it soured?
True or false, that's been the speculation, and the fact Mlakar has not been as visible around the rink to the media had only added fuel to the assumption he was on his way out.
Then, also curious is the fact that his extension is for only one year. A press conference, and more coverage, would have made a bigger issue out of that.
Why just one year? Why announce the length of the deal in the first place? They aren't telling us how much Mlakar will be paid, are they? Why not just say, as teams usually do, that terms of the agreement would not be released?
It just all seems kind of fishy. Like the fewer questions they have to field about the status of this prominent player, the better.
Posts
