Like i said - before last week, in your eyes, there was no power in this organization other than Pete's. Which from the jump made no sense because if John and Pete were so at odds, and Pete had total authority, he could have had him removed, or as was stated by Pete, he coukd have foregone bringing in a GM at all and done the job himself. Or if if JS was so power hungry he COULD have gone rather than renewing here. He woukd have been a top candidate anywhere. That was never the case.
So now, rather than just being happy the dude is gone (because that's all you ever wanted and the only person you ever hung any blame on) you are trying to hijack the historical and factual high ground by rewriting (warping) the reality of what went down to fit in the little black box of hate you've been building for Pete for years.
Fact is, there was no wrestling of anything. They were jointly running the org for years with Pete having final say. Inherently, in any good partnership, there is disagreement. Disagreement... opposing views, are what make an organization healthy. If everyone is marching down the same road to the same beat and it's the wrong one, the organization fails. Pete knew this from the beginning, and spoke eloquently on that exact thing in his presser when he talked about in the end, doing what was best for the organization and in his eyes whether fighting for his perspective or stepping aside, that he did so FOR THE ORGANIZATION. And that John, who represented a different way, would now have an opportunity to take the reigns and try a different direction.
That concept that he articulated and is '101' in healthy, learning organization thinking is what the Hawks are built on and was behind what played out with Pete stepping aside. The organization requires that there be checks and balances. Two people seeing the same problem. Two people offering perspective. And ultimately a choice needing to be made. And until last week, Pete had authority to do that.
But Pete himself said more than once that it wasn't about winning a coaching job 'control', and that rather it was about the right path for the organization. And as HE said, inherently leaders don't always agree and he and John didnt, but they found a way through it. The difference in this case?
The end of Pete's contract.
Pete having a way of doing things that requires 100% commitment.
And a path forward away from Pete's tenure toward a path that woukd begin to see a transition to the future- something that at its core wouldn't work in Pete's construction of the culture and systems of the team.
What needed to happen in that scenario was obvious. Its 'small mind' thinking to try to ascribe any of it to infighting, power struggles or whatever else youve spent the time trying to plot out and rationalize because it misses entirely the point of it all - the exact thing that makes this organization great. And that's the extraordinarily high level of leadership and committment to greatness that exists here. The transition of power exhibited last week is EXACTLY the kind of thing that every organziation should aspire to.
But to address your theory -
Petes contract was up in a year. He might feel like he can coach anothrr 10 years but thats just not rereality and it was just olainly obvious a transition away from the current plan was necessary.
Fact is, there are ALWAYS different paths an org can take. John has flat stated his side post RW - that the team lost its aggression , and that moving on from Russ in hindsight should have happened before.
Pete has always been consistent in his - stick to the culture, grow men, grow belief.
When something isnt working and you have two different plans on how to fix it developed by two smart people who are partners, at some point, you say 'ok, lets try the other way'. JS was good with doing it. John's boss was good with doing it. Pete wasnt. Its not the first time it happened. That was two years ago. And Pete went along with it and resetting the roster, but he kept to his old script in trying to run it.
If he'd walked out of that meeting and said - alright John, lets bring in x and y coordinators and z position guy and give this whole deal a refresh... ill ride it out with you for my last year, hed still be here.
He chose to not spend the last year under contract bringing in what he probably felt would be counter culture guys, and leading a thing where the generals werent his. From his perspective, he'd be a leader in name only.
His reference to seeing it through 'down to the smallest details and being very specific' in how to fix things when he was asked by Mina about the way he wanted to do things speaks directly to that.
John is 200 years younger than Pete. He was always going to be here when Pete left. There was no wrestling necessary.
Summary-
Plan B was chosen. Pete remained committed to the position that his way couldnt be hybridized - for many valid reasons. And the organization (and Pete- who built it) chose the option that gives it a chance to thrive on a different road.
End of story.
Its hard to take because its devoid of envy, dark sub-plots, power struggles, etc.
But good organizations are absent all of those things and work hard to be. Counter to your long standing belief, a good organization (one of the best) is what we have. Just accept it and be happy.
You have some really great insights that would have greater value if they were unshackled from this horse that is now literally (figuritively) dead.
