There's so much in Todd's post that I think is *fargin'* horseshit, but man, this is the one thing that stands out above all else:
ToddM wrote: Our coach spent 5 games doing what he said he would do when he was hired, and 90 more trying to fit a bunch of square pegs into round holes, a.k.a. forcing them to play Hitchball 3.0, even if their talents are better suited elsewhere.
How are their talents suited elsewhere? You can not like the style all you want, but we had one of the best records in the West after the All Star break. If anything, the style he adopted is perfectly suited to the lineup he had to work with. I'd prefer to play run and gun hockey with 5 or 7 goals a night, but it's hard to do that successfully unless you have a very deep lineup, and we don't. It's getting better, but we don't have the goal-scoring talent to play like that.
Sure, you can say that Montgomery is in charge of personnel decisions, but he's got to work within the box the GM made for him, and the Stars are not overflowing with high-end talent. You keep pointing to players like Dickinson and Hintz suddenly emerging as top-6 options only once the mean old coach finally gave them a chance, but that's not really how it went down. They had chances all year, and it took them a while to put it together. If anything, Montgomery deserves credit for sticking with it when they didn't look like they belonged.