Rightfully ruthless not really so bad

What the Blackhawks did to Denis Savard was nasty, brutal and ruthless.

Don't you just love it?

It's a move every sports franchise should be apprehensive to make and aggressive enough to make anyway.

Think about the Bears, who play their biggest game of the early season today in Soldier Field against Minnesota.

Hypothetically the Bears could lose to the Vikings, go in a funk their final nine games and miss the playoffs.

Lovie Smith still would have much time and money left on his contract, but let's say the perception inside and outside the organization is a new head coach is required.

Wouldn't you like to see the Bears nastily, brutally, ruthlessly replace the man who coached them to the Super Bowl two years ago with, say, Bill Cowher?

That's basically what whoever made this Savard decision did, whether it was chairman Rocky Wirtz, president John McDonough, general manager Dale Tallon, senior advisor Scotty Bowman, some of the above, all of the above or even more than the above.

The Hawks had many reasons not to change coaches now - Savard is a hockey icon here, a possible p.r. fallout loomed, timing was weird four games into the season - and our sports teams usually look for reasons not to do something.

But the reason to make the move was new head coach Joel Quenneville is Joel Quenneville and Savard still is striving to become Joel Quenneville.

Hawks management's thinking was Quenneville is a more experienced, accomplished, NHL coach than Savard is, so why not?

Hey, a team has to do what a team has to do.

Would the Bears fire Smith similarly with money left on his contract? Would it pursue a name coach to replace him? Would it give the new guy considerable authority at the expense of general manager Jerry Angelo's ego?

It isn't anything personal, fellas, just the business of winning.

Wouldn't you like the Bears and all other local sports teams to be as nasty, brutal and ruthless in chasing a championship as the Hawks were in firing Savard?

Remember, this is a franchise obsessed with marketing, and to abuse an iconic figure never is good marketing.

After all, Savard coined the term "Commit to the Indian." Nobody committed to the Hawks more than he did.

Yet Savard was fired anyway.

Dispatching a coach doesn't necessarily mean he isn't qualified. Sometimes it's just a matter of believing the next coach is more qualified.

Hawks movers and shakers had the conviction that something needed to be done in the name of winning, and they risked a lot to do it.

Management's responsibility always is to make tough decisions, like whether the current coach is the best man to be the future coach.

The move often is messy, but often it is right, and attempting the right move in the name of winning supersedes just about anything else.

So firing Hawks lifer Savard was justifiable and promoting an organizational short-timer like Quenneville is encouraging.

Merely going from a good coach to what management considers a better coach is refreshing, as nasty, brutal and ruthless as it was to Savard.

Hopefully other local teams have the audacity to operate similarly in pursuit of a championship.

mimrem@dailyherald.com