'); } -->
Only Carolina Hurricanes general manager Jim Rutherford knows whether Peter Laviolette saved his job with Sunday's 3-2 comeback, shootout win over the Tampa Bay Lightning.
But this much is certain: Laviolette's seat has been pretty hot lately after a three-game losing streak in which the Hurricanes were outscored 13-5. Here's another certainty, if Hurricanes history is any guide: Just because times are tough now doesn't mean he can't rally the team to the playoffs.
Whatever ends up happening, Laviolette's uncertain position ranks among the five most significant coaching crises in the Hurricanes' time in North Carolina -- this week's Tuesday Top Five.
5. NOVEMBER 2008: After consecutive embarrassing losses, Rutherford on Thursday issued a scathing critique of the team's work ethic. In the end, that's an area for which the coach bears final responsibility. Coming off last season, when the Hurricanes missed the playoffs because of poor play this time of year, Rutherford made it clear he would not countenance a repeat performance.
The Canes responded with a so-so, 3-2 loss on Friday and Sunday's shootout win, coming back from two-goal deficits in both. There's no question the Canes showed improvement. Only time will tell whether it was enough.
4. DECEMBER 2000: The atmosphere on the plane ride home from a 3-1 loss to the expansion Columbus Blue Jackets on Dec. 29 -- Carolina's seventh loss in 11 games -- was as frosty as the weather outside.
Paul Maurice was the second-longest-tenured coach in the NHL (and the youngest), but the situation was grim.
The Hurricanes ended up winning on New Year's Eve to start a 7-0-2 run and made the playoffs as the eighth seed in the Eastern Conference.
3. SUMMER 2008: If the Hurricanes had fired Laviolette in January, when the Canes lost five of six and eight of 10, it might have made some sense. But after the Hurricanes rallied over the next three months, only to implode in the final week and miss the playoffs, Rutherford refused to guarantee Laviolette would be back.
It took six weeks and a meeting with owner Peter Karmanos to settle the issue.
Only later would the reason for Rutherford's unhappiness become clear: Despondent over the late collapse, Laviolette left town without conducting any exit meetings with players.
2. DECEMBER 2001: A late-November swoon saw the Canes, optimistic about their chances to win the division after the previous year's playoff appearance, go 2-6-4 and put Maurice back on the firing line.
After a 4-2 loss to the Buffalo Sabres on Dec. 4, Maurice put the Canes through a brutal practice at the RecZone, and Rutherford traded for defenseman Sean Hill, who had left the team as a free agent that summer. Tensions were running high.
The Canes were down 2-0 at the Florida Panthers in their next game before Jeff O'Neill scored the goal that might have saved Carolina's season. The Canes rallied for a 3-2 win that night, went 11-5-5 coming out of the Olympic break and advanced to the Stanley Cup finals.
1. DECEMBER 2003: Carolina's first-to-worst plunge in 2002-03 still lingered over the team when the next season started, and after a 2-3-4 start, Rutherford deemed November a "make-or-break month" for Maurice and the team. They broke.
The Canes went 5-7-3 in November, and while Rutherford was publicly guaranteeing Maurice's job safety in early December, he already had been negotiating with Laviolette for a week.
The Canes went 1-2-1 on a road swing through Canada, but the decision to fire Maurice was made in the middle of the trip. When the Canes returned to Raleigh after a long overnight flight from Vancouver, Rutherford gave Maurice his walking papers.
Laviolette, who had been flown in from New York while the team was on the road, was introduced as the new coach that afternoon.
Get it all with convenient home delivery of The News & Observer.
The News & Observer is pleased to be able to offer its users the opportunity to make comments and hold conversations online. However, the interactive nature of the internet makes it impracticable for our staff to monitor each and every posting.
Since The News & Observer does not control user submitted statements, we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted on our website. In addition, we remind anyone interested in making an online comment that responsibility for statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not The News and Observer.
If you find a comment offensive, clicking on the exclamation icon will flag the comment for review by the administrators, we are counting on the good judgment of all our readers to help us.