Quote:
Originally Posted by topfiverecords
Well, it seems like there's a huge storm brewing of former players coming out with incidents they had with previous coaches etc. What if shortly after you hire Peters' replacement, some really significant past incidents come to light about that person too?
|
I think it's pretty simple actually. At the top you don't put Presidents in charge who "win at all costs".
Then each team publicly announce what hiring practices you put in place before hiring the given coach. What types of people did you consult? Did you call random former players (1st liners and 4th) to get their take on their style? There are ways to game around this by just confirming your own biases and calling people who will confirm what you think, but there's gotta be an honest assessment of people. When you hear now from players speaking out about Babcock and if it comes to it, Peters, and they come out in droves, it makes you wonder how many others knew about it, but the people in upper management turned a blind eye based on results. It happens in large corporations too, but this now has come to the forefront in hockey this week. Those above should be to blame too if many come forward as in the Babcock situation, as they essentially hired the guy by turning that blind eye. Again, ends justify the means.