Quote:
Originally Posted by mrdonkey
The thing that bothers me about this isn't necessarily the decision itself, per se. Like, I'm not enthusiastic about Huska as a coach, but I don't think even Scotty Bowman could squeeze results out of the mess Treliving left behind, so ultimately the coach won't matter until this team has a better, younger core to build around.
But what concerns me more is the philosophy being put on display here. How focused the local media and even the statements from Conroy himself are on Huska's tenure above his actual results, like this was some kind of loyalty hire for a guy who "paid his dues." That's such a spectacularly stupid way to do business, and completely on brand for this organization. I was really hoping that the off-ice changes would have herladed a change in approach from what we're used to, but it sounds exactly like what we've come to expect from the Edwards regime. Cheap out, take half-measures, hope to sneak in, and see what happens.
The team isn't taking any risks here, so I don't see why we should expect anything but more of the same.
|
Pretty much my concern as well.
That "results" is as far down the totem pole of evaluation as it appears to be is deeply concerning.
Unproven coaches love this and praise this because it gives them hope too as the hard working guys lost in the fold. Because most NHL teams wouldn't make hires like this unless on an interim basis after a firing.
It's not encouraging as far as a team that is looking to hit reset and have more success. Looks like more of what came before, except now on a budget.