That's not what I'm asking, though.The answer is that like most experiments, we have no idea if the MSL experience will work.
We also have no idea if Hughes will be a good GM — sure, he has shown that he can trade both solid vets and cap space for futures, but that’s the easy part of the job and not a permanent assignment
I can say with extreme confidence: Gorton & Bobrov (and Martin Lapointe) need to go.Agreed - Only add whether Gorton and Bobrov will be good in their roles vs their historical track record..
Well, that's the thing. Here's my follow-up.It's an intentional distraction during the retool. You're going to hire a guy that'll win more than he should when you're tanking?
Uh huh.MSL was not a distraction. LOL.
He was an unorthodox hire based on his personality and untested coaching philosophies that found a receptive audience in his buddy Kent
And what else? Unless you believe that's the silver bullet in which case, disagree. Different people have different agendas on the same path.
Kent needed approval
Great hair played a partThat's not what I'm asking, though.
It's impossible to know how Person X will do in Y Position, all we can do is guess. However, we can make educated guesses based on body of work and their amount of experience leading into receiving that position. Maybe the team interviewing can see how they mesh with each other.
So based off of Martin St. Louis's previous work, what made him the best candidate to be the head coach of the Montreal Canadiens, besides being good friends with Kent Hughes? And again, based off of his experience, what makes you think he could be a good coach?
The Charlatan didn't work out as GM here, but when he got hired, you could say: Two years as Chicago's Director of Player Personnel, and one year as the assistant GM. He's got some experience in related jobs.
St. Louis's background was... half a season as a consultant for the Blue Jackets' special teams and a few years coaching 12 year olds.