So because Cassidy wasn't a top candidate (he was an hot AHL name), it was digging deeper? No. "Digging deeper" is finding out a candidates tendencies and philosophies and really analyzing how that'd fit with the direction of your franchise. It's pretty well established that the Caps brass hired Cassidy because they were blown away with his interview. That's not digging deeper. That's being sold a lemon by a snake oil salesman.
What 'name' franchise would hire Ray Shero and Barry Trotz (or similar candidates)? What 'name' franchises have made similar hires?
Bold is taking risks that the general population wouldn't expect or wouldn't take. Shero/Trotz is easy and expected. It's not bold. (I don't really care about the boldness of the hire, BTW).
No man. That is YOUR version of bold. You always think that if someone doesn't see things from your viewpoint (your perception) then it's somehow not possible for it to be true. Very singular of thought.
That's fine.
But it doesn't make it so.
Cassidy was not on a lot of hot lists, as you state. He was a left field hire....go read some of the articles at ten time of his hire. Not a lot of people were looking at him. And had been so hot....why has he had zero work behind an NHL bench since 2006. At his age, that's pretty telling.
What name franchise would make hires like these? Vancouver Canucks. New York Rangers. Montreal Canadians. Boston Bruins. Los Angeles Kings. Chicago Blackhawks.
Look at their recent hires for coaches. Which one of those hired a rookie coach recently? How have they done the last 5 years? Rangers, Kings, and Canucks hired experienced GM's and coaches. Hawks, Bruins, Canadians all hired experienced coaches. Yes, they hired assistant GM's. With pedigree, but as Shero WAS an assistant with pedigree...who also WON a Cup. Not sure how actually winning a cup, after being the pedigree type, hurts him?
So if Bowman, Lombardi, or Chiarelli got let go....hiring them would be a mistake because they had already been GM's of a franchise?
I do not understand your logo here. Even a little bit. My guess is you enjoy the antagonist role.
And how do you know they haven't done all that homework on Trotz? How he would fit in? He's been unemployed for weeks. Caps have needed a head coach for weeks. What's part of that isn't well thought out and doesn't show a depth of thinking?
My guess is you don't know, and you just don't want Trotz as the hire. "Not your guy". Or you are just being argumentative.
Edit-- and the last name hire the Caps made was Wilson. How did that turn out? Let me guess.....you will somehow tell me "not well"
