What's the solution then? (i.e., imagine you're named to Nicholson's role this off-season and tasked with a total restock of the management team)
Do you go with Cup winning coaches like Sutter or Quenneville who are tough, but more effective communicators? Or go young across the board with a player-friendly staff?
Also for arguments sake, how does the top-down approach work for a young team in Toronto under two iron-fisted leaders in Lamariello and Babcock?
The Oilers in a sense had the solution. Twice. Renney, and later Krueger. These being two individuals that were quite completely immune from this org. Outside of it. Those were the right calls. However, the Org gave neither full reign and fired both. Inately K Lowe and MacT recognition that there own jobs could inevitably be on the line if there are individuals with better ability.
Tambellini was a classic scheme bad hire. Quinn another (because at that point he was a bit senile) The Oilers were hiring managers or coaches that would be no threat to their employment. That wouldn't proceed to take over the ship.
I have mixed feelings on the Nicholson hire because he had already been long standing working relationship with Lowe and MacT. He was not an outsider in that sense. Also my own impression is he's a hanger on. He's a career hockey professional, not necessarily someone with new ideas, who proceeded to hire two of his ilk, hangers on, a coach and manager that are more connections focused than new hockey knowledge focused.
We just replaced one tired and outdated management Scheme with another.
Krueger or Renney should have just been given the keys to the org. Run it. Everybody else should have stepped back.
ftr I don't agree with the Babcock method either. It tends to bring short term results. Ideal for a hip hip hooray Team Canada but not as much for ongoing. Most of Babcocks hockey success imo owed more to precap team dominance.
