Are you talking about developing players or winning? Because the main point of your argument seems to be that these are two distinct things, the former of which is suppose to be Quinn's specialty, and now they seemed to be haphazardly smashed back together out of convenience.
Not that it matters, he pretty clearly can do both. Obviously Trotz can develop players, he's been an NHL coach for 20 years. Even the best teams have player that need developing and if a coach isn't doing that he is not staying employed for 2 straight decades. And obviously he can win. He just won a cup a year and a half ago.
With all due respect, as I am about done arguing this with the other poster, I really do not feel like rehashing this as things have calmed down. But in high strokes, my argument was why I believe that Gorton chose Quinn and never had any thoughts whatsoever about a guy like Trotz. Please note, that I am not denigrating Trotz at all. I have stated why I believe he would not have had any more success than Quinn has with this team and why may have been a worse choice for THIS team.
I'm not sure what's funnier: the absurdity of having to defend a coach who has won 2 Jack Adams trophies and a cup in the last 3 years or the grossness of defending the current coach of the Islanders. Barf.
Not sure what you want me to tell you here. People debate many things. If I agree that Trotz was not the right person for this team and Quinn was, what should I do when his name is being constantly pounded as the hire that should have been made? Seems to me I can either 1) ignore it or 2) choose to debate it. That is the way discussions between two people typically work.
The argument shouldn't be "Gorton should have make all efforts to hire Trotz. Just look at what accomplished in Nashville".
The argument should be "Gorton should have made all efforts to hire Trotz. He is a proven coach and he is a better coach."
I could not agree more.
Now there is a pretty easy counter to that argument: "Trotz probably didn't want to come to the Rangers". That's the smart response to any "Why didnt we hire Trotz?!?" questions and the easiest way to shut down a prolonged and tedious discussion before it begins. Going this route allows us to bypass the "we don't need the best coach, we need a development coach!" argument and and lets us all avoid us having to pretend that a good coach and a development coach don't do the same things.
That may be a good counter argument for you, but I do not at all believe it to be accurate. And again, as such what would you like me to do? I do not believe that Gorton did not wait to hire Trotz because he thought that Trotz would not want to come to the Rangers. I believe that Gorton had no intentions whatsoever to hire a Trotz, or a Quennville for that matter. I believe that he made his selections based on criteria that he found important.
It is pretty silly to dumb down an argument to
Trotz probably didn't want to come to the Rangers". That's the smart response to any "Why didnt we hire Trotz?!?" questions and the easiest way to shut down a prolonged and tedious discussion before it begins.
Sure that is easy, but it was also not what was being debated. So again, not sure why you feel it necessary to state that a response should have been tailored in a way that had nothing at all to do with what I felt the correct answer was. I do not think that Trotz had any part in Gorton's plan, so why pretend like he did?
But what do I know? 'Just another poster on a message board.