Unfortunately, though, teams don't commit nearly as many resources as you suggest to properly scout and vet potential head coaches.
My single biggest gripe with the NHL (and, frankly, a reason why I'm beginning to question my intense interest in the NHL) is the process by which coaches and GMs are hired. It's frighteningly inefficient and inadequate for a multi billion dollar entity. I mean for new talent, it comes down to "Are you a moderately well-spoken former NHLer who is seeking to get involved in coaching or management?" If the answer is yes, then you have a VERY good chance at being given a shot whether or not you deserve one. If you don't, you're not likely to ever find an opportunity no matter how well you understand the game.
There are diamonds in the rough in Europe, in the USHL, in the CHL, in college hockey...hell, there are probably diamonds in the rough coaching youth teams on the side. But there's minimal effort by NHL teams to scout this talent. I'd suggest there are plenty of Mike Babcocks out there who have comparable levels of knowledge with similar work ethics who bring new and exciting ideas to the NHL...but NHL teams just don't have a shred of desire to find them.
And why is that? Probably because coaches and GMs are cut from the same cloth. Picking someone fresh and unorthodox would be 1) risky and 2) bring a halt to the self perpetuating nature of the system. I'm not saying it's a conspiracy or anything, but there is an element of self preservation involved. In other words, why make the pool of candidates bigger when you're a beneficiary of having such a ludicrously small pool to begin with?
When I think too hard about it, it actually makes me sick how the system works. What did Laperierre ever do that qualified him to coach? Rick Tocchet? Martin Gelinas? The list is a mile long. Most asst. coaches in the NHL are recently retired players with absolutely no coaching experience. They'll be head coaches soon. And then everyone gets recycled, too. Rinse and repeat. This is the stuff that pisses me off most about the NHL. Craig Berube is obviously an unqualified, brute of a coach. I mean, can anyone wonder what his interview was like when he got hired? Think about that for a second. WTF was said in that room on that day? Is there any chance Berube impressed anyone with his brilliant coaching philosophy or new and innovative methods that hadn't been tried before?
Sorry for the rant, GG. It's not directed at you other than to just say I don't trust management to make a good choice here. I agree-- I don't want a retread. None of them are good. In fact, by definition, they're all proven failures. I want someone fresh who is not afraid to be unconventional and break from tradition. Someone who can say, "Why do I need to have a meathead on my fourth line?" or "Let's keep the best PP player in the NHL out for the full 2 minute PP" or "Hmm, are my big, shutdown defenders really shutting the opposition down or is it an illusion?" or "Should I be afraid of playing a rookie just because he's a rookie?" or "Is it true that some instances call for 'big and tough' players or is this a myth that's been passed down based on hockey tradition?", etc. (all very tame thoughts, too, imo).
I have no clue who that person is, but I know many people like that are out there. I want them to be found, but I have very, very little confidence that they will be. The NHL is just not looking for these people, yet. My hope and expectation, though, is that when the Dubas type managers in the NHL start running the show, we will see some teams dip into Europe and become a bit more liberal with these practices. At least, I hope so.
EDIT: Lol, I see you made a very similar post in the other thread, though, GG. Kudos.