You could go on here, depending who you consider “name” coaches. There’s many available.
Let some complain about that as rigidity, it’s the clarity that helps players. For guys like Tortorella, players knowing what’s expected of them is most of what you’re paying for. Hustle or don’t play, there’s not much room for debate there. The reason I think a guy like Tortorella gets hired, is a GM probably has doubts about the consistent effort of some of his most important players.
The contrast here, is a big “name” but unestablished coach in Martin St. Louis, who gets a year less and a million less per season than Tortorella in Montreal. To me that speaks to expectations. The Montreal Canadiens are allowing St. Louis to find his voice as a coach along with his players, to grow and hopefully put them in a position where they have to pay him more after a couple of seasons that reflect growth from his best players and himself.
So this is the debate GMs around the league face this off-season. Do you want to make a splash, and if you do it, how sure are you that you’re getting a “name” who’s going to do more for your team than a new guy? How sure are you that the money you’re throwing at a career coach is being well-spent?
jtbourne Gotta be a coach that can adapt. He's handed a team and isn't afforded the luxury of building what he wants. Therfore, can he design a system that fits the players he has.
jtbourne Going on the cheap has worked out well for the Sens.
jtbourne I would put the money into a good GM and his staff. If they know the players personalities, then there hockey IQ than a good coach can do the rest. Bad Gm bad team. Good GM great team.