The ridiculous frequency of firings amongst NHL coaches raises serious question about the league's management practices
Yesterday, the Seattle Kraken announced the firing of the first coach in franchise history, Dave Hakstol, after three seasons behind the team's bench. The firing came less than a week after the San Jose Sharks cut bait from David Quinn after two seasons as their coach.
As it stands, there are 13 NHL coaches who have been hired in the last calendar year, with that number set to grow when Hakstol and Quinn are replaced, and four of those 13 (Drew Bannister in St. Louis, Jacques Martin in Ottawa, Travis Green in New Jersey, and Jim Hiller in Los Angeles) finished the season as interims, with their status for the coming year not yet confirmed.
In the case of both Hakstol and Quinn, the curious part of their firings has less to do with the results they delivered than the context in which they did so. Both were highly successful NCAA coaches (Hakstol at the University of North Dakota, Quinn at Boston University) who unambiguously failed in their first NHL coaching opportunities (Hakstol's four years in Philadelphia, Quinn's three years coaching the Rangers). Because of that history, both were somewhat curious hires at their new gigs. And now, both were fired at their second stops after seasons in which, to varying degrees, the obvious response to management over their records this year was 'well, what did you expect?'
Here, it's worth distinguishing a touch between the two. Hakstol spent three seasons in Seattle, earning a 107-112-27 record and making one playoff appearance (in which the Kraken upset Colorado in seven games in the first round, then were beaten in seven games by Dallas in the second). He was a surprising hire less because of his middling performance with the Flyers (134-101-42 in four seasons) than because it seemed that, as an expansion team with a robust budget, the Seattle job ought to highly desirable to any out-of-employment coach.
Hakstol was a rather modest (to be kind about it) name to insert into that context, but he helped calcify the fledgling Kraken into a stout defensive outfit that played with great speed. He helped them become a playoff team and guided them to a series victory over one of the league's most respected franchises. He did all this without ever having a player at his disposal who could credibly be called elite offensively (or especially close to it). Now, he's out of work.
Quinn, on the other hand, was hired by Mike Grier (like Quinn, a BU alum) to coach a Sharks team that was unambiguously in the painful stages of rebuilding. The team was bad, the prospect pool was thin, and the short-to-medium-term hopes for the organization were bleak. In two seasons, Quinn amassed a 41-98-25 record, working with a roster that functionally eliminated San Jose from playoff contention before each season began.
Are either Hakstol or Quinn good NHL coaches? To be honest, I'm not sure, and that's the point. I think we have better proof of concept at this level with Hakstol than with Quinn, but given that we've never really seen either work with a (highly) competitive roster, I'm not sure we've really learned all that much about their potential as NHL coaches.
What their firings lay bare is the degradation of the value managers ascribe to the coaches they hire and fire. It seems difficult to argue against the idea that many of these moves are rooted in a desire for the executives above the coaching level to preserve their own job security. To overhaul a roster is difficult. To can a coach and find a new one is (comparatively) easy.
There are five coaches in the league who were hired prior to 2020: Jon Cooper, Sheldon Keefe, Mike Sullivan, Jared Bednar, and Rod Brind'Amour. Three of those five are Stanley Cup Champions (Sullivan and Cooper twice over, Bednar once). One won a Cup as a player with the team he now coaches (Brind'Amour). One is liable to be fired if his team doesn't rattle off three straight wins to turn around a 3-1 first round deficit (Keefe).
Of course, there is some selection bias incumbent in the fact that coaches who have proven themselves successful will inevitably wind up with longer leashes should things begin to sour. However, the fact remains that successful teams have (largely) been rewarded for showing patience in their coaches. For the Red Wings, who were unambiguous in their support of Derek Lalonde at the end of a second successive playoff-less season, that might spell a promising future.