Sure, but I'm happy to wait for you to show me the last coach who signed on with a new team for a term of one year. It simply doesn't happen.
Sometimes I wonder if I'm the only one here with Google
https://www.nhl.com/news/ken-hitchcock-signs-1-year-contract-with-blues/c-280847510
New team?
No. Last team. He has a new multi-year deal with Dallas. He signed a one year deal with St. Louis last summer
Because he was planning to retire. Completely different scenarios
I can't tell if you're being serious with this or obtuse. New coach. New team. New deal. Not one year add on deals to avoid being lame duck coaches. And Patty & Pia are correct. Hitchcock signed a one year extension to coach one final season. Again, not what I was talking about.
So again, let's be clear: New coach, signing one year deal to coach a new team. Find one and get back to me. Not extensions.
I can't tell if you're being serious with this or obtuse. New coach. New team. New deal. Not one year add on deals to avoid being lame duck coaches. And Patty & Pia are correct. Hitchcock signed a one year extension to coach one final season. Again, not what I was talking about.
So again, let's be clear: New coach, signing one year deal to coach a new team. Find one and get back to me. Not extensions.
I just think you don't like that he showed you examples that fit his argument, so you're just purposely discounting them.
Well done. But no. Anyone with any reading comprehension can go back and see I said new. Not extensions.
Also, one last bit on Hitchcock. He signed an extension to coach one last year in STL, but they'd hired and named his replacement in Mike Yeo who was there as an assistant already. He was trying to hang on so he could break Al Arbour's all time coaching wins record, so his signing with Dallas was simply the avenue with which he could do that. It's not like he signed with STL and announced he was retiring at the season's end, so he could pull a swerve and sign with Dallas, FFS.
New team? Butch is already with the Bruins and has been in the Bruins organization for years. It doesn't matter because he has a multi-year deal, so I guess you are arguing for the sake of arguing. I'll let you have at it, but one year deals are not unique. They've been offered to coaches like Nolan and Babcock for Christ sake. So why would it be out of the realm of possibility to offer a rookie like Butch a one year extension? The answer: It wouldn't.
Sure, but I'm happy to wait for you to show me the last coach who signed on with a new team for a term of one year. It simply doesn't happen.
Who cares what the reasons are? They would be unique to each situation. You said one year deals don't happen. But they do. They get offered to coaches like Hitchcock, Babcock and Nolan, so why wouldn't a one year extension for Butch be in the realm of possibility? Of course it would.
I can't tell if you're being serious with this or obtuse. New coach. New team. New deal. Not one year add on deals to avoid being lame duck coaches. And Patty & Pia are correct. Hitchcock signed a one year extension to coach one final season. Again, not what I was talking about.
So again, let's be clear: New coach, signing one year deal to coach a new team. Find one and get back to me. Not extensions.
Now why would it be a one year deal? Why would a guy sign a contract to be a lame duck? Seriously. This is just about the silliest thing you've said here. Why would a guy voluntarily take a job where he's clearly a dead man walking? He gets zero protection by doing a one year deal. He's basically begging to be replaced. Players realize that and will tune him out because he's on borrowed time.
At the least, it would have to be a 2 year deal. At the very least.
New team? Butch is already with the Bruins and has been in the Bruins organization for years. It doesn't matter because he has a multi-year deal, so I guess you are arguing for the sake of arguing. I'll let you have at it, but one year deals are not unique. They've been offered to coaches like Nolan and Babcock for Christ sake. So why would it be out of the realm of possibility to offer a rookie like Butch a one year extension? The answer: It wouldn't.
An extension to what? An assistant. That's what his contract was for. HC is a different title.
No, I said the bolded above. New team. Not extensions with existing team. Big difference, no?
Sometimes I wonder if I'm the only one with reading comprehension.
An extension to what?
So to summarize, new lame duck coaches are bad, old ones are ok and they happen all the time.
He did not finish the season as an assistant coach. Not in any way shape or form.
Hitchcock finished the season coaching the Blues he signed his one year extension.
Babcock finished the season coaching the Ducks when he was offered his one year extension.
Nolan finished the season coaching the Sabres when he was offered his one year extension.
Butch finished the season coaching the Bruins and offering him a one year extension would have been squarely in the realm of possibility.
So those three guys all started coaching the team for the first time mid season?