I don't really care about the media coverage, and I don't really care about perceptions about the process. I care about the result. My feelings:
- I want the GM to have autonomy - I don't want to have some ridiculous structure where people don't think the person in that office has the authority to make decisions.
- I don't want Bergevin. Anyone with a GM record is going to have hits and misses - a mistake is not a dealbreaker. But drafting Mailloux was a colossal, and unnecessary error in judgment of the sort where I don't feel comfortable ceding him the authority I think the GM ought to have.
- A President who has GM experience automatically restricts the perceived authority of a GM. And while perception isn't reality, when it comes to authority perceptions affect it a good deal.
imo if NYI are going to hire a GM with a POHO, let the POHO be a pure executive type person (a communicator/facilitator/organizer), and not a GM who deals with player and coaching personnel. If that's how they go, it doesn't really matter at all whether they have a pre-existing relationship so long as they are professional and understand their roles. I have no idea whether Hickey, for example, potentially has GM skills. I could seem him as a POHO type down the line.
Last, it stands to reason that there exists untapped talent among women in professional hockey. It is not (merely) a matter of 'inclusion' to interview qualified women. Not doing so could mean you miss out on the next great executive.