While I'm extraordinarily skeptical of Sullivan at the moment and I think Reirden should have been shown the door a month ago, I do appreciate the hesitancy about canning Sullivan concerning "suitable replacements".
I think there has to be interviews between Dubas (who has already, presumably, talked to the players) and the new coach candidates that center around philosophy and the system they intend to implement and whether or not it's a good fit for this team. I don't think just anyone can come in and coach this team in a way that would just be automatically better than Sullivan.
For example, Bruce Boudreau. BB has always run a very offensive system. One that opens the doors for offensive-minded guys to do what they do best. His results speak for themselves on that front. And while I would love to bring more offense to the table, you look at the results we've recently had with aggressive forecheck, offensive-minded systems...it's not good. We did a lot better playing a NZ support, counter-punch style. And that's largely because of the players we have. We don't have a bunch of young, speedy, gritty players anymore. We have a punch of middle and older-aged guys who don't have the jets and endurance anymore to play those styles.
So yeah, the coaching philosophy and results from implementing systems that are likely to work with this current group are important in our next coaching search. While I would not balk one bit of canning Sullivan, I do detect a bit of flippancy from this board on how easy they think it is to replace him. This isn't the forward group from 10 years ago that can overcome systematic shortcomings based on skill alone. They need the structure, they need a custom-fit system, and they need the accountability.