In light of what was posted earlier in the thread about Q putting in behind the scenes work, I think I'm at the point of "I am willing to hear him and the org out when they do this, but also can they f***ing not."
What I wonder is if, perversely, the fallout from Chicago becomes a sort of selling point. Like, if you accept "he has Beach's blessing and the NHL's reinstatement, so he should be an acceptable candidate," there's a clear contrast here:
—Cronin was implicitly fired in part for being an asshole who didn't respect the players, and couldn't adapt to the mix in the room.
—Quenneville has (reportedly) been intensively learning about respect, coaching power dynamics, and how to keep a locker room healthy and avoid toxicity.
Again if one is willing to either excuse or believe he's sufficiently atoned from what happened in Chicago, there's a weird argument that he's the guy best equipped to avoid repeating either his own mistakes (which as others have mentioned, is a vanishingly unlikely scenario) or Cronin's. I could see a world where Verbeek makes this decision with the very best of intentions rather than indifference.
Still would be a damn hard sell for me. All this learning Q has been doing had better be real impressive and every player (especially the young ones) had better be enthusiastically convinced they can trust him. And that's before even getting into the hockey issues (we're really rushing to hire a guy who's been sidelined for four years, huh? I certainly don't think he's going to have lost it all, but I wouldn't expect cutting edge coaching either.)
We could hire a guy who we presume would still be a really good coach, who brings major ethical quandaries and baggage and distraction, and hope it's all worth it because he's learned from his mistakes. Or we could simply, y'know... not do that.