Honestly could care less myself .. mainly hearsay …
please explain to me how the following is 'hearsay'
- the chicago stuff:
- two players were sexually assaulted by the video coach (fact)
- a third player notified the team's skills coach (fact)
- the skills coach notified hockey ops leadership (fact)
- he told those executives to contact the police, but they did not (fact)
- marc bergevin was the team's director of player personnel at the time (fact)
- drafting mallioux
- logan mallioux was accused of sexual misconduct while playing in Europe in his d-1 season (fact)
- the swedish legal system found him guilty (fact)
- he asked teams to not draft him (fact)
- bergevin did anyway (fact)
- all of this happened just a few months after the chicago scandal broke (fact)
what part of that is hearsay? all of this stuff has either been documented by reporters, investigated by the league + neutral third parties (jenner + block) or, in mallioux's case, litigated in criminal court.
give me someone that can turn this organization into a winner .
on top of all the other stuff above bergevin's track record on the job is
awful. even if you don't think the scandals are disqualifying (they are imo) there's no indication that he's actually capable of building a winner.
the blue jackets bet that mike babcock's likelihood of replicating his historical results would outweigh the risk that he would continue to behave poorly. they got burned on that bet.
making the same bet on a candidate with similar baggage and
without any of that historical success just a year later is, frankly, the absolute worst thing this organization could do.