It’s not really clear to me why things haven’t gone as well for Vegas as predicted. Many experts had them on the top of the west. Obviously management felt a Cup is within grasp and a different voice was needed.
It does seem like in hockey, as opposed to other sports, firing a coach can lead to a turnaround. Hockey is all about building a system that best utilizes the talent on hand, as opposed to forcing the talent into a system. Pragmatism is required. Many slumping teams can believe that the problem isn’t the talent, but rather the coach’s message not being heard. In reading books about hockey, especially Phil Esposito’s book written from a GM perspective, he made the correct moves and the coach didn’t produce with the players he was given. He hammered his coaches in that book. But how much of it is on the players themselves to produce and stay healthy? This often gets lost in this. Chemistry issues can also develop. Sometimes a coach needs to change lines due to poor player chemistry. Sometimes the issue is inadequate depth of lines.
As I didn’t follow Vegas closely I don’t know what maneuvers Gallant made or didn’t make or why they thought his coaching was an issue. The first season he had with Vegas was nothing short of remarkable and a blueprint for any hockey expansion team. I don’t think Gallant will stay unemployed long. The man is deeply invested and loves his players.