I don't mind coach hiring as it is.

The only way firing coaches midseason (which does sound like a fun way to "get revenge" on a underwhelming team) is if there were different coaches than the leftovers from offseason coach hiring. If some of the players who retired after spring training were available, that might be fun, but otherwise, what's the point?

But I'm pretty much fine with coach hiring as it is. It's not exactly fun, but it's not as much of a chore as it used to be.

I do agree the recent changes have improved things but it still misses the boat.  Additionally I think you missed the part about promoting a coach that is doing a good job.  You fire someone doing a crappy job and replace them with someone in the organization that is doing a good job will in theory improves the team.  Furthermore if HB is going to allocate three days for something don't you think they should make it as realistic a they can .  You get only three cycles for budgets, restricted FA, arribitration and rule five.  But you have to watch your team for nine cycles (3 days) to hire your coaches.  It doesn't make sense...

If you could fire your coaches, it would devalue the coach hiring process.  I would just hire whoever, and then fire them, and hire the best of the leftover coaches (which are inevitably better than the ones you got)

If that were the case, why wouldn't you just wait until the last cycle of coach hiring to make your offers?

I do

Firing coaches makes no sense.   You're not "lighting a fire" under your team.   You're just replacing a 76 with a 81.   Which, at mid-season, is a 2.5 difference.  How much difference can that make? 

None of these suggestions are new.  People have been asking for these exact things, or something very similar, for over four years now.  If we don't have these things by now, I kind of doubt we'll be seeing them in the near future.

However, the OP does point out something in the final paragraph that's never really been discussed before, at least in any depth.  And that is the fact that there really is no tangible data available to us that really tells us how good a coach really is.

Rather than hijack this thread, I'm going to start another to try to expand upon that.

 "It starts at the hiring process at the beginning of the season with thin markets"

I disagree with this.  With the exception of fielding coaches, all the other positions have the exact opposite of thin markets.  There is way more supply of MLB coaches than demand.  You can wait until the very end and have your pick of 80s (primary rating) coaches for near the minimum.

and fielding is only that way because we don't have minor league FI positions to be developing that MLB quaility skill set.

It is the *lack* of a supply/demand balance that makes coach hiring a silly exercise IMO.  It is simply too easy