kipwinger

Lol. Classic Flyers. Enjoy the cellar for another couple of years you losers. There are more quality head coaches available than at any point in recent memory and they pick a guy who's never coached a single game of professional hockey. Are they "too smart" or too cheap for their own good?

Well good thing it's not about the money, it's about winning, so it shouldn't matter if Buffalo offers him 20 million.

Here's a couple of fun facts that nobody seems remotely interested in following and/or giving any special credence to... There are four teams left in the playoffs (which are still going on): If Anaheim wins, Bruce Boudreau has a better winning percentage AND as many Cups as Mike Babcock. If Chicago wins Joel Quenneville has the second most all time wins AND three Cups If New York wins Alain Vigneault has take two different teams to the Cup finals and won with one of them (just like Babs) If Tampa wins Jon Cooper won a Cup in his second year full year as coach, after beating Babcock, the top team in the division, the top team in the league, and whichever team he beats in the West. There are a TON of really good coaches out there. Some as good, or better, than Mike Babcock. However the story of the day, every day, revolves around a guy who hasn't made it out of the second round since 2009 and who's team isn't even playing anymore. And acknowledge it or not, he's had ALL SEASON to decide whether he wants to stay with Detroit. But of course he hasn't had all season to get flown around the world, and interviewed, and wined and dined, and written about extensively. And that obviously doesn't appeal to a guy who wants to be thought of as the best coach of his generation. Nope. Oh by the way, if you wanted to be the best coach of your generation, why would you interview with Buffalo, and Toronto, and Philadelphia? Because those teams are all going places and we aren't? If all he cared about is winning (like he says) then he would have signed with Detroit already. There aren't any other positions available which have the track record, the future, the money, and the will to win. But he hasn't. Why? Definitely not because he's enjoying this. Not at all.

Because he was forced to sit down with Dreger? Because he didn't know that dragging out the decision all year rather than signing an extension would add to the scrutiny? If you think his ego getting strokes isn't a big turn on for him you're nuts.

Isn't Babcock still employed? Haven't his teams underwhelmed since 2010? Did Bylsma get this much attention the day after he was fired? Nope. The hype is getting absurd. One way or another he needs to make a decision. Obviously I don't want the guy back. I make no pretenses otherwise. But more than that I'd like for the process to come to an end. I don't give a s*** whether he's taking his talents to Buffalo or otherwise. This is obnoxious.

Why don't they care about these other guys? McClellan has a higher winning percentage. Bylsma has a comparable winning percentage AND as many cups. Hitchcock has as many Cups and has 700 wins. But Mike is the story for some reason. Presumably because hype builds on itself.

I didn't see Darren Dreger having sit down interviews with Hitch, Bylsma, McClellan, and Carlyle to discuss their decision making process. There are also not up to the minute twitter posts and articles discussing the very latest developments regarding everybody else. If you think they're the same thing, you're obviously not looking too hard at all the hype Babcock is garnering.

What the hell has Nylander done aside from look smug and play like a *****?

You're the one who made the accusation.

I was just coming to post this. It's Lebron 2.0. What a primadonna. I'm soooooo tired of this crap. Just sign a ******* contract or don't, like every other person (GM, coach, or player) does in the NHL.

Have you ever talked to me? Surely you don't think I was on here trying to make a point about how great Babcock is? I'm just not sure that I'd think too hard about advice given by a guy who never won anything, only coached for six seasons, and is most famous for his off ice antics (including his super duper wacky outfits). He's not altogether different from Lady Gaga. He's played one more game of professional hockey, has exactly as many Stanley Cups, and has a devoted fan following. I'd argue she has better taste, but they're not too far off otherwise.

He chooses not to write anything at all. Writing was invented by foreigners.

And who better to give Mike Babcock advice than a guy who never won anything of note in his entire coaching career. If you want advice on how to be a xenophobic, blowhard, dinosaur, ask Don Cherry. If you want advice on how to be a successful coach, ask somebody who has been one. John Tortorella and Marc Crawford were more successful NHL coaches than Don...so maybe start with them.

Very classy move. This speaks volumes about the decency of the organization, but also about the profound impact that social media, the internet, non-traditional information outlets, and data oriented analysis have had on the sports landscape. Only a short time ago, a guy like Matt would have been considered a diehard fan, and nothing more. Naming the Cup after him seems to suggest that someone like Matt can have a substantive impact on sports decision-makers, not because of his position within an organization, but because the quality of his work and his commitment to transparency and objectivity change the way average fans access and interpret information about their team. I don't think you can stress enough the importance that Matt had on our own organization. I remember when Datsyuk and Zetterberg entered the league, nobody knew a thing about them. Coming off years with the same core of guys, and suddenly we had these two new guys who really looked like they could play, and who came out of nowhere. That could never happen now. There's just too much demand for information about our drafting, prospects, and development. Today Red Wings fans demand as much information about their team, at every single level, as any of the Canadian teams despite huge differences in the attention the sport in given in each country in traditional media outlets. That level of expectation, knowledge, and attention is the direct result of all the hard work Matt Wuest put into making a good product. The name of the Matt Wuest Cup is well deserved. Kudos.

But what happens when they play Chicago in the finals. Can they really be expected to compete with this?

Didn't AA and Nosek both have pretty serious injuries during the middle of the season? I think they both performed well considering A) they are AHL rookies, and B) they had long layoffs right in the middle. I'd love to see what either of them could have done playing a large number of games consecutively. Nevertheless, both impressed me.

THE BOYS FROM BRAZIL!!!!

This one is going to be tough to handicap since I'm not exactly sure who plays for which team.

Still...I love Max Pacioretty.

The Wings should move heaven and earth to get that one superstar goal scorer from Michigan... What's his name again Frank? I'll wait. In the mean time, I think Glendening, Miller, Abby, and Dekeyser are probably enough "local heroes" for the time being. Now if you want to talk about finding a local coaching hero I might be willing to entertain the idea. But where would we find an excellent coach from Michigan?

I totally agree. I hope Ken Holland does as well.

I don't think there's any need to undersell what Babcock has accomplished. His career can't be tarnished. He's a good coach, there's no two ways about it. But it's not like our organization will fall apart if he leaves. The hype surrounding the guy has just gone completely overboard since the second Gold Medal. I'd laugh him out the door if he told me he wanted 5 million dollars a year. In my opinion you need to ACTUALLY BE the best coach in the NHL if you want to get paid like it.

Or Dallas Eakins. Or Guy Boucher. Nevermind the fact that he's been a much more successful coach than any of them, no matter what level he's been at. As long as it helps support that notion that Babcock is irreplaceable, Blashill might as well be the next Pierre McGuire. I can't stand all these efforts to run our guys down. Because it's all a desperate attempt to come to terms with the fact that we've got a good team that's been underperforming. Kronwall HAS to be less good than he is. Tatar and Nyquist HAVE to top out as secondary players. The defense HAS to suck. Holland HAS to be cheap and incompetent. Because if those things AREN'T true (note: they aren't) then that means we've got a pretty good team which has been underperforming. And if THAT'S true, then Mike Babcock ISN'T a hockey messiah, who's getting every last piece of success out of a sinking ship. Instead, he's be the guy who keeps getting the same result regardless of the age, size, speed, toughness, skillness, etc. of his roster. And that would make a lot of people wrong, wrong, wrong. And who likes to be wrong anyway?

Forget the Panthers, what about the Ducks, or Kings, Sharks, St. Louis, or Washington. Those are good, quality, competitive teams. But those states down turn out a bunch of future NHLers. When you say "How much talent would the Panthers have", the retort will always be "Well they shouldn't have a team anyway". But I don't think anybody would argue that the teams I mentioned above shouldn't have teams. Yet their states don't create many players.

And Tatar and Nyquist are the new Hudler and Filppula. It's science.