kipwinger

My bold prediction... If Babcock leaves, Blashill will win a Cup first (with Detroit).

I'm so confused by this thread. Frank, you aren't even from Michigan are you? What do you care? Or is your argument that ALL TEAMS should try as hard as possible to only employ guys who grew up there?

But I only bring this up to say that if Babs' criticism of our center depth is accurate, I don't think it would take too much to rectify. I think he's got two legitimate top six center prospects in AA and Larkin, and the team has enough trade assets to land the best young center available via the trade market. Sure it would cost you Nyquist, but he's a ***** anyway so who really cares?

Probably the all time easiest bridge naming process in the history of bridges. Hey Michigan, do you want to name a bridge after legendary Red Wing Gordie Howe? Of course you do. Hey Canada, do you want to name a bridge after legendary Canadian Gorie Howe? Of course you do.

He didn't play heavy enough.

I hope I have front row seats to the Babcock/Keenan stare down. It will be epic.

Holy cow... Another person who dares to ask whether or not the hype surrounding Babcock isn't overblown to the point of absurdity. Exactly one sports reporter, in two countries, actually took the time to sit down and determine (rather than just repeat over and over) whether Babcock is worth all the fuss. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/is-mike-babcock-really-the-best-coach-in-hockey-how-do-we-know/article24380450/

I agree. Sometimes you get it right, and sometimes you get it wrong. We all do. So maybe, just maybe, next time you get it right you could act a little more dignified about it instead of calling people "idiots" for not agreeing with you. Or reminding everybody, over and over, that you were right about Weiss. Display a little more class when you're right, and nobody will go through all the effort of digging up all the things you were wrong about. Or don't. And we'll revisit this same discussion in the future. Something tells me I'll have no shortage of ways to make you look silly whenever you're getting a little too self righteous.

I don't want him to win. Why would I? He's not a Red Wing, and I'm not in the business of idol worship. Until he's working for Detroit again, screw that guy.

Sure, but those same people didn't go on and on, 3 years later, about how they "never liked the Weiss signing". Which is the reason I, and not Number9, went through the 1000 pages of yhis forum to see how you really felt back in the summer of 2012. Weiss was a safer bet than either of the two clowns you advocated signing. So while you can pat yourself on the back for being against that one, it only opens you up to criticism. "I wouldn't have signed Weiss", you say, "because I would have been too busy making two deals which were much worse". Well pin a rose on your nose. It's like patting yourself on the back for not doing meth because you were too busy doing heroin.

Can we all stop with the political discussion. I know that nobody means any harm, but this isn't really the place for it.

Jon Cooper...the most interesting man in hockey.

So did I, but I try not to indulge her. It only encourages that sort of behavior.

Dude, please stop with the "I told you so" crap concerning the Weiss signing. You may have not liked the Weiss signing, but you called David Clarkson a "must get" that same offseason and advocated giving him 4.5-5 million dollars. In the same thread you advocated signing Ryane Clowe for 4-4.5 million. So it's not like you were some free agency oracle that year. Maybe you wouldn't have signed Weiss, but you would have sunk even more money into players who were just as bad or worse. Hell, Clowe doesn't even play pro hockey anymore. So lets just give a rest eh? http://www.letsgowings.com/forums/topic/74189-david-clarkson-a-must-get-july-1st/

Always a bridesmaid, never a bride. I feel for you. It must be difficult.

Don't be jealous, you'll always be #2 in my book.

Gallager's exactly the type of ****** bag for that job lol.

Finally, someone who hasn't completely lost their mind regarding the Mike Babcock hype. This is a good article by the way, totally worth a read. Tom Renney on Mike Babcock: “I think he’s in an envious position because he’s so successful. I think if he’s not the best coach in the world he’s in the top three or four guys for sure,” said Renney. “The one thing is, the organization has to be ready for Mike and Mike has to be ready for it. “Mike has been at one place a long time. And there’s a certain template there that has stood the test of time for a reason. Quite honestly, that’s with or without Mike. What Mike did was fit into it very, very well and place his own set of demands onto that whole program and make it as successful as it’s ever been.” http://www.edmontonsun.com/2015/05/10/babcok-renney-and-nicholson-where-theyre-at-now

How does that negate anything I said? If anything, it's only more evidence that free spending, without any consideration of the opportunity cost of doing so, is absurd. Any teams that offers Babcock 5 million dollars will ultimately eat every cent of that money. Not because he's a bad coach, but because he's not a perfect one either. And even with a top flight GM, organization, players, and support staff, he's managed to win exactly one. Why? Because they're hard to win. Throwing 5 million dollars at a coach with the expectation that it will cover up for other organizational failures is short sighted and stupid. And Babs should beware anybody who offers that kind of money, because it's probably indicative of other tendencies to think in the short term, throw money at problems, fail to plan strategically, or have a long term path to success. In short, it's indicative of all the things that make the Toronto Maples Leafs a bunch of trashy losers. Think about every story, or news article, or anecdote you've ever heard where somebody fixed a problem by throwing money at it. How does that work out for them? Every rich kid that got out of trouble because his dad could afford a good lawyer. How does that work out? Does that person learn anything, get straight, turn their life around, and succeed? No. It just ensures that the problem will keep happening.

Could you imagine if Subban scored the game winner lol?

Because with that kind of salary comes a dramatic increase in expectations, accountability, scrutiny, and eventually criticism. One of the many reasons that the Toronto fans, media, and organization turned on both Phaneuf and Clarkson is because they threw HUGE money at both of those guys, and when they didn't live up to the expectations that came with that money, they were ostracized. Babcock would not be immune from the same treatment. Whatever team pays him that kind of money, be it us or Toronto or anybody else, is going to want a Cup. And if he can't deliver, there's going to be a problem.

Katie Strang ‏@KatieStrangESPN 5m5 minutes ago Lawyer on behalf of Steve Montador's estate, Bill Gibbs, confirms to ESPN that his firm, Corboy & Demetrio, will be filing lawsuit vs. NHL

That's exactly right. He's not going to change up what makes him successful. And he shouldn't. The only question that people should be asking is, "does Mike Babcock's system give us the best chance to win given the personnel that we have?". I have my doubts, but I certainly don't expect him to go changing anything. His system was really a good fit back in the 2008 and 2009 time period, because his best players were both the best offensive AND defensive players in world...at the same time. Datsyuk, Zetterberg, and Lidstrom could be as defensive as Babs wanted and still produce huge point totals. In 2008 Dats and Z were 90+ point players and Lidstrom scored 70 pts. And they were the best defensive players in the world at the same time. He's got nobody like that now. So the offense isn't quite a free flowing.

What do you know... Katie Strang ‏@KatieStrangESPN 4m4 minutes ago Krembil's Neuroscience Centre, to which Steve Montador had committed brain for research, releases results: Found CTE

Paying him 5 million or more, is so dumb. That's way too much for a coach. Babs doesn't have a magic wand that delivers Stanley Cups. If you've got a s*** organization, one that's not built for his style of play, or a GM that can't deliver, or a destination that nobody want to go to, Mike Babcock isn't going to change that. Mike Babcock (@ 5, 10, or 20 million a year) couldn't bring a Cup to Toronto. It's starting to get to the point where the hype is so great that every outcome will be a let down. After tomorrow there will be four coaches vying for the 2015 Stanley Cup. None of them are named Babcock. This will be the sixth year in a row that this has been the case. I know everybody will list 1,000,000,000 zillion reasons why it's not his fault. But the truth is, Babs isn't a guarantee of ANYTHING. They didn't hand him a Stanley Cup just for showing up here in Detroit, and they won't hand him one elsewhere. And about 90% of the teams he could go to will be more incompetent, miserly, and corrupt than the one everybody thinks he coaches for now. So why would there be a better result elsewhere? Because Connor McDavid, or Jack Eichel, or Phil Kessel or blah, blah, blah. He's a good coach, but is he so otherworldly good that he's worth that kind of money? Some argue that he's better than Quenneville. Ok fine. Is he twice as good as Quenneville? Because he's about to get paid like it. And when he doesn't deliver, then what?