kipwinger

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?

I don't necessarily disagree with the general theme you're suggesting, but you're overstating it a bit. After trading for Zidlicky, we were slightly above average (amongst playoff teams) in terms of defense scoring. Our best offensive defensemen (Kronwall, Zidlicky, and Dekeyser) had 44, 34, and 31 pts. respectively. For comparisons' sake, Duncan Keith, Seabrook, and Hjalmarsson (Chicago's top guys) had 45, 31, and 19 points. I'd even argue that Ericsson, Quincey, and Kindl contributed MORE than you'd realistically expect them to considering two of them are stay at home guys, and one of them played 34 games. Smith was underwhelming offensively, but that's relative to his talent and pedigree, and not relative to other third pair puck movers around the league. And all these guys did that while playing REALLY good defense. Our shot suppression was impressive, and laudable. Again, I'm not trying to disagree too much. I'd love to have a player or two on the back end who have a more dynamic ability to make plays in the offensive zone. But our defense was actually MUCH better than advertised. How bad it was is drastically overstated around here (I imagine because in the post-Lidstrom era that's all part of the narrative). Especially in the playoffs. Our defense wasn't even bad the one game Kronwall and Zidlicky were out. So I don't want to blame of lack of offense on that too much. Side note: I laughed when I saw the "Is Kronwall a #1 defenseman" thread the other day. Kronners plays huge minutes, excellent defense, and scores 40+ points a season, but he's not a number 1. Keith, Pietrangelo, Suter, Byfuglien, Doughty, OEL, all do the the same thing and they're obviously better for some reason.

Yeah, you're probably right. I'm just at a loss for why a team full of so much offensive potential had such a hard time scoring goals this year. As I've stated before, I don't believe that Johnson, or Filppula, or Kucherov, or Palat, or Callahan, or any of those guys aren't noticeably more offensively capable than the guys we've got filling similar type roles. Only Stamkos is noticeably better than any of our guys, and he didn't do much. Every other player they have is comparable to someone we have. They aren't noticeably bigger, faster, or more skilled. So when all of our offensive players fail to produce, it makes me think it's something systemic.

It's easy to be confused. Anybody who regularly plays with Crosby or Malkin can look like a superstar. Just ask Chris Kunitz.

You heard it here first folks. Ovechkin with the first ever "Ovechtrick" in Game 7. He guaranteed a win, and he'll deliver.

You need your own blog. I'd read regularly.

Hasn't there been some concern in the past over Red Berenson's ability to develop players correctly? I'm thinking specifically about Jack Johnson here.

I was just confused because I never thought you'd root for any team with as many Russians on it as Washington does. Then again, they do fight more than New York, so it's a toss up. I should have known.

You know they're both Red, White, and Blue right?

I do want Blash as coach, and I do think that he'd get a different result. But that's a discussion for elsewhere. With regard to our drafting, I think you've totally mischaracterized our strategy for choosing players. Holland has stated repeatedly in the past that he draft on skill and hockey IQ. None of Tatar, Nyquist, Pulkkinen, Jurco, Jensen, Smith, Kindl, AA, Sproul, Frk, Tvardon, and Ferraro were "two way" players at lower levels. Most still aren't. And none of Helm, Sheahan, Turgeon, or Callahan were thought to have much offensive upside when they were drafted either. So they definitely weren't considered "two way" players. Of our current crop of young players/prospects, only Abby, Larkin, Ouellet, and Nastasiuk were considered "two way" players when they were drafted. And I'll give you Bertuzzi. While he had never produced offensively prior to being drafted, there had to be a reason why they took him so high. Otherwise it's a complete headscratcher.

That would rule soooo much.

I think Hitch would fare about as well as Babs has lately. He's a very similar coach. And yeah, my money would be on Blash. He's our John Cooper. He's had considerable success with the guys who will be the future of our organization, and he's been excellent at every level he's coached at. I don't see why you'd pick anyone else, but that's just me. Edit: If not Blash, I'd give Paul Heyman a shot. He knows what it takes to manage a champion.

Every single free agent, prior to leaving a place, talks about how great it is, and how much they love it, and how it's not about the money it's about winning, and how no decisions have been made...blah, blah, blah. Anybody remember Max Scherzer, or Ndamukong Suh, or Valtteri Filppula? It's bulls***. He's as good as gone. And it's almost certainly about the money. He probably wants a bunch of it. And the organization probably doesn't think he's worth it given the team's performances over the last 5 or 6 years.

Hitchcock is gone, one way or another. Either he resigns or he gets canned. Babs' decision won't have much impact on that IMO.

Well if you ask most everyone else, it's the smartest possible thing to do. Because Mike Babcock did it. Another thing to do, and this is probably a long shot, is to play your scorers a lot. Press offensively. Control the puck. And in doing so, make the other team use their 4th line 18 minutes a night and/or render their best player ineffective with defensive assignments. Nah...what am I saying? That would never work.