kipwinger

I think Holland would be a fool to lock Babs up before seeing how this season plays out. You've got arguably the best coach not currently in the NHL in your back pocket, and you've got a team that's consistently underperforming in the playoffs. Give Babs the year. If the team is healthy and performs well, or if they lose in the playoffs but look strong, then bring him back. But if they miss the playoffs, get bounced early/get embarrassed, then let Babs walk on good terms (which he'd likely want anyway) and go with Blashill. 6 years of early playoff exits would be reason enough to make a change if that is indeed the case a year from now.

Obvious speculation about "damage control" aside, Mike Barwis isn't the Red Wings trainer. He's an outside specialist and (based on my very brief internet search) seems to be pretty well respected and established.

Would Mike Babcock trying to push Alex Ovechkin to "be the best" be a case of the unstoppable force meeting the immovable object? I was just trying to think of someone off the top of my head who's Babs match. I mean, Ovi's devil-may-care attitude already befuddled Don Cherry into a conciliatory tone. I wonder if he'd just make Babs' head explode.

We're gonna need it.

Here's a couple of quick follow up questions I'd ask based on what you just said if I were a sports journalist (though I'd probably be WAY less condescending about it than you're being). 1. If our powerplay is worse because Lidstrom and Holmstrom retired, why (despite still being bad overall) was it better the year after they left than it was in their final year? 2. How hard did you really go after Suter, Niskanen, and Ehrhoff if you didn't have the largest offer in any of those three instances? 3. Why is Tom Renney's powerplay more successful in Edmonton, despite having lesser talent, than it is on a Detroit team full of Stanley Cup winners, two way superstars, and arguably the best head coach in the NHL? 4. Why would you expect Dan Cleary, Todd Bertuzzi, Mikael Samuelsson, and Justin Abdelkader to contribute significantly on the powerplay? Three of them are declining veterans who can't stay healthy and whose offense has fallen off considerably while one of them has never contributed much offensively in the NHL in any situation. Clearly no need for good reporting if Holland is providing rock solid answers like those you've provided.

Well we will have to finish this later gents. I've got a happy hour to attend. Good talk though

Sure, I'm not suggesting they make things up. They should always do fact-based reporting. That's precisely what I'm advocating. Not just repeat things that may or may not be accurate or truthful (despite being said by management). My "Renney Sucks" comment was shorthand. I don't expect, nor would I enjoy if, if a journalist said someone "sucks" in an article. If the powerplay is objectively worse under Renney than someone else, reporters should ask the coach or GM why. If the answer they get is properly scrutinized and stands up to fact checking, then the matter can rest. But if the answer doesn't stand up to scrutiny (for instance: Our powerplay sucks because we have too many injuries), then I would expect a responsible reporter to try and figure out why and not just take management's word for it.

Well for starters, identifying the actual truth about a subject informs the public. And since the Red Wings, like all other businesses, are dependent on the public for revenue they are generally are very amenable to public opinion. Those types of questions also help inform management too. One of the biggest mistakes any decision maker can make is thinking that their way is the best way, or their thought process cannot be criticized. The press acts as a sounding board for decision makers all the time. Ken Holland is not different. Finally, asking relevant questions and ensuring that the answers provided are accurate and reliable is also the whole point of having journalism in the first place. If you'd rather they didn't ask questions, then why do you bother reading news? Just have the Red Wings twitter and facebook posts sent to your smart phone and move on if you don't care if the news is accurate or not. However I suspect, since you do go out of your way to consume news (by your own admission), that you'd likely prefer that the news you get is being collected and distributed in accordance with best possible industry standards and not just phoned in.

Checking the validity of what's said doesn't move something from the realm of "truth" into the realm of "opinion". If Holland says "our powerplay is bad because we've been injured" and a reporter says "wait a minute, your powerplay is bad even when the team isn't injured"; that doesn't make what the reporter said an opinion. And wouldn't you rather have a reporter ask that follow up question than just trumpet "our powerplay is bad because we were injured" back to you whether that's the actual truth or not?

I didn't say a word about Toronto and you're misrepresenting my point to the extreme in order to validate your own. Surely you'd agree that there's a happy middle ground between "not questioning the organization at all" and "being endlessly combative for the sake of validating oneself". I don't think anybody should second guess each and every single little roster decision the coach or GM make. But I also don't it would be asking too much if the next time Ken Holland said "We don't want to overpay for free agents", a member of the media would respond "didn't you just overpay for Cleary and Quincey? Why is it ok in those instances?" The powerplay has struggled since 2010. Was it injuries every year or is there a bigger problem? You know who would be great at answering that question? A member of the sports media.

I don't think anybody here "gets off" watching Holland squirm. I do think some people want management held accountable for bad decisions and underperforming expectations. Media can play a role in doing that (for good or ill). I don't think anybody here truly believes that media doesn't have a bigger part to play in all this. Nobody would be satisfied if each day Holland just stood in front of a camera, said what he wanted, took no questions, and then went about his business. I think the whole point of this media discussion, is that some fans (myself included) believe that's essentially what's happening because the Detroit sports media does not fulfill the "check and balance" role that media (by its independent nature) can provide. I have a hard time believing that anybody is going to sue a reporter for saying the powerplay is worse under Renney than it was under McClellen. Seems like a stretch to me. Especially considering that assertion can be supported by empirical fact. Sure, but they have to at least try. And just repeating back to readers the things that management says, without properly scrutinizing those things, isn't really doing a very good job of trying.

I agree. But surely you don't think that's their ONLY job right? I mean, you definitely believe that if they're doing their jobs correctly they're following up on what's said by management to see if it is accurate, reliable, valid, relevant, and properly contextualized right?

I'm confused about your position. You think that there's nothing wrong with the media coverage of the Wings?

Lighten up dude. It was a lighthearted reference to the discussion we've been having for the last two pages. It wasn't an attack on you or your post (which I agree with actually).

Mitch? Is that you? If you're listening, I just want you to know I hate the mawkish, faux sentimentality, of your articles and your obviously over-inflated view of the profundity of your insights. A lot. I mean, I really hate your articles. You suck. Otherwise... Drew Sharp? Is that you? If you're listening, I just want to say...

I've never heard him disparage the state so I can't speak to that. Also, as far as him saying bad things "even when Michigan is good", we haven't been good in over a decade. We've won 2 bowl games in ten years, and beat our biggest rival once in ten years. Winning Conference Championships and mid-level bowl games is fine if you're Purdue, or Northwestern. Nobody expects you to be better. But Michigan? I guess my point is, Michigan football is supposed to be a nationally relevant football program. That's the standard they've set for themselves, and what we've come to expect. They haven't lived up to that in a VERY long time, and don't seem to be making any headway toward that now. So I don't expect Drew Sharp to gush over them winning the odd Big Ten Title, or Gator Bowl. If U of M wants more respect from the media, they need to win more. And just like when the Tigers are good, or the Red Wings, or the Pistons, Drew will fall in line and write all the fluff pieces that fans can read. But he won't if they aren't. Now, if you're talking about his demeanor? I don't find it particularly problematic, but if you do I'm going to say you're wrong. It's your opinion.

Look man, I'm not trying to talk you into liking Drew Sharp. I honestly don't care if you like him or not. I loathe Mitch Albom, there's nothing that anybody's going to say to make me like his articles, so I understand where you're coming from. But what I would say is this. A) Being a dick, while irksome, doesn't mean he's got a bias against the team. I know lots of dicks who are fans of the team. The two things don't go together. B) As I've already said, 90% of fans don't like Drew because 90% of U of M fans LOVE that team...and he says bad things about the team. It doesn't mean those things aren't true. It just means they have an emotional investment in something he doesn't. It's like how pissed off parents would get if you criticized their kids. It's not that their kids are infallible. It's just that nobody likes hearing negativity directed at something they love. But as a life long Michigan fan, I can say honestly, that a sober (and therefore negative since the team is bad) assessment of U of M football is not only justified but may actually be beneficial in the long run.

I don't expect Babs or Holland to say "Renney sucks", I expect the reporters to say "Renney sucks" IF he actually does suck. And to determine that, they should talk to people outside the organization, who nevertheless, actually might know something about hockey and powerplays. Not simply repeat back what KH or Babs says, because as you've mentioned, those guys are DEFINITELY NOT going to say "Renney sucks"...even if it's true. And they shouldn't be expected to do so. It's not like I'm asking them to perform some sort of journalistic black magic. Verifying the accuracy of what's being told to you, and getting the thoughts of knowledgeable outsiders is standard practice for journalists.

I'm not sure what we're disagreeing about right now? We both agree that Drew Sharp discusses Michigan as though they're not a very good football program. He totally does that. And what's more, that's a pretty accurate depiction of Michigan football currently. I'd be way more suspect of a sports writer if they DID think Michigan was good. They simply aren't right now. They can't beat their biggest rivals, they aren't competing for National titles, and they seem utterly befuddled about the future of their program. What's he supposed to say about them? They're on the right track? Surely you'd agree that when a team is bad, an objective sportscaster will say they're bad? Likewise, when a team is good, someone trying to be objective will report that they're good? Those are truisms. It seems like you want Drew to say good things about a bad team, which would be insane.

Yep. And I'm not really sure how the two things (liking Drew Sharp's articles and being a Michigan fan) are mutually exclusive. I don't agree with some things he says, and I do agree with some things he says. But I don't think he's got a vendetta out against the University, team, coaching staff, players, etc. To be honest, U of M is a football school which hasn't been nationally relevant at football for a while. Drew Sharp recognizes this and reports it the way anybody trying to objective would. But that's a tough pill to swallow for most Michigan fans because unlike a sports journalist, fans have an emotional investment in the outcome of the season. Similarly the Wings are really no longer relevant in their sport. Soon the media will hop off the bandwagon, get a little more critical, and acknowledge this fact too. And I'd imagine all of us on this forum will be outraged in a similar way as you are when Sharp says something you don't like. We already do when Eddie Olczyk or Ryan Lambert criticize the Wings. But they don't have some bias. They just aren't fans, so they see different things than we do and those things sometimes aren't very good. And we don't like that.

I agree. And god knows I DEFINITELY don't want to see nude pics of Helen St. James. But I think you're downplaying it a bit. HSJ: "What's wrong with the powerplay coach Babcock". MB: "We need to execute and play heavier". HSJ: "Okey dokey, thanks coach. Print it boys". Nobody is expecting a beat reporter to take team officials to task, but there's a little more to their jobs than just repeating exactly what KH or Babs says without doing any other work whatsoever.

I read Drew Sharp all the time. I don't agree with you.

The media plays an important role as an independent check on any organization that it's covering. They're always disparaged, and 90% of the time they deserve it, but when they're doing their job everybody is thankful. I'm sure, if they tried, everyone here can think of a time in which the public was introduced to some (very important) piece of information because a journalist was out there doing his or her job. So this senseless media bashing is exactly that. Having said that, I do think that there's some merit to this article. If only to point out the utter ineptness of the local sports media, in particular. Put aside the bloggers (I know, it's just opinion), or free agency preferences (I know, they're subjective), and all the recent stuff. Set it aside. And even then the recent loss of Tom Renney and hiring of Tony Granato got me thinking...do any of you recall seeing a single article about the decline of our powerplay? Anybody remember that ever being a question asked of Babs or Holland? This is just one example, I know, but our powerplay has been getting worse each year for a while now. One of the justifications for signing Quincey, Sammy, and Alfie was that these guys would help on the powerplay. The Detroit sports media regurgitated that fact ad nauseam. And then...no results, and nobody asked a single question. And this isn't something that involves much subjectivity the way free agency or trades do. This is a fact. The powerplay stinks. And nobody bothers to find out why. If it's brought up at all, it's only to say "the powerplay is bad, here's Babs' or Hollands' ready made quote on the subject", which nobody bothers to follow up on. Would it have killed someone over at Mlive to put in a call to Red Berensen, or Terry Murray, and see if they had any thoughts...ya know...being experts on the subject and all? That's bad journalism. But can you really blame Khan, St. James, etc. for not asking? Fans don't want that story. Hell, the one and only writer in Detroit who isn't afraid to write unpopular articles (Drew Sharpe) is attacked endlessly by fans for being a troll, and then they complain about how no writers are willing to go against the grain. Hmmm.

Agreed. I'd obviously rather have Alfie than Cleary, but given that one's a done deal, it makes the other a little harder to swallow. I mean, if Alfie's on the team he's going to play. And we saw in the playoffs what our forward lines look like with Alfie, Dats, Z, Franzen, and the kids. Sadly, it wasn't all that great. Our offense sputtered and we were soundly beaten. I don't want to see that again, and I don't see any other way of putting lines together which is going to be any better. It's like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Z-Dats-Alfie isn't a great first line. Franzen-Weiss-Nyquist is completely untried and has a huge question mark in Weiss. The kid line probably doesn't start together since Jurco will probably go down (considering Holland won't trade Andersson or anyone else to make room for Jurco), and Abby-Helm-Miller/Glendening is good but is only a fourth line. I'm just not impressed when I write these down...and I don't think anybody else probably is either.

I don't really have a problem with how Alfie played. He was alright. But I still just think we'll run into the same exact problem we have for the last five or six years. Good teams will keep us to the outside and block shots. Alfie doesn't help with that. If we don't get guys into the lineup that can play (and score, sorry Abby) around the crease then we'll just keep running up against the same obstacles year after year.