kipwinger

I was just thinking the same thing. I'm bailing on this one lol.

John Erskine makes Mike Commodore look like Rob Blake. We're much better off with Lashoff back there. Avoid at all costs.

You're the second person to call someone out for speculating in this thread. I'm not exactly sure how you plan to discuss the future without speculating to some degree. The whole point of this thread is to speculate about what Babs will do in a year. Euro_Twins' speculation, or conjecture, is no different than your own attempt to divine the future without substantive evidence. But he's no more a soothsayer than you. The only thing one could say about Babs' coaching status that isn't speculation is..."Mike Babcock currently doesn't coach for any other team aside from the Detroit Red Wings". And that would be a pretty boring (and short) thread. Edit: Also, I'm providing a link which should explain to you exactly why an owner won't typically make offers way above market rates. It's only a general overview, since the subject matter is a little dense, but a thorough reading should get you pretty far on your way toward understanding why Mike Babcock will never get offered 10 million dollars. Enjoy! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhmokVRdom8

I'm confused, are you making the point that hockey is a team game and requires a team effort or are you making the point that one guy (Lundquist) dragged his team into the playoffs every year for a decade?

I don't know if any of you follow the eulogies that Puck Daddy posts for each team that's eliminated from the playoffs. They're written by hockey bloggers from other teams and are meant as a roast of the eliminated team. Some are bad (San Jose), some are plain (Detroit), and some are amazing (Philadelphia). Well worth the read for a good laugh...just don't take things too seriously. I'm posting the Philadelphia eulogy, because it's one of the funniest (and harshest) things I've ever seen posted on the internet. Enjoy! https://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/puck-daddy/eulogy--remembering-the-2013-14-philadelphia-flyers-161540395.html

I like Kempe as well, and he'll go around 15th. Seems like a Holland type pick too.

Five years ago Babcock lost in the Cup finals with a team full of stars (and superstars). I'll concede that the last FOUR years we haven't had the personnel we had in the past. But that's all.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. I was responding to the post below. Nothing in it referenced draft position at all. It does, however, heavily insinuate that Quenneville wins because he's got a loaded team, and poor old Babcock has to make due with what he has. But that blatantly disregards the fact that Babs has had awesome teams full of Hall of Famers, and future Hall of Famers. In 2005 he had FOUR 80+ point players (something Quenneville has never had) and EIGHT 20+ goal scorers and lost in the first round to Edmonton. Babcock is a good coach, but it's demonstrably false to act like he's only won one Cup because the rest of the time his teams were bad or because he wasn't getting top flight players. He was.

The comparison wasn't with the 02 Wings or to Bowman. The original comparison was with Quenneville's teams, and Babs has had teams just as good as Quenneville has had. Also, only Yzerman and Alfie were really past their primes out of the guys on that list.

Yikes! Canadiens are going to have to get their s*** together. Making me look like an ******* right now lol.

You "can" see it, or you "want to" see it. Because moving a smallish european skilled player for Dustin Byfuglien isn't the kind of move Holland would make at all. I don't know why you'd think that was a probable roster move, regardless of how you felt about it personally.

Don't say that too loud, everyone will have a panic attack and then tell you how absurd and silly the notion is, right up until they hyperventilate and pass out.

I don't know the answer to that. But I do know that if Babcock leaves then about 2,000,000 people, from George Malik all the way down to members of this forum, are going to have to eat a lot of crow. People have invested so much into this "Babcock doesn't want to leave" business that it's become a part of their symbolic selves. If he left, they'd be forced to reconsider everything. Many would convert to Islam. Some would begin exercising more. Others would build large totems. Such would the loss of Babs undermine our psychic well being.

Whoa, I'm not being clear. I DON'T(edit) think we should tank on purpose. And I don't think we would if we let Sproul play rather than sign Boyle. I just think we should live or die with the young kids in the lineup. If we make the playoffs great. If not, they have a year's worth of experience for the next year. If signed, Boyle would only be a short term acquisition. I don't think we content in the short term, with or without Boyle. Since we're not going to contend either way, I'd rather have a kid get experience because that WILL help us in the long run. And if, in the short term, we don't finish as high as we might with Boyle...so be it, I'll take the high draft pick. I'm not saying be bad on purpose, I'm saying if you've already conceded you aren't winning next year, why not let a part of your future get better rather than bring in someone who you know A) won't help you win a Cup, and B) won't be on your team for more than a couple years. The only way I'd be in favor of signing Boyle is if we were a really good team and that was the one thing we needed to put us over the top. It isn't. So I don't see what it would accomplish.

I get your point, but losing Jarnkrok would probably be a little more tolerable to most people if it had been for Iginla and not Legwand.

I agree, this is feasible. But it's not a contender. And if we're not going to contend either way, I'd rather the kid get the experience, the team get a higher draft pick, and Dan Boyle go someplace else. What would signing him accomplish? Kronwall, Smith, Ericsson, Dekeyser, Boyle, and kids is still not a very good defense. So why waste the money and keep a deserving kid from getting experience? Who knows, a kid might surprise you. God knows nobody thought Sheahan or Jurco were ready until they were given a chance. You know who definitely isn't going to surprise you though? Dan Boyle. He's just going to be a less good version of his old self (which wasn't all that great to begin with).

I agree with you in the sense that it's tough to do. But I don't believe that the only possible option to upgrade our defense over the last five years was A) washed up old guys, or B) mediocre young guys. Lots of good young defensemen have moved around the last 5 years, Holland hasn't wanted to pony up. But that doesn't mean it's impossible to do.

The very same Martin that consistently underperformed in the playoffs over his entire coaching career? Yeah, that would totally be an improvement over Blysma lol. But you're right, it probably will be Martin.

Obviously, there's a little bit of tongue in cheek skepticism going on when I say these guys are losers. BUT teams much better than ours (e.g. San Jose, Pittsburgh, Boston) have all failed recently, despite having Boyle and Iginla. If we signed them both, AND Alfie, we'd still lose in the playoffs (provided we even made it). I don't see the point of signing these guys if they can't help us short AND long term, because in the short term we're not competing for a Cup, and in the long term they'll be retired. Give me Niskanen and Kesler, or give me the kids. Boyle and/ Iginla and/or Alfie don't do anything except maybe prolong the inevitable playoff loss, and worsen our draft position. Edit: We need young help. And I don't mean the kids. We need players who are in their primes or just hitting their primes (26-30). Because whether we like it or not, Dats and Z can't carry us to a Cup anymore. And no matter how bad we want it to be so, those two are never going to be 29-30 years old again.

I don't find them absurd. I was wondering if some professional had said Niskanen would be in the same price range as those guys you just mentioned, or if you just made it up, because I don't negotiate NHL contracts for a living (and neither do you). I think we'd both agree that Niskanen isn't (currently) as good as those guys, so I'm not sure why you think he'd get paid like them unless you heard it from a reliable source? Probably the fact that it hasn't worked since 2002?

You're over simplifying. Shero isn't the league's best GM, don't get me wrong. But for the last two years, Pittsburgh had defensive prospects as deep as we do now. He traded a few of them, for guys like Morrow and Iginla in an attempt to win the Cup. It didn't work, so everybody makes it seems like he gutted their team, but in reality he didn't. Ask yourself this, if Holland were trying to make a Cup run, and traded Quellet and Backman (in packages of course) for Iginla and Morrow, but managed to keep Sproul, Marchenko, and Jensen...how pissed would everyone be? Sure it's not the best move, but it's not the worst either. The rub, of course, depends on if you win the Cup or not. The reality is, Shero kept Maata, Pouliot, Despres, and D'Agostino, so it's not like they're terribly hard up for defense prospects...even with the trades.

I think he was talking about Niskanen when he mentioned that numbers. But I'm still not sure where they're coming from.

Blysma keeps his job...at least for today.

Where'd you come up with number? Did you just make it up or did someone with credibility say so? Because if so, could link me to where you saw it?