Why would the Wings management feel obligated to commit multiple years to him if there weren't something more substantial from Philly? If there wasn't the structure of a deal present they'd have no reason to commit to him for longer. There must have been some reason to believe that he was leaving something on the table to become a Red Wing or else there would have been no need to make any commitments.
I honestly don't know. It could be because Holland had already offered Cleary a multi year deal earlier and then offered a lot less money when Cleary asked to meet with him and Babs. It could be that Holmgrem floated some numbers to Cleary and Dan is trying to keep him from getting in trouble with the NHL. The point is, we don't know. It's all conjecture. There's no solid evidence. And there's absolutely nothing that shows that Babcock was the reason for the multi year commitment, which is what you stated as fact.
Secondly, when reporters use words like "Babcock pushed" and "Babcock urged", it implies some reluctance on the part of Holland. Why would Babcock need to urge Holland, or push Holland to do something that he was already trying to do? Especially when you add in that it was done "at the 11th hour", which suggests that Babs was pushing and urging Holland to do something he wasn't already doing at the last possible second.
Surely you don't need me, or these reporters to go to huge lengths to explain the use of context clues in their articles. Again, you're welcome to disagree. But to say my position is "baseless" is false. I've given you links, and now I've explained the logic.
It was done at the 11th hour because Cleary had a change of heart. He's the one who requested the meeting. You keep ignoring that Holland offered Cleary a multi year deal earlier in the summer.
Your statements about Babcock's role are still baseless and aren't founded on logic. They're inferences you've drawn from reporters using words like "urged" and "pushed." That's a huge difference between logic drawn from facts.
I'm also not sure why I have to go to such lengths to make this point to you. I definitely didn't see you requiring equal amounts of proof when people were blaming the Clearly signing on Holland. If nothing else, I think you'd agree that the blame is 50/50. So why not jump to Holland's aid while he's getting blamed for the Cleary debacle? It's almost like you're relentlessly combative when you disagree with someone and kinda ok with unsubstantiated comments when you feel the same way.
Why would I need proof that the person who's job it is to sign players to contracts had a significant role in signing a player to a contract?
I've already repeated your claims multiple times. You didn't just state that Babcock had a role in signing Cleary. You made very specific statements about Babcock being the reason for a multi year promise from the Wings and from Cleary leaving millions in Philly. You refuted someone's statements about Holland by assigning sole responsibility to Babcock.
It's been repeated multiple times in this forum over the last year that it was because of Babcock, and over time people keep increasing the scope and depth of his responsibility, yet no one has provided any evidence other than Babcock lobbied for Cleary. Which he does all the time for players. And we know he has a man crush on Cleary, but Babcock and Holland disagree about roster decisions all the time. Part of that disagreement is Babcock arguing his position. It's a normal part of their working relationship. It's not like this is the one time Babcock argued with Holland and so Holland went out and did what Babs wanted.