Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Dan Cleary may return...sigh


  • Please log in to reply
163 replies to this topic

#41 uk_redwing

uk_redwing

    #25 Jamie Tardif

  • Gold Booster
  • 3,848 posts
  • Location:Liverpool, UK

Posted 17 June 2014 - 12:13 PM

There's not one forward in Grand Rapids I would scratch for Dan Cleary. Why dump him on those of us who like to watch the youngsters play? :scared:

 

I was done with Ken Holland a long time ago, and have been saying his scouts have over inflated his reputation for YEARS now. The guy does nothing but play safe with the talent his SCOUTS acquired for him. Waste of space.

 

Babcock is keeping the playoff streak alive at the moment.


Posted Image
Turtling is for the weak
Grand Rapids Griffins Fights


#42 arag

arag

    1st Line Sniper

  • HoF Booster
  • 750 posts
  • Location:Hollywood

Posted 17 June 2014 - 12:15 PM

We need to somehow find out who is poisoning Hollands food with hallucinogens. This is absolutely ridiculous. What are they trying to do with this team.

#43 Mike J.

Mike J.

    Rookie

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 192 posts
  • Location:California

Posted 17 June 2014 - 12:21 PM

This is how I imagine the talks are going thus far...

 

Attached Files



#44 JSDO3O

JSDO3O

    Shutdown Defenseman

  • Member
  • 14 posts
  • Location:Palestine, PA

Posted 17 June 2014 - 12:29 PM

He can come back to the organization but how about as a scout? or some guy in a cozy office working for Kenny? or some sort of coach? I'm ok with that....


"All hockey players are bilingual; they speak English and profanity." -- Gordie Howe  :boxing:


#45 haroldsnepsts

haroldsnepsts

    "Classy"

  • HoF Booster Mod
  • 16,866 posts

Posted 17 June 2014 - 12:30 PM

I'm as eager to pretend things are "all Babs' fault" as you are to absolve him of any possible culpability.  Which is to say that both are gross over generalizations.  I don't hate Babcock, I just don't think he's beyond his share of the culpability when things go awry. 
 
Now, on to the way you addressed me.  You don't have to agree with anything I say.  I'm sure you're aware of that.  But in the future I'd appreciate you not insinuating I've made things up, or make condescending references to my "elaborate claims".  I'm not stupid, or a liar, and I resent being represented as such. 
 
As far as evidence for my "elaborate claims", I guess I'd start with all these...
 
"In Daniel Cleary's case, when he was brought back at the 11th hour last fall, at the urging of coach Mike Babcock, it was with the understanding the Wings would ameliorate Cleary having left a three-year deal on the table in Philadelphia."
http://www.freep.com...ngs-ken-holland
 
"Cleary was a surprise, because he had bad knees and better offers elsewhere. But coach Mike Babcock wanted him back. The team leaders wanted him back – from Howard to Zetterberg to Datsyuk. And he came back on a one-year deal worth $1.75 million"
https://sports.yahoo...-161232581.html
 
"At the 11th hour, coach Mike Babcock pushed for Cleary to return, resulting in a one-year contract with promise of future employment."
http://www.usatoday....t-list/8294157/
 
"Babcock had been pushing hard for Holland to re-sign Cleary, a versatile, hard-working heart-and-soul type of player who can play on any line and in any situation."
http://www.mlive.com...ed_his_hea.html
 
"Detroit Red Wings coach Mike Babcock has been a big supporter of Daniel Cleary since the forward earned a contract with the club following a training camp tryout in 2005.  Babcock pushed hard for the team to re-sign Cleary in the off-season."
http://www.mlive.com..._hopes_s_1.html
 
 
It's not too hard to see why I'd think Babcock was the primary motivator in bringing back Cleary when two of the Wings most prominent beat writers, as well as two reasonably well respected national outlets reported as much.

 
You didn't say that you thought Babcock was the primary motivator in bringing back Cleary. 
 
You stated that "Babs was the reason he left money on the table in Philly."
 
Nevermind that it ignores Cleary's role in the whole thing, there's nothing in your sources to support that statement.  Furthermore, from one of your own links (emphasis mine):
 
 

Cleary said he had no guaranteed deal in Philadelphia, despite a report of a three-year agreement worth $8.2 million.
“Paul (Flyers GM Holmgren) gave me an opportunity to come to Philly and I had a chance to be a Flyer and we never discussed numbers with Paul,'' Cleary said. “It was a tryout in Philly.
“Paul Holmgren was a real gentleman and a class act through the whole situation. I think he understood how tough the situation was for me. I pretty much told him that I was having a hard time, I needed an extra day or two, and he was in complete support.''
It was difficult for Cleary to join the Flyers when his heart wasn't in it.
“If I was going to go there, I needed to go there 100 percent,'' he said. “I didn’t think it was fair to (Holmgren) or to Mr. Snider (owner Ed) and the organization, or the players, or the Philly fans. My heart was here and I had a change of heart.

 
You stated that "Babs was the reason he got a commitment beyond last year from the Wings."  
 
There's nothing in your links to support that statement.  
 
The only thing you established, which was included in my links as well (I think we actually linked to a couple of the same articles) was that Babcock was pushing for Cleary.  Everyone knew that.  His man love for Cleary has been beat to death here.  I also linked to articles stating Holland wanted Cleary back.  
 
But you went beyond saying he pushed for Cleary.  You singled out Babcock as the reason why Cleary walked away from millions in Philly.  Millions it turns out, that may not have even been there.  Then you flatly stated that Babcock is the reason the Wings made a multi-year promise to Cleary.  I haven't seen any evidence that in any way supports that claim.  There's a massive gap between a coach saying he wants a player on a team and claiming the coach is the sole reason the Wings made a handshake deal to sign a player after this one year contract. 
 
So if you didn't like my word choice of "elaborate," how about "baseless."



#46 kipwinger

kipwinger

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,529 posts
  • Location:Mt. Pleasant, MI

Posted 17 June 2014 - 12:53 PM

 
You didn't say that you thought Babcock was the primary motivator in bringing back Cleary. 
 
You stated that "Babs was the reason he left money on the table in Philly."
 
Nevermind that it ignores Cleary's role in the whole thing, there's nothing in your sources to support that statement.  Furthermore, from one of your own links (emphasis mine):
 
 

 
You stated that "Babs was the reason he got a commitment beyond last year from the Wings."  
 
There's nothing in your links to support that statement.  
 
The only thing you established, which was included in my links as well (I think we actually linked to a couple of the same articles) was that Babcock was pushing for Cleary.  Everyone knew that.  His man love for Cleary has been beat to death here.  I also linked to articles stating Holland wanted Cleary back.  
 
But you went beyond saying he pushed for Cleary.  You singled out Babcock as the reason why Cleary walked away from millions in Philly.  Millions it turns out, that may not have even been there.  Then you flatly stated that Babcock is the reason the Wings made a multi-year promise to Cleary.  I haven't seen any evidence that in any way supports that claim.  There's a massive gap between a coach saying he wants a player on a team and claiming the coach is the sole reason the Wings made a handshake deal to sign a player after this one year contract. 
 
So if you didn't like my word choice of "elaborate," how about "baseless."

 

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.

 

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. 

 

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. 

 

Edit:  You'll have a much easier time downplaying Babs' role in this the second you can show me an article saying "Holland pushed..." or "Holland urged..." Babcock to let Cleary back on the team. 


Edited by kipwinger, 17 June 2014 - 01:02 PM.

GMRwings:  "Well, in other civilized countries, 16 years old isn't considered underage.  For instance, I believe the age of consent is 16 in Canada.  There's some US states where it's 16 as well.  

 

Get off the high horse.  Not like she was 10."

 

"Some girls are 17 even though they look 25."

 

 


#47 number9

number9

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,185 posts
  • Location:East Lansing

Posted 17 June 2014 - 12:55 PM

He's going to GR to be a mentor, only way he returns to the wings is if he beats out a kid for a spot. Don't see how that's so hard to grasp.



#48 hooon

hooon

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,212 posts
  • Location:Denver

Posted 17 June 2014 - 01:05 PM

He's going to GR to be a mentor, only way he returns to the wings is if he beats out a kid for a spot. Don't see how that's so hard to grasp.

 

It isn't hard to grasp, it is just hard to 100% believe - considering he beat out Nyquist last season when he had absolutely no business being on the team in the first place, it is not out of the realm of possibility to believe they might inexplicably give him a spot over some other youngster to start this season as well (Jurco, Mantha maybe). I think that's what is worrying most folks.

 

My other issue is, I don't even particularly want him taking up a spot on GR either. 


Posted Image

#49 FireCaptain

FireCaptain

    Whaddya mean I can't beat BOSTON?

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,879 posts
  • Location:Atoka, TN

Posted 17 June 2014 - 01:11 PM

1nhl_labor_hockey1.jpg

 

stop-being-calm-cause-i-m-back-*******.p


Most nights, my posts are brought to you by Heineken and sarcasm.
Success has a thousand fathers, failure is an orphan.
We not score, is hard to win. - Pavel Datsyuk #13

#50 number9

number9

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,185 posts
  • Location:East Lansing

Posted 17 June 2014 - 01:11 PM

 

It isn't hard to grasp, it is just hard to 100% believe - considering he beat out Nyquist last season when he had absolutely no business being on the team in the first place, it is not out of the realm of possibility to believe they might inexplicably give him a spot over some other youngster to start this season as well (Jurco, Mantha maybe). I think that's what is worrying most folks.

 

My other issue is, I don't even particularly want him taking up a spot on GR either. 

 

It's already been stated by management that jobs have been taken. Kids are in, vets are out. The contract being discussed is 2-way for a reason. If he earns a spot in the lineup which I, and I think we all doubt, then more power to him.



#51 haroldsnepsts

haroldsnepsts

    "Classy"

  • HoF Booster Mod
  • 16,866 posts

Posted 17 June 2014 - 01:19 PM

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.

#52 hooon

hooon

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,212 posts
  • Location:Denver

Posted 17 June 2014 - 01:22 PM

 

It's already been stated by management that jobs have been taken. Kids are in, vets are out. The contract being discussed is 2-way for a reason. If he earns a spot in the lineup which I, and I think we all doubt, then more power to him.

 

I hear ya, and I want to believe it. But I still have that shred of worry that he will find himself on the team. 

 

Even if he is on GR, he could be up as soon as the first injury, potentially over one of our prospects like Mantha or Pulk. I'm not saying it is the worst move ever, but still... I don't like it.


Posted Image

#53 dirtydangles

dirtydangles

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,689 posts

Posted 17 June 2014 - 01:26 PM

Its time to take out the trash. Ima go get my pitchfork and torch. 


Is there a kickstarter campaign for Jakub Kindl to never play another NHL game?


#54 kipwinger

kipwinger

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,529 posts
  • Location:Mt. Pleasant, MI

Posted 17 June 2014 - 01:27 PM

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.
 
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.
 
 
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.

 

 

Good points, I should have just said this and you'd have totally been cool with it (or at least been mum on the issue). 

 

Holland needs a mental health evaluation...the absurb justifications they come up with for even TALKING to Cleary are ridiculous.


GMRwings:  "Well, in other civilized countries, 16 years old isn't considered underage.  For instance, I believe the age of consent is 16 in Canada.  There's some US states where it's 16 as well.  

 

Get off the high horse.  Not like she was 10."

 

"Some girls are 17 even though they look 25."

 

 


#55 haroldsnepsts

haroldsnepsts

    "Classy"

  • HoF Booster Mod
  • 16,866 posts

Posted 17 June 2014 - 01:35 PM

Good points, I should have just said this and you'd have totally been cool with it (or at least been mum on the issue).

What? Wait! I'm not done arguing with you! :lol:


All in all I've been a fan of Cleary over the years but it's obvious he's not the player he once was. The heart is willing but the body isn't able. Hopefully all parties involve find a graceful exit for his time here on the Wings roster.



EDIT: And I didn't make it that clear in my last post, but over the last year people have made many statements of Babcock's role as if they were fact. And the size of that role has been increasing with each mention. So my (over)reaction to your post was about more than just your few statements.

I guess I get my knickers in a twist when keep repeating things enough here that they're taken as fact.

#56 number9

number9

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,185 posts
  • Location:East Lansing

Posted 17 June 2014 - 01:36 PM

 

I hear ya, and I want to believe it. But I still have that shred of worry that he will find himself on the team. 

 

Even if he is on GR, he could be up as soon as the first injury, potentially over one of our prospects like Mantha or Pulk. I'm not saying it is the worst move ever, but still... I don't like it.

 

I'd prefer if he wasn't on the team at all either, but he did sign cheap last season with an agreement that his contract would be renewed. Though he underperformed, I like and respect the fact that Wings are keeping their word. If it's his leadership the wings love then I have no problem with him GR mentoring future Wings.



#57 AtomicPunk

AtomicPunk

    Nobody rules these streets at night like me...

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,099 posts
  • Location:Home of the Wings

Posted 17 June 2014 - 01:46 PM

This madness needs to end. Seriously. Realize you made a mistake and walk away. 

To bring back players that are obviously not what this team needs makes me want to scream! 

 

At Holland.

 

 

In his face.


I am a victim of the science age...the underground.

Feed the Swede! - RETIRED 2012

#58 wings4thecup06

wings4thecup06

    1st Line Sniper

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 794 posts
  • Location:London, United Kingdom

Posted 17 June 2014 - 01:55 PM

 

I'd prefer if he wasn't on the team at all either, but he did sign cheap last season with an agreement that his contract would be renewed. Though he underperformed, I like and respect the fact that Wings are keeping their word. If it's his leadership the wings love then I have no problem with him GR mentoring future Wings.

 

Exactly. And this is the reason why I'm not sitting here s****ing my pants over this just yet because it makes sense to have a veteran guy like Cleary go to GR and show the kids what great work ethic is. Like someone else said, if he makes the team it'll be because he's played well, not because he's entitled. 


temp 1

 


#59 martinezsvsu

martinezsvsu

    3rd Line Checker

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 437 posts

Posted 17 June 2014 - 02:19 PM

cleary and mantha will form the greatest line the ahl has ever seen. so good that holland will send dano to the wings and leave mantha in gr.



#60 FlashyG

FlashyG

    1st Line All-Star

  • HoF Booster
  • 1,143 posts
  • Location:Canada

Posted 17 June 2014 - 02:32 PM

As long as he never see's the ice in a Wings jersey again I'm all for keeping him in Grand Rapids.

 

Having gone through the amount of struggles he did as a kid entering the league I think he would be an excellent mentor for the prospects teaching them what it takes to be a pro hockey player. 

 

As much as I hated seeing him on the ice the last couple years the one thing I can't take away from him is his effort, the guy works as hard as anyone on the ice and if he can instill that in a kid like Mantha he'll be damn near unstoppable at the NHL level.







Similar Topics Collapse

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users