• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
HockeytownRules19

LeBrun: Babcock for COY and Holland for GMOY

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Just cuz it's from ESPN doesn't mean LeBrun is just some hack writer. Seems like a irrational reaction. He does some of the best work around the league and is highly respected. If Bobby Mac switched to ESPN, would you brush aside his articles too? Just playing devil's advocate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just cuz it's from ESPN doesn't mean LeBrun is just some hack writer. Seems like a irrational reaction. He does some of the best work around the league and is highly respected. If Bobby Mac switched to ESPN, would you brush aside his articles too? Just playing devil's advocate.

Yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This Is espn so everything should be taken with a large dose of salt. Nonetheless Babcock should be way higher up on that list

Did you hear they have the broadcast rights for World Cup 2016? They're getting back into hockey.

Edited by rrasco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neither of them deserve it. They're both good, and consistently good. But being third in your division, despite being largely healthy, and with no noticeably change in personnel, system, or coaching, isn't exactly extraordinary. We're a good team. We were supposed to be a good team. To me, giving it to Babs and Holland would be like giving it to Bowman and Quenneville, Lombardi and Suter, Rutherford and Johnston, or Sather and Vigneault. All of them are either meeting, or slightly underperforming expectations.

I don't know what goes into the selection process for these awards, so I don't know who will win. But some good coaches and GMs that have stuck out, to me, are Laviollete (obviously), Maurice, Hartley (ugh), Capuano, Trotz, Chevaldayoff, Snow, and Tallon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neither of them deserve it. They're both good, and consistently good. But being third in your division, despite being largely healthy, and with no noticeably change in personnel, system, or coaching, isn't exactly extraordinary. We're a good team. We were supposed to be a good team. To me, giving it to Babs and Holland would be like giving it to Bowman and Quenneville, Lombardi and Suter, Rutherford and Johnston, or Sather and Vigneault. All of them are either meeting, or slightly underperforming expectations.

I don't know what goes into the selection process for these awards, so I don't know who will win. But some good coaches and GMs that have stuck out, to me, are Laviollete (obviously), Maurice, Hartley (ugh), Capuano, Trotz, Chevaldayoff, Snow, and Tallon.

If you actually think snow Is a good gm, I can't take you seriously. I firmly believe he got lucky this year. You have to get lucky eventually. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. He has been an absolutely brutal gm for years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neither of them deserve it. They're both good, and consistently good. But being third in your division, despite being largely healthy, and with no noticeably change in personnel, system, or coaching, isn't exactly extraordinary. We're a good team. We were supposed to be a good team. To me, giving it to Babs and Holland would be like giving it to Bowman and Quenneville, Lombardi and Suter, Rutherford and Johnston, or Sather and Vigneault. All of them are either meeting, or slightly underperforming expectations.

I don't know what goes into the selection process for these awards, so I don't know who will win. But some good coaches and GMs that have stuck out, to me, are Laviollete (obviously), Maurice, Hartley (ugh), Capuano, Trotz, Chevaldayoff, Snow, and Tallon.

This kind of thinking is what's wrong with these awards. Essentially penalizing the best coaches and GMs for being the best, and rewarding the biggest surprises instead. May as well name it the "GM/Coach of the most improved team" award.

So you get guys like Holland and Babcock who've never won these awards, while guys like Capuano and Snow are being mentioned. It's like, "Good job at not sucking as much as you used to!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This kind of thinking is what's wrong with these awards. Essentially penalizing the best coaches and GMs for being the best, and rewarding the biggest surprises instead. May as well name it the "GM/Coach of the most improved team" award.

So you get guys like Holland and Babcock who've never won these awards, while guys like Capuano and Snow are being mentioned. It's like, "Good job at not sucking as much as you used to!"

It's a annual award. The Islanders are significantly better than they were a year ago. Why should they not be in consideration? I'd agree if we were talking about giving Garth Snow a lifetime achievement award. We aren't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a annual award. The Islanders are significantly better than they were a year ago. Why should they not be in consideration? I'd agree if we were talking about giving Garth Snow a lifetime achievement award. We aren't.

Because their past performance strongly suggests that the team performance this year is more likely in spite of, rather than due to, those two.

Again, it is not an award for "most improved". It's fine if improvement/exceeding expectations is a factor in picking the winner, but it shouldn't be the sole factor, just like it shouldn't automatically go to the team with the best record.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because their past performance strongly suggests that the team performance this year is more likely in spite of, rather than due to, those two.

Again, it is not an award for "most improved". It's fine if improvement/exceeding expectations is a factor in picking the winner, but it shouldn't be the sole factor, just like it shouldn't automatically go to the team with the best record.

Who said it should be the "sole factor" for picking a winner? Certainly I didn't. You've been on fire with your straw man arguments lately.

I did say that the guys who stick out "to me" are the guys who's teams have dramatically improved since last year. I'm not sure why that's such a big stretch. Should the coach or GM of the year be someone whose team got worse? And even if it was the "sole factor", I'm hardly the only person that feels that way. Lots who people, who know a lot about the sport, vote that way all by themselves. So your "this type of thinking is what's wrong with the awards" comment is a bit of an exaggeration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who said it should be the "sole factor" for picking a winner? Certainly I didn't. You've been on fire with your straw man arguments lately.

I did say that the guys who stick out "to me" are the guys who's teams have dramatically improved since last year. I'm not sure why that's such a big stretch. Should the coach or GM of the year be someone whose team got worse? And even if it was the "sole factor", I'm hardly the only person that feels that way. Lots who people, who know a lot about the sport, vote that way all by themselves. So your "this type of thinking is what's wrong with the awards" comment is a bit of an exaggeration.

Who said I was saying anyone said it was? Certainly I didn't.

Might have been implied I suppose. Kind of like a list of 8 guys, all from teams showing significant improvement, and another list of guys you'd exclude (some of them with teams performing as well as, or better than, the guys from your first list) implies that you aren't really considering anything else.

I don't care about your fallacious appeal to authority. The fact is, it is not a "most improved" award. Many voters seem to treat it that way, and I don't agree. Many voters treat the Norris like a "most points by a defenseman" award and I don't agree with that either. Might not be very a very popular opinion, at least among the award voters, but I never suggested it was. Not sure what you think was exaggerated about it. (And please don't resort to that trite old "stating your opinion as fact" bs. We all know most of what anyone says on this board is an opinion.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the Wings are making the playoffs Babs absolutely deserves to finally win this award but the competition is stiff with Laviolette and Hartley.

I don't think Holland should be in the conversation, he hasn't done anything in the off-season. Yeah, so far the season has turned out better than expected but I don't think it should go to GM a that haven't done anything. I would give it to Hartley and the flames gm.

Edited by frankgrimes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who said I was saying anyone said it was? Certainly I didn't.

Might have been implied I suppose. Kind of like a list of 8 guys, all from teams showing significant improvement, and another list of guys you'd exclude (some of them with teams performing as well as, or better than, the guys from your first list) implies that you aren't really considering anything else.

I don't care about your fallacious appeal to authority. The fact is, it is not a "most improved" award. Many voters seem to treat it that way, and I don't agree. Many voters treat the Norris like a "most points by a defenseman" award and I don't agree with that either. Might not be very a very popular opinion, at least among the award voters, but I never suggested it was. Not sure what you think was exaggerated about it. (And please don't resort to that trite old "stating your opinion as fact" bs. We all know most of what anyone says on this board is an opinion.)

I wasn't appealing to authority. I was pointing out the fact that you called me (and my thinking) out and oddly not Pierre Lebrun, the person who wrote the article in the OP, mentioned all the same guys I did, and actually gets to vote for those awards. Why not say "his type of thinking is ruining the awards"? Since he actually gets a vote. Instead, it's my thinking. Seems like you've got an axe to grind, or some hostility or something. I promise I don't get to vote for these awards, and so you can be assured that my thinking isn't ruining anything.

Otherwise, I've said what I'm going to say. A coach (or GM) of the year award should go to the best coach (or GM) over the last year. And since I don't believe (my opinion) that any of these guys did absolutely nothing between this last year and this, I'm going to heavily rely on improvement as an indicator, when offering up my (clearly stated) personal preferences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the Wings are making the playoffs Babs absolutely deserves to finally win this award but the competition is stiff with Laviolette and Hartley. I don't think Holland should be in the conversation, he hasn't done anything in the off-season. Yeah, so far the season has turned out better than expected but I don't think it should go to GM a that haven't done anything. I would give it to Hartley and the flames gm.

Not to sound cliche, but sometimes the best move a GM can make, is no move at all, just ask a Flyers fan lol.

Alot of GM's would have thrown ridiculous offers to the D men that were available in the off-season, but when the bidding got to high Holland walked away, I have to respect him for that as he didnt handcuff us with any horrible contracts. I don't think GM of the year is an award that is based on simply one years worth of work, if so, it would be the "best trades/UFA signings award". To me, it is a culmination of many moves a GM has made to bring you to a certain point, which I think Holland has done a great job of doing. In this city especially, going with a youth movement is going to be a hard sell to alot of fans (see Holland should be fired thread, see Tank it thread, etc. etc.) but Holland did it, and it paid off. I think he should definitively be in the conversation. Though lets see how the season plays out first. Kip makes a good point:

Neither of them deserve it. They're both good, and consistently good. But being third in your division, despite being largely healthy, and with no noticeably change in personnel, system, or coaching, isn't exactly extraordinary. We're a good team. We were supposed to be a good team.

If we finish third which is exactly what I and many fans expected, I don't think he should win, but definitely should be considered. If we win the conference......different story.

I wasn't appealing to authority. I was pointing out the fact that you called me (and my thinking) out and oddly not Pierre Lebrun, the person who wrote the article in the OP, mentioned all the same guys I did, and actually gets to vote for those awards. Why not say "his type of thinking is ruining the awards"? Since he actually gets a vote. Instead, it's my thinking. Seems like you've got an axe to grind, or some hostility or something. I promise I don't get to vote for these awards, and so you can be assured that my thinking isn't ruining anything.

Otherwise, I've said what I'm going to say. A coach (or GM) of the year award should go to the best coach (or GM) over the last year. And since I don't believe (my opinion) that any of these guys did absolutely nothing between this last year and this, I'm going to heavily rely on improvement as an indicator, when offering up my (clearly stated) personal preferences.

To me, coach of the year is the coach who got the most out of his players based on the skill set of those players, not most improved (not saying you said this).

It's a tough award to assess, you cant just give it to the coach who's team is the best, or then it just becomes the presidents trophy.

I also don't agree with the notion that it should be awarded to most improved. I think it does a lot of the time because ultimately the most improved team is usually a team that people think very little of, then come out of nowhere, and then credit is given to the coach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this