• 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

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:

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.

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.

I'm not sure where this idea of "most improved" is coming from. I mentioned a number of coaches that I think did a good job this year. They've all improved their teams. I'm not sure who improved the their team the most (probably Laviolette, if I had to guess), but I certainly wasn't saying the that the coach (or GM) with the best record this year (compared to last year) should win it. That would be most improved. Something I've never advocated for.

Personally, I'd look at all the coaches whose teams dramatically improved over the last year, and then I'd try to figure out why. Was it because their powerplay is way better (Detroit), or because they're more healthy (Detroit), or because they got a new coach (Nashville, Washington), or they had a whole year with a different coach (Winnipeg), or a couple new assistants, etc? And then whoever's improvement was most directly attributable to the coach, would get the award.

And that's how I'd vote, if I had a vote, for coach of the year. But I don't, have a vote just to be clear. So if you think my thinking is ruining the sanctity of the NHL awards process, rest assured that it isn't.

Edited by kipwinger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

I said 'this', not 'your'. Stop trying to play the victim. Also, Lebrun picked Babs and Holland to win, albeit he's doing so for the 'exceeding expectations' reason.

But if it makes you feel better I'll henceforth refer to it as "the Lebrun­­ method™"

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.

Yeah, how 'bout those Flames. Only took two years of tanking to get to a slightly better level of mediocrity than they were at 5 years ago. They actually have a chance to make the playoffs. Remarkable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I said 'this', not 'your'. Stop trying to play the victim. Also, Lebrun picked Babs and Holland to win, albeit he's doing so for the 'exceeding expectations' reason.

I don't think they are exceeding expectations though. Any educated writer/fan knew that IF they stayed healthy and the kids didn't go through a major regression, this is exactly where they would be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I said 'this', not 'your'. Stop trying to play the victim. Also, Lebrun picked Babs and Holland to win, albeit he's doing so for the 'exceeding expectations' reason.

But if it makes you feel better I'll henceforth refer to it as "the Lebrun­­ method™"

Yeah, how 'bout those Flames. Only took two years of tanking to get to a slightly better level of mediocrity than they were at 5 years ago. They actually have a chance to make the playoffs. Remarkable.

You said "this type of thinking" while quoting me as an example. If I quoted you and said "this type of thinking is goofy" you'd have every reason to think I was talking about you. It's not that hard to figure out what you were suggesting. And you're not really clever at all. So I'm not sure why you're trying to dance around it now.

You think "my type of thinking" ruins awards that I (in fact) have no say in administering. Which is absurd. But I doubt that's the point. Apparently something about me really bakes your clams. And you really wanted to show me what's what. And you did. In sense that you put a bunch of words in my mouth, made me responsible for something I have no part of, and then danced around about it when I confronted you about it.

I don't choose NHL awards. And I didn't suggest that the team with the greatest improvement from one year to the next should get awards. So try again.

I don't think they are exceeding expectations though. Any educated writer/fan knew that IF they stayed healthy and the kids didn't go through a major regression, this is exactly where they would be.

Careful. That's exactly the type of thinking that's wrong with awards. But not your thinking. Someone else. But the kind that you're an example of. Except not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure where this idea of "most improved" is coming from. I mentioned a number of coaches that I think did a good job this year. They've all improved their teams. I'm not sure who improved the their team the most (probably Laviolette, if I had to guess), but I certainly wasn't saying the that the coach (or GM) with the best record this year (compared to last year) should win it. That would be most improved. Something I've never advocated for.

Personally, I'd look at all the coaches whose teams dramatically improved over the last year, and then I'd try to figure out why. Was it because their powerplay is way better (Detroit), or because they're more healthy (Detroit), or because they got a new coach (Nashville, Washington), or they had a whole year with a different coach (Winnipeg), or a couple new assistants, etc? And then whoever's improvement was most directly attributable to the coach, would get the award.

And that's how I'd vote, if I had a vote, for coach of the year. But I don't, have a vote just to be clear. So if you think my thinking is ruining the sanctity of the NHL awards process, rest assured that it isn't.

Most improved was just a shorthand way of saying "guy from a team that happened to improve a lot from the previous season". All I'm saying is you shouldn't automatically disqualify someone based on not sucking the year before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most improved was just a shorthand way of saying "guy from a team that happened to improve a lot from the previous season". All I'm saying is you shouldn't automatically disqualify someone based on not sucking the year before.

This is the type of thinking that makes me think people on the internet just like to argue.

What?!? Stop playing the victim. I wasn't talking about you. I said "this type of thinking".

Edited by kipwinger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You said "this type of thinking" while quoting me as an example. If I quoted you and said "this type of thinking is goofy" you'd have every reason to think I was talking about you. It's not that hard to figure out what you were suggesting. And you're not really clever at all. So I'm not sure why you're trying to dance around it now.

You think "my type of thinking" ruins awards that I (in fact) have no say in administering. Which is absurd. But I doubt that's the point. Apparently something about me really bakes your clams. And you really wanted to show me what's what. And you did. In sense that you put a bunch of words in my mouth, made me responsible for something I have no part of, and then danced around about it when I confronted you about it.

I don't choose NHL awards. And I didn't suggest that the team with the greatest improvement from one year to the next should get awards. So try again.

Why yes, I quoted an example of the type of reasoning I wanted to counter. Would have made much less sense had I said "this type..." without referencing anything. Granted, I was burning you in effigy in my backyard at the time, but since I'm reasonably positive that you don't live in my backyard I feel confident in saying you couldn't have known that.

If I'm wrong and you do live in my backyard, I apologize. To make reparations, I'll build you a cross to climb on. Also, rent's overdue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why yes, I quoted an example of the type of reasoning I wanted to counter. Would have made much less sense had I said "this type..." without referencing anything. Granted, I was burning you in effigy in my backyard at the time, but since I'm reasonably positive that you don't live in my backyard I feel confident in saying you couldn't have known that.

If I'm wrong and you do live in my backyard, I apologize. To make reparations, I'll build you a cross to climb on. Also, rent's overdue.

Lol. You get incredibly lighthearted when your arguments start to fall flat. A far cry from the guy who so vigorously blamed me for the downfall of the NHL awards process. Wait, did you blame me? Or just make a vague statement and not so subtly point it at me?

Either way, I didn't make any of the arguments you claim I did. I'm not responsible for NHL awards. And I'm smart enough to know what plausible deniability is. If you're going to make up a bunch of things (most improved award), in the future could you spare me the "who me" routine when you get called out on it?

Or maybe next time you disagree with me about who should be the NHL Coach of the Year, you should just act decent about it instead of pulling that "this is the kind of thinking" crap. Then we wouldn't be in this position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol. You get incredibly lighthearted when your arguments start to fall flat. A far cry from the guy who so vigorously blamed me for the downfall of the NHL awards process. Wait, did you blame me? Or just make a vague statement and not so subtly point it at me?

Either way, I didn't make any of the arguments you claim I did. I'm not responsible for NHL awards. And I'm smart enough to know what plausible deniability is. If you're going to make up a bunch of things (most improved award), in the future could you spare me the "who me" routine when you get called out on it?

Or maybe next time you disagree with me about who should be the NHL Coach of the Year, you should just act decent about it instead of pulling that "this is the kind of thinking" crap. Then we wouldn't be in this position.

It was the logic that I was disagreeing with, not your specific candidates. But I'm not going to argue semantics.

I don't like the apparent reasoning you used. I don't believe improvement should be such a big factor, because I think a team can still have an excellent, or the best, coach or GM even if they were good the previous season too. You want to debate that, then debate that, not my choice of phrasing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

That may be true but I think the GM of the year award should go to someone who's being active (right or wrong) and has his team playing very good hockey. If we are talking about more than 1 year to me there's only one choice and that's Dean Lombardi, whenever his team needs help he provides it plus his team has won 2 cups in only 4 years that's damn impressive. Another candidate would for sure be the captain, he turned Tampa from a bottom feeder into a po werhouse in a span of roughly 4 years that's damn impressive.

Edited by frankgrimes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That may be true but I think the GM of the year award should go to someone who's being active (right or wrong) and has his team playing very good hockey. If we are talking about more than 1 year to me there's only one choice and that's Dean Lombardi, whenever his team needs help he provides it plus his team has won 2 cups in only 4 years that's damn impressive. Another candidate would for sure be the captain, he turned Tampa from a bottom feeder into a po werhouse in a span of roughly 4 years that's damn impressive.

Lombardi has done great things, there is no denying that. 2 cups in 4 years is amazing, especially in today's NHL. But, I have to take some points off when the way he got there was by essentially tanking for a decade. Unless you are Edmonton, this is a pretty easy but exhausting way to load up with talent. Plus, in the last few years he has made some very questionable big moves. The Bernier trade was awful, and signing Gaborik to a 7 year deal will come back to bite him in the ass.

Yzerman would be a good nominee. If Dallas didn't suck this year, it would be pretty cool to see Holland, Yzerman, and Nill as the nominees.

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