Does anyone really think they'd send Babcock packing for Blashill so long as Babcock wants to be here?
If you have the best coach in the game wanting to be your coach long-term, you're not playing games with him because you don't want to lose your minor league coach, and you're not running around making promises to your minor league coach about taking over the big job.
I get that we like Blashill. I get that all parties involved have every reason to be happy with what he's done. I am not trying to criticize or minimize the guy at all. He probably deserves to be an NHL coach at this point, and likely will be soon one way or another.
But we're talking about Mike Babcock here.
Like the guy or not, I don't think there's any question that he's the best coach in the NHL right now, and by that measure, it's pretty safe to say that he's the top coach in the game of hockey.
Mike Babcock will be with the Red Wings for as long as he wants to be with the Red Wings, it's as simple as that. Anyone who really thinks otherwise hasn't really thought through the fundamentals of the situation enough.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think any other coach would have won back to back golds or been able to get Crosby to play defensive hockey. He is a great coach I just think he's got to move on. I wasn't trying to downplay anything just saying his team's were stacked, it wasn't like he pulled a miracle out of his ass
Why? Well, better put, why would the Red Wings think that? I could understand and come up with plenty of reasons why Babcock might want to move on at some point, for him, but I can't think of a single reason why the Red Wings would have any interest in having him move on at any point in the near future.
And for f***'s sake, the Red Wings didn't get rid of Holland after 4-5 years of s***ty off-seasons, why in the hell would they, especially the freshly signed Holland, want to ditch the guy who coached teams into the playoffs the last two years that really kinda maybe shouldn't have been playoff teams? I cannot say it enough, the idea that the Wings would want to move on from Babcock in light of what he's accomplished, his status as a/the top coach, and what he's done with our kids the last couple years makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
1 Stanley cup. I've mentioned his questionable moves, whether or not you agree is your opinion. I just think a change of scenery would be good for both parties. His Stanley cup and Olympic teams were stacked btw.
No matter how often that gets repeated, that doesn't diminish the accomplishment. Who was the last coach to win the Stanley Cup without a very good team?
Not to mention Babcock made it to the finals in 2003 with what was far from a stacked team. And it wasn't just because of goaltending.
I can understand not agreeing with his coaching decisions, but the downplaying of his accomplishments here has gotten a little silly.
In the NHL he's won 1 Stanley Cup, made the Finals two other times (with two different teams), and made the conference finals once. Not bad in 11 years as head coach.
If that's what it takes sure. Babcock has all the leverage here his salary doesn't count against the cap and his resume is unreal. I don't think Quenville is the highest paid coach, I think it's Carlyle
I understand that nobody is in the room, but you can't give the guy a pass on the bad because of it and only 'see' the good when someone signs.1. Ultimately, Holland's track record in FA signings isn't that good the last several years.
List of Holland's big signings (~$2M+/year) since the last Cup:
08-09 - Marian Hossa (1yr - not re-signed)
09-10 - None
10-11 - None
11-12 - Ian White (2yrs - not re-signed)
12-13 - Jordin Tootoo (3yrs - compliance buy-out)
12-13 - Carlo Colaiacovo (2yrs - compliance buy-out)
13-14 - Daniel Alfredsson (1yr - not re-signed as yet)
13-14 - Stephen Weiss (5yrs - played 26 games and scored 4 pts in year 1)
14-15 - Kyle Quincey (2yrs for a player Detroit was ready to walk away from)
The Suter/Parise snub was at least 'understandable' given the same money/term from Minnesota and the connection the players felt. Having Niskanen, Boyle, and Erhoff walk away from potentially more money in Detroit (in some reports) is more concerning. The fault isn't all on Holland, for sure, but top management should be looking in the mirror and trying to determine how to get better regardless of where you lay blame.
2. And, as someone else points out, FA isn't the only key to success. You have to draft well, too. So how many top-6 forwards or top-4 defensemen has Holland picked up in the last six-seven drafts?
2008-09 - Gustav Nyquist
2009-10 - Tomas Tatar (maybe)
2010-11 - None
2011-12 - None
2012-13 - None
2013-14 - Anthony Mantha (projected)
Drafts are much harder to judge especially for a draft-and-develop team like Detroit. The Wings do have a couple kids who still project well, too. But a lot don't. They are bottom-six / bottom pair grinders. It's drafting by a team/GM which relies on supplementing his home-grown talent with pick-of-the-litter FAs. You can't draft grinders and then not come through on the FAs...
The Wings haven't been a team which settles for 'serviceable' over the past few years. Is that what Detroit is becoming?
1. Compared with what? Other GMs during the same span or Holland before the cap? Because aside from one team (Minnesota), I don't see any teams stealing the show with free agents.
2. We currently have one of the deepest prospect pools in the NHL and develop more of our picks than almost anyone. How many top players do you expect this team to develop??
3. Considering our prospects take about 5 years to develop, it's no surprise none since 2010/11 have proven top 4/6 status since most of them have barely even played in the league.
"Tanking" implies losing on purpose. Whether it's players underperforming, coaches using the wrong players or strategies, or management making moves to make the team worse, it's done with the intent of finishing lower in the standings and getting a higher draft pick. Draft lotteries were invented to reduce the chances of this strategy working. It was done more often in other sports, where high draft picks almost always become impact players right away. The Indianapolis Colts' "Suck for Luck" season is one of the most recent examples.
The Red Wings did not tank to get Steve Yzerman, and there are two obvious reasons why: 1, the Wings had been terrible for almost two decades, making the playoffs twice in 17 years and only winning one series. They didn't lose on purpose in "82-'83, they just couldn't win. 2, the Wings were heavily targeting local product Pat LaFontaine with the #4 pick, but he went #3 to the Islanders. Yzerman was the consolation prize.
Tanking has been around for much longer than salary caps. I think it's tougher to do today, between the cap and roster/player movement limitations.
So the colts losing the sexond best qb in football to injury had nothing to do with why they were bad. Teams have rebuilds like buffalo but even if they're bad I wouldn't consider it tanking. No coach or players would ever intentionally lose.
I'm still not really sure what Holland could have done since 2009 to make things any better. We're rebuilding through the draft. With the Cap, and how over inflated the UFA market is, it's the way to go. We haven't missed out on a thing by not signing guys like Ehrhoff, Clarkson, and Wisniewski, or Suter or Parise to 13 years.