Jump to content


PavelValerievichDatsyuk's Photo

PavelValerievichDatsyuk

Member Since 17 Jul 2010
Offline Last Active Today, 10:33 AM
-----

#2611004 Coaching Search Thread a.k.a. the Jeff Blashill Thread

Posted by PavelValerievichDatsyuk on Today, 10:21 AM

Any improvement the team makes will be mostly the result of the kids improving. And back tracking will be mostly the result of them regressing or stagnating. And I stand by my belief that most people drooling over Blashill will turn on him when he plays Ericsson with Kronwall and Abdelkader and Helm in scoring line roles, and doesn't give Holy Slapper 4 minutes of PP time a night.

I do think that Blashill can inject some new energy, but I agree that improvement will be from prospect coming in (Mrazek, Marchenko, Pulkkinen) and youth improvement. Getting Mule back and the possibly having Weiss make a larger impact could also make us better if either happen.

 

I also totally agree that those that have railed against Babcock's roster decisions will find that any new coach will do similarly. After Abdelkader's last year he should and probably will be with Datsyuk. Also, the magic man wants him there(or a similar player) so it's been a player decision as much as a coaching decision.

 

Big E on the top pairing is a result of lack of high end talent on D. As of today, it's probably still the best way to handle the D pairings given the personnel. We'll see if we add someone or if Marchenko or can take a huge step this year. Otherwise, there will be more complaining about E as he plays a role slightly over his skill level.

 

Helm will be pushed down the roster if we either: get Mule back, have Weiss take a larger role, Pulkkinen finds his NHL scoring touch, Jurco finds his offensive game (though he needs to claim a 3rd line spot first). I love Helm and don't mind him filling in on the 2nd line and like that he is basically able to move up and down the roster an fit in. It's an important aspect to have in the event of injuries or struggling chemistry.

 

 I think Babcock's reputation for unlikely lineup configurations is exaggerated and I think many people ignore the causes for certain decisions.  




#2610645 The return of The Mule?

Posted by PavelValerievichDatsyuk on Yesterday, 11:35 AM

There was a report after the playoffs that said Franzen thought he might have played if we made it to the next round. That sounds like he'll definitely be back.

 

He would be a welcome addition. I feel like he is one player who would be happy Babcock is gone. It's speculation on my part, but I'm guessing that Mule was one of those players that Babs hounded - or “...I cross the line at times with a player." as Babcock said recently. I always thought that Franzen's "get back to having fun" comment was owing to some situation of him being criticized/pushed by the coach.




#2609722 It's Official: Babcock to coach Maple Leafs

Posted by PavelValerievichDatsyuk on 22 May 2015 - 01:54 PM

 

As I've already said, I don't think he's a liar.  I think that $50 million dollars is a universal motive.  You can say your decision will be about other things.  You can mean it when you say it.  But when someone offers you 50 million bucks to do something different, you change your mind. 

 

He said his decision would be based on X,Y,and Z, and then went to a team that didn't have X,Y,and Z but DID offer him the hugest contract. It's pretty simple. 

 

My problem isn't with Babs.  It's with the way everybody is bending over backward to make excuses for the guy.  Tons of people "do it for the money", he did too.  Why is there some compulsive need to shield Mike Babcock from criticism?  Particularly if the "criticism" isn't even that big of a deal. 

You contradict yourself, though: saying that "He said his decision would be based on X,Y,and Z, and then went to a team that didn't have X,Y,and Z" is calling him a liar

 

That says money was the motivation. my previous post shows my reading of that.

 

Yeah, the money was part of the decision. I don't criticize him for that. It also seems like the new challenge was important, coaching for an original 6 franchise, also a place that worked for family (not too far from the D. More power to him if he can also swim in pool of money.




#2609715 It's Official: Babcock to coach Maple Leafs

Posted by PavelValerievichDatsyuk on 22 May 2015 - 01:37 PM

 

You are wrong. 

 

"To be honest with you, my family wants to stay here, my wife and kids."

 

http://www.mlive.com...ck_not_lea.html

 

And even if she did "see that offer from Toronto and say 'let's go'" then its ABOUT THE MONEY which is what I've been saying. 

 

But to reiterate, you are wrong about this.  Completely. 

If you watch the Detroit presser, they're keeping the Detroit home and his wife will still be able to be in Detroit. The fact that Toronto and Detroit are 4 hours apart definitely played a part in the decision. He did take his family's input in this decision. I think that's why BUF, TOR, DET were the final options. Anywhere else and they couldn't be so connected to their current home/community of friends. The wife is the boss comment was a joke.

 

Your trying to pin him down as a liar and make this into a messy breakup thing and it really doesn't seem to fit. He said that money was a factor from the beginning. He said he wants to win, but that doesn't necessarily mean right away. He wouldn't have gone some place that doesn't have a vision/commitment for prolonged success that he believed

 

He chose to leave and that's fine. From all the pressers I just get a sense that from the beginning he just thought it might be time to move on - a new challenge. On the fan's side many felt a similar thing. Babcock did a lot for the team and I would hate for the legacy to turn into - but he just shunned us and followed the cash. It doesn't seem like that to me.

 

Watching you run down all his comments and try to pin down inconsistencies demonstrates to me why I think Babcock will have trouble with the Toronto media. He speaks honestly in the moment and not with well planned PR soundbites. 

 

Anyway, bring on Blashill! this whole thing has made me incredibly excited for next year! It does feel like turning a page and have the possibility of a new energy within the team. 




#2609509 Players who might be available due to teams cap issues

Posted by PavelValerievichDatsyuk on 21 May 2015 - 04:45 PM

Of course those teams will want to resign their stars. But they don't have the cap space to do it. That is the point. Some teams will make moves and get it done. Others will strike out and some of these guys will become UFA's. Others will trade. It happens all the time. Now which is which? No idea. But this is a starting point.

Lets take LA as an example. Kopitar is a UFA next year. His current cap hit is 6.8 IIRC. For his next contract that will be 8 million or so. Maybe more. They are cap tight now and have to resign RFA Toffoli-another very good young C. They also have carter who was their leading scorer and is signed to a big money contract. That is 3 good C's all are or will be making big money. There is an opportunity here for a GM with some insight and guts. I would take anyone of those 3 guys. All would be a major upgrade to our team.

Same is true with the Hawks. They have several guys to resign, no cap room, and a couple big time stars hitting UFA soon. They want to move Sharpe and his contract. Not sure they can without "paying" someone to do it. If they can't move him, they will not be able to keep Seabrook. Again a window of opportunity is open here. This is where kenny needs to be on the phone and make some offers. Make these teams tell us no multiple times. 

Then list Carter or Sharp as possible cap issue cast offs. They are more likely to get than Kopitar and Stamkos. There is no chance we're getting those guys




#2608657 Question for the Board regarding Babcock

Posted by PavelValerievichDatsyuk on 19 May 2015 - 08:02 PM

Ok...where is the video or quote for this one???

Twitter, I think but here's a CBC article. And he didn't say that he would be revealed, he just said don't leave a good situation.

 

http://www.cbc.ca/sp...troit-1.3076106




#2608116 Babcock granted permission to talk to other teams

Posted by PavelValerievichDatsyuk on 16 May 2015 - 01:30 PM

I didn't see Darren : having sit down interviews with Hitch, Bylsma, McClellan, and Carlyle to discuss their decision making process. There are also not up to the minute twitter posts and articles discussing the very latest developments regarding everybody else. If you think they're the same thing, you're obviously not looking too hard at all the hype Babcock is garnering.

Why don't they care about these other guys? McClellan has a higher winning percentage. Bylsma has a comparable winning percentage AND as many cups. Hitchcock has as many Cups and has 700 wins. But Mike is the story for some reason. Presumably because hype builds on itself.

I'll let Wikipedia's intro paragraphs show the "some reason": I just took title acheivements.

 

Babcock: "As of May 2015, he is the only coach to gain entry to the Triple Gold Club, guiding his Red Wings to the Stanley Cup in 2008, as well as leading Team Canada to gold at the IIHFIce Hockey World Championships in 2004, the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver and the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi. Babcock is the only coach to win five national or international titles, guiding Canada to gold at the IIHF World Junior Championships in 1997 and the University of Lethbridge to theCIS University Cup in 1994."

 

Bylmsa: "On June 12, 2009, four months after becoming head coach in Pittsburgh, Bylsma led the Penguins to their third Stanley Cup Championship winning in 7 games over the Detroit Red Wings."

 

Hitchcock: "He coached the Stars to a Stanley Cup victory in 1999. He also served as an assistant coach for the 2014 Canadian Olympic Hockey Team."

 

McClennan: "former head coach of the San Jose Sharks of the National Hockey League.[1]"

 

Carlyle: He won the Stanley Cup in 2007 with his previous team, the Anaheim Ducks.[3]

 

I think if you step back from your anti-Bab position you'd realize why he's being covered the way he is. He's kind of a star especially because the olympic wins brought him into the limelight. He's also in this rare situation where he's a coach who's looking for jobs without having been fired by a team (usually a non-playoff team). Babcock has done a lot for this team so he deserves the right to explore other jobs. This is the soonest time he could have talked to other teams and helped us out by not waiting to free agency. The media is obnoxious, though, but that's the nature of mass media.




#2607891 DRW Free Agents / Salary Thread

Posted by PavelValerievichDatsyuk on 14 May 2015 - 10:01 PM

Stephen Weiss was a Mike Babcock signing, look it up.

 

His best signing was Brunner and disney.com. If you want to give him a star you should thank Holland for not giving Brunner the 3 year, $3.5 million per yr Brunner's agent asked. 

I looked it up and I can't find anything that says this.

 

Alfie, Monster, Brunner, Glendening, and Dekeyser were all great signings.




#2607650 Babcock granted permission to talk to other teams

Posted by PavelValerievichDatsyuk on 14 May 2015 - 12:43 AM

Who knows, but if it is true, sort of a slap to babs face. Not even considered? Damn. We'll see if its true I guess. 

McLellan seems to have made a good impression on Hall and Eberle at Worlds. They interviewed him there. Babs is there too. He could have said of the record he wasn't interested. Who knows.

 

http://www.edmontons...r-todd-mclellan




#2607550 Babcock granted permission to talk to other teams

Posted by PavelValerievichDatsyuk on 13 May 2015 - 04:01 PM

Now that Montreal is out, cue the Babcock to Montreal rumours.  Babs no speak French though.  

 

https://ca.sports.ya...-160349528.html

Lesson #1:

 

Realgud translates as Tresbun




#2607428 Babcock granted permission to talk to other teams

Posted by PavelValerievichDatsyuk on 12 May 2015 - 08:48 PM

Edmonton doesn't need a $5m/yr Babcock when they can get McLellan for say $2.5m/yr ... end result won't be much different.  

I don't get the money argument. Coaches don't count against the cap. When you're paying 70+ million for players you know they've got the extra money. Anyway, they're an organization under great scrutiny by the media and fans - they wouldn't scrimp to turn it around. Just Babcock's name would bring them some much needed good publicity. 




#2607364 Babcock granted permission to talk to other teams

Posted by PavelValerievichDatsyuk on 12 May 2015 - 02:35 PM

If I'm Babcock and my choices are oilers, leafs, sabres, flyers, without a doubt i'm choosing the oilers.

 

With their young talent they're bound to turn things around (even thouugh recent history has suggested otherwise. Add to that, McDavid and a new GM who can draft. I think he'd be able to whip their defensive game into shape and they could turn things around. Then he could be a hero right close to his hometown. That would be a storyline that would be very tempting.

 

Leafs and Sabres are too far down the rebuilding hole. Flyers have a young core but there's been so many bad moves from their management that it would turn me off. I know Holmgren was responsible for most of them and he's now promoted, but he's still there and they're still stuck with Lecavalier. Hextall is unproven as an NHL GM. So far, the Hartnell trade was a bit of a head-scratcher for me though he did have a rough 12-13 and I don't know how Umberger has been for them.

 

Then again, if I'm Babcock, I'd never leave the Wings, 




#2606981 Artemi Panarin

Posted by PavelValerievichDatsyuk on 10 May 2015 - 12:39 PM

The article talks of them trading Sharp. They'd want low cost players and prospects with potential. That could be doable for us. 




#2606791 Things you would like to see for 2015-16 Season

Posted by PavelValerievichDatsyuk on 08 May 2015 - 05:00 PM

I read an article that ottawa will look to get rid of some guys cause there a budget team and wanna sign up stone and other kids

Now I know some of you hate chris neil and he's gonna be 36 in June but I've loved his game for along time and detroit needs to be higher and more physical and neil brings that and is locked up to 1.5 for just one year left

If you ask me he'd fit in nicely on the 4th with glendening Ferraro ... Time to get rid of miller and get some change

Neil glendening Ferraro

Sounds nice to me

Will he fly in with his cape on?




#2606754 DRW Free Agents / Salary Thread

Posted by PavelValerievichDatsyuk on 08 May 2015 - 01:39 PM

 

Which is exactly my point.  One of those guys is a rookie, and the other is a 35 year old goofball who's career was in the toilet prior to coming to Nashville.  Yet both produced significantly better than expected this year.  Why?  Either because Forsberg is some otherworldly rookie who's a superstar in the making (he's not) and Ribiero experienced some sort of personal renaissance (he didn't).  Or because Peter Laviolette's style of hockey maximizes the scoring potential of the guys who play in it.

 

Conversely, the Red Wings had a healthy Dats and Z all season AND got career years out of Nyquist, Tatar, Helm, and Abby and we were a worse scoring team (even strength) than they were a year ago.    


 

Nashville got less production out of Neal than they got out of Hornqvist the year before under Trotz, but the teams overall production rose under Laviolette.  They got signficantly less when you factor in Spaling's production as well. 

 

But I agree, he is a giant ******. 

Ribeiro never really dipped and you can't really claim a resurgence under Laviolette. he had 49pts in 48 games in the lockout shortened 12-13. He had one down season in 13-14 with 47pts in 80gp, but that could be explained by the fact that he was playing for the coyotes, who were a worse team than the Predators or The Caps. That season is also complicated by the fact that he apparently had some issues with alcohal/partying which lead to him being bought out.

 

Forsberg just played his first full year so I would think it more plausible that he was getting used to the league in his 18 games of the 2 preceding years.