Another person who dares to ask whether or not the hype surrounding Babcock isn't overblown to the point of absurdity. Exactly one sports reporter, in two countries, actually took the time to sit down and determine (rather than just repeat over and over) whether Babcock is worth all the fuss.
Those people didn't go on and on your 3 years coming up with excuses for weiss either
Ya weiss was the safer bet ... Go check out mlives article about whether or not we should buy him out ... He's no better ... Once again defending weiss
Pat myself on the back for that one lmao ... Also been praising mrazek since last year saying we should trade howard to improve our team cause the kids the real deal ... Funny how it all took was ken good playoff series for some to jump on board
Didn't bring it up cause like I said the only reason I bring up the weiss s*** is cause I see you in particular always making excuses for the guy
And yes I was wrong about clowe and clarkson, although I do think he'll be a lot better next season in Columbus .... But here's a little news flash for you ... Clowe and clarkson wasn't the first time I was wrong and it won't be the last
And I'm pretty f***en sure weiss wasn't the only blunder you've had
I agree. Sometimes you get it right, and sometimes you get it wrong. We all do.
So maybe, just maybe, next time you get it right you could act a little more dignified about it instead of calling people "idiots" for not agreeing with you. Or reminding everybody, over and over, that you were right about Weiss.
Display a little more class when you're right, and nobody will go through all the effort of digging up all the things you were wrong about.
Or don't. And we'll revisit this same discussion in the future. Something tells me I'll have no shortage of ways to make you look silly whenever you're getting a little too self righteous.
Would I given him 4-5 per at the time? Yes but I never would of given him 7 years regardless of the at any term comment
If someone's starving and says boy I'd kill someone for some pizza right now does that then mean they'd kill someone ?
Anyways f*** all this s*** your just being a smart ass .... I could go around the 1000 pages and look for s*** you said that proved to be wrong but unlike you I'm not gonna waste my time
Yes I was wrong about clarkson and clowe and I never said I was always right ... And incase you didn't notice a lot of people were on board on signing clarkson
Sure, but those same people didn't go on and on, 3 years later, about how they "never liked the Weiss signing". Which is the reason I, and not Number9, went through the 1000 pages of yhis forum to see how you really felt back in the summer of 2012. Weiss was a safer bet than either of the two clowns you advocated signing.
So while you can pat yourself on the back for being against that one, it only opens you up to criticism. "I wouldn't have signed Weiss", you say, "because I would have been too busy making two deals which were much worse". Well pin a rose on your nose.
It's like patting yourself on the back for not doing meth because you were too busy doing heroin.
Alot of utube who had great junior careers never produced at the nhl level ... A few 60 pt seasons in Florida was nothing to get excited about when we landed him , injury or not
Sorry if I pissed you off with the idiots stuff but I got a lot worse s*** from people when I hated the signing when it happend
Dude, please stop with the "I told you so" crap concerning the Weiss signing.
You may have not liked the Weiss signing, but you called David Clarkson a "must get" that same offseason and advocated giving him 4.5-5 million dollars. In the same thread you advocated signing Ryane Clowe for 4-4.5 million. So it's not like you were some free agency oracle that year. Maybe you wouldn't have signed Weiss, but you would have sunk even more money into players who were just as bad or worse. Hell, Clowe doesn't even play pro hockey anymore.
Finally, someone who hasn't completely lost their mind regarding the Mike Babcock hype. This is a good article by the way, totally worth a read.
Tom Renney on Mike Babcock:
“I think he’s in an envious position because he’s so successful. I think if he’s not the best coach in the world he’s in the top three or four guys for sure,” said Renney.
“The one thing is, the organization has to be ready for Mike and Mike has to be ready for it.
“Mike has been at one place a long time. And there’s a certain template there that has stood the test of time for a reason. Quite honestly, that’s with or without Mike. What Mike did was fit into it very, very well and place his own set of demands onto that whole program and make it as successful as it’s ever been.”
Except Toronto fans and some media hated the Clarkson and Phaneuf deals before they even happened. They were ostracized before they even signed the deals in Toronto.
How does that negate anything I said? If anything, it's only more evidence that free spending, without any consideration of the opportunity cost of doing so, is absurd.
Any teams that offers Babcock 5 million dollars will ultimately eat every cent of that money. Not because he's a bad coach, but because he's not a perfect one either. And even with a top flight GM, organization, players, and support staff, he's managed to win exactly one. Why? Because they're hard to win.
Throwing 5 million dollars at a coach with the expectation that it will cover up for other organizational failures is short sighted and stupid. And Babs should beware anybody who offers that kind of money, because it's probably indicative of other tendencies to think in the short term, throw money at problems, fail to plan strategically, or have a long term path to success. In short, it's indicative of all the things that make the Toronto Maples Leafs a bunch of trashy losers.
Think about every story, or news article, or anecdote you've ever heard where somebody fixed a problem by throwing money at it. How does that work out for them? Every rich kid that got out of trouble because his dad could afford a good lawyer. How does that work out? Does that person learn anything, get straight, turn their life around, and succeed? No. It just ensures that the problem will keep happening.
How does a coach's salary affect a team with a ton of cash? The only reason Clarkson and Phaneuf are issues is the cap.
Because with that kind of salary comes a dramatic increase in expectations, accountability, scrutiny, and eventually criticism.
One of the many reasons that the Toronto fans, media, and organization turned on both Phaneuf and Clarkson is because they threw HUGE money at both of those guys, and when they didn't live up to the expectations that came with that money, they were ostracized.
Babcock would not be immune from the same treatment. Whatever team pays him that kind of money, be it us or Toronto or anybody else, is going to want a Cup. And if he can't deliver, there's going to be a problem.
Paying him 5 million or more, is so dumb. That's way too much for a coach. Babs doesn't have a magic wand that delivers Stanley Cups. If you've got a s*** organization, one that's not built for his style of play, or a GM that can't deliver, or a destination that nobody want to go to, Mike Babcock isn't going to change that. Mike Babcock (@ 5, 10, or 20 million a year) couldn't bring a Cup to Toronto. It's starting to get to the point where the hype is so great that every outcome will be a let down.
After tomorrow there will be four coaches vying for the 2015 Stanley Cup. None of them are named Babcock. This will be the sixth year in a row that this has been the case. I know everybody will list 1,000,000,000 zillion reasons why it's not his fault. But the truth is, Babs isn't a guarantee of ANYTHING. They didn't hand him a Stanley Cup just for showing up here in Detroit, and they won't hand him one elsewhere. And about 90% of the teams he could go to will be more incompetent, miserly, and corrupt than the one everybody thinks he coaches for now. So why would there be a better result elsewhere? Because Connor McDavid, or Jack Eichel, or Phil Kessel or blah, blah, blah.
He's a good coach, but is he so otherworldly good that he's worth that kind of money? Some argue that he's better than Quenneville. Ok fine. Is he twice as good as Quenneville? Because he's about to get paid like it. And when he doesn't deliver, then what?
It's partly because our defense is terrible at offense. Every game I watched I was cringing at our transition attempts. Sustained pressure starts with defensemen who can move the puck forward and be relied upon to be part of the offensive cycle.
It felt like there were always 3 players trying to create instead of five, the forwards never even looked comfortable passing back to the defense, which results in poor angle shots and turnovers.
I'm certain there's more to it than that, but our best offensive defensemen are average at best.
I don't necessarily disagree with the general theme you're suggesting, but you're overstating it a bit. After trading for Zidlicky, we were slightly above average (amongst playoff teams) in terms of defense scoring. Our best offensive defensemen (Kronwall, Zidlicky, and Dekeyser) had 44, 34, and 31 pts. respectively. For comparisons' sake, Duncan Keith, Seabrook, and Hjalmarsson (Chicago's top guys) had 45, 31, and 19 points. I'd even argue that Ericsson, Quincey, and Kindl contributed MORE than you'd realistically expect them to considering two of them are stay at home guys, and one of them played 34 games. Smith was underwhelming offensively, but that's relative to his talent and pedigree, and not relative to other third pair puck movers around the league.
And all these guys did that while playing REALLY good defense. Our shot suppression was impressive, and laudable.
Again, I'm not trying to disagree too much. I'd love to have a player or two on the back end who have a more dynamic ability to make plays in the offensive zone. But our defense was actually MUCH better than advertised. How bad it was is drastically overstated around here (I imagine because in the post-Lidstrom era that's all part of the narrative). Especially in the playoffs. Our defense wasn't even bad the one game Kronwall and Zidlicky were out. So I don't want to blame of lack of offense on that too much.
Side note: I laughed when I saw the "Is Kronwall a #1 defenseman" thread the other day. Kronners plays huge minutes, excellent defense, and scores 40+ points a season, but he's not a number 1. Keith, Pietrangelo, Suter, Byfuglien, Doughty, OEL, all do the the same thing and they're obviously better for some reason.