No goaltending and no speed. They certainly do not "have it all".
Agreed. They have won 1 playoff series since 2003, and they have been eliminated in the first round to lower seeded teams 3 straight years. We have accomplished more in the past 4 years then the Blues while rebuilding. But hey....they're big.
If babs stays will I be upset? No ... I won't be in an uproar for him coming back ... My preference is we go a different route , preferably with jeff Blashill
My personal opinion is he's a good coach but overrated ... Those gold medals for me don't count as the teams were stacked full of all star players
From 2010-2015 we haven't done anything in the playoffs and we had hank and pav from ages 29-35? ... It's not like there career was done and over with
And as for the franchise sitting pretty I'd put that more on holland for not panicking and trading away top prospects and out scouting staff for always refilling the prospect pool with real good talent
2 players isn't gonna win you a cup. Lidstrom retired. We lost Rafalski, we lost Stuart. A lot of the secondary scoring aged out, and youth has been filling positions since, and getting better every year. All under Babcock. I also bet you that Datsyuk and Hank would both say Babcock had a big part in their own development 10 years ago to become the players they did.
Look at teams like the Blues. They should be winning cups with the roster they have. But they aren't. Look at the Pens. Crosby and Malkin can't do it alone there either. We have a young team learning how to win. That game 7 heartbreak was a huge lesson going forward. Babcock is a huge part of that.
You bring up the Team Canada argument. Canada has ALWAYS had stacked rosters. But before the back to back gold, there has been a lot of disappointment. It is silly to talk as if any coach could have coached that team to a gold medal when more often than not the team didn't win gold in the past. Besides 2002 it has been a lot of olympic heartbreak for Canadians. Babs was chosen to coach those gold medal winning teams for a reason.
Holland has spoken to the media. Apparently the Wings drafted a "letter of compensation" that teams must sign if they want to have serious discussions with Babcock. They'll get a 3rd round pick. Also, it seems like this window closes May 25th.
From my understanding - it's the 3rd round pick for 3 seasons (3 picks in all).
If I wasn't on mobile, I would be posting the "old man yells at cloud" picture from the Simpsons.
So just imagine that's what you're looking at right now.
And since there's some sensitive people *points* up there who can't handle some levity in the thread, let me be painfully on topic in sharing my opinion on The State of the NHL:
The game is changing. The league is changing. The way the game was played 30 years ago would be a bad fit for the current situation on multiple levels. As someone mentioned before, players today are faster, bigger, and stronger than ever before. Gear is more high tech. And we have knowledge now regarding health and safety issues that was not widely available before. The league would be foolish and unprogressive if they dug their heels in and refused to develop the game in a way that addresses these challenges. Do I like every change that is made? No. But I also have no misconceptions that me raging against the machine is gonna make a rabbit's fart of a difference. "Pretend we have an audience.". We *do*. Social media has developed to a point where officials ABSOLUTELY know how fans of the game feel about each and every little thing. They just don't *care*. Because here's the kicker, and if I have to pick the one thing that bothers me the most it would be this: WE are not who the league is reaching out to. The die hard, post on a hockey team's message board, donate money to charity based on playoff performance, contemplate homicide of other players not on our team who are probably pretty nice guys otherwise type people are going to follow our team /the league *anyway*. Our $ is not the growth, because it has always *been there*. These changes, the outreach, the people pleasing (if any) will not be directed at us. It will be directed at Joe Non-hockey Schmo whose ass they're trying to pull into a seat. Trying to pull into the NHL shop. Trying to pull into buying that cable package or GCL. So the game is gonna change. Because hockey is not very accessible to people who aren't familiar with it. Do I like it? Not necessarily, but in a way that mirrors why my grandpa doesn't like it that he can't find a doctor with a name he can pronounce. There are some changes the league is looking into that I think will be beneficial like 4-4 overtime and video reviews, but to opine that the league is "changing" because it's not like it was 30 years ago is short-sighted, unnecessarily nostalgic, and unprogressive. Time marches on. Things change. And now I've forgotten my larger point.
Which is why "old man yells at cloud" sums up my feelings perfectly, and isn't as sarcastic as you thought.
You...should probably step away from your keyboard for a minute.
I know on paper Phaneuf makes a fair amount of sense. I've just never liked the guy.
He's one of those players for me where my dislike is based mostly on a gut feeling and not anything rational. That he's somehow like a Jack Johnson. A talented guy who on paper should be great, but when you put him in a defense they somehow get worse (thought I think that's changed somewhat for Johnson in Columbus).
Because he's a great player and seems like a decent guy? Because he does his job and gets under people's skin? Sure, he's immature and impulsive (Smith's disease), and sometimes he crosses the line. He's certainly not the only one who does.
So I agree. Go Habs Go!
I just find his dirty antics tiring. Especially when he looks so surprised and upset he's getting called for it. I'm not saying the guy isn't extremely talented, he is. Getting under people's skin is one thing, but crap like that slash the other day is just the tip of the ice berg that makes me not like him as a player. He reminds me a lot of Suh. Really dirty player, doesn't take responsibility for his cheap shots, extremely talented, seems like a nice guy off the ice.
At what point does Holland get blamed for taking us to the playoffs every year?
Looks folks, there are 30 NHL team. That means you've got a one in 30 chance of winning the cup every year. We've won four times in the last 17 years, Holland started being GM in 97. Even if we only give him credit for 2002 and 2008, that's two cups.
We're in the race every year. Not every team is going to take us to the finals.