Jump to content

Offseason Coaching Carousel - AKA: Babcock watch


dlbalr

Recommended Posts

One of the teams thought to be interested in Mike Babcock has gone in a different direction. Today, the Flyers surprised everyone by hiring North Dakota coach Dave Hakstol as their new bench boss. The following teams still need to sort out their coaching situation:

Toronto

Edmonton

San Jose

Detroit (will Babcock be back or not?)

New Jersey

Buffalo

Where does Babcock go and how much does he get?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the teams thought to be interested in Mike Babcock has gone in a different direction. Today, the Flyers surprised everyone by hiring North Dakota coach Dave Hakstol as their new bench boss. The following teams still need to sort out their coaching situation:

Toronto

Edmonton

San Jose

Detroit (will Babcock be back or not?)

New Jersey

Buffalo

Where does Babcock go and how much does he get?

He stays in Detroit-- one word Illitch--- Coaching--- don't have a cap --- he pays the going rate

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am pulling for Oilers to get Babcock!

This young team must be attractive, especially when adding a McDavid-Draisaitl-Nurse this year as well as another solid d-man picked at 16 (maybe get lucky and Provorov or Werenski still be on board).

But bet Detroit is where he coach's next year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd rank it:

5. San Jose (Pros: West coast team, playoff team without a lot of tweaks. Cons: Anchored down by veterans, not much of a prospect pool when they leave, same situation in Detroit but worse)

4. Toronto (Pros: Lots of money, ego boost getting them to the playoffs. Cons: Everything else. Anchored down by bad contracts, weak prospect pool, just beginning a rebuild)

3. St. Louis (Pros: Good team already, Tarasenko one of the best young players in the league. Cons: Oshie, Backes and Steen disappear when the going gets tough, no money for better goaltending)

2. Detroit (Pros: Knows it there, loves it there, they love him. Cons: Same old, already want to replace him with Blashill, probably time to leave)

1. Buffalo (Pros: Middle of rebuild, Eichel is phenomenal, lots of youth, lots of space. Cons: Might still be two years away from the playoffs)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now official to Toronto. 8 years for 50 million. Crazy amount of money for a coach but hes a pretty good one no doubt. Guess he went where the money was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, they paid UFA money - and term!! - for Babcock. Thass whack.

We'll see how it pans out. And someone or other pointed out, Babcock has exactly one Cup on his c.v. and has not been out of the quarter-finals in six years. I'm not saying he's not an excellent coach, but looking at his record, I think you have to say that this is a guy who consistently gets teams to play to their potential - no more than that. In short, he is not some sort of coaching superman. In that sense, this move resembles the Habs' signing of Bob Gainey as GM, or any number of prototypical UFA signings over the years. You're paying a premium for rep and stature. You don't necessarily get results that surpass what you would have gotten with less high-profile signings.

(On a wider note, it's always mildly annoying how the NHL operates with this herd mentality. Babcock has been universally anointed the Superstar of All Coaches even though his record doesn't really support any objective superiority over other elite coaches such as Quenneville or Vigneault. Similarly, remember a few years when teams had a fad for hotshot minor-league coaches like Dallas Eakins and Guy Boucher? Now we've swung in the other direction as teams jockey to recycle veteran NHL coaches. Fundamentally, teams don't seem to know what they're doing, coaching-wise, and just veer from Conventional Wisdom to Conventional Wisdom. Lame).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Toronto is looking for a big turnaround, on the ice and in the press box. Babcock is highly regarded, with some believing he is the best coach period. This is a no brainer for Toronto. I think his success with Team Canada, his Stanley cup, and his ability to keep Detroit competitive despite losing key centerpieces have added value to his mystique. Also, Detroit as an organization is considered one of the best. Pretty good idea to bring in some of that brain trust, even if they just gain by osmosis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, they paid UFA money - and term!! - for Babcock. Thass whack.

We'll see how it pans out. And someone or other pointed out, Babcock has exactly one Cup on his c.v. and has not been out of the quarter-finals in six years. I'm not saying he's not an excellent coach, but looking at his record, I think you have to say that this is a guy who consistently gets teams to play to their potential - no more than that. In short, he is not some sort of coaching superman. In that sense, this move resembles the Habs' signing of Bob Gainey as GM, or any number of prototypical UFA signings over the years. You're paying a premium for rep and stature. You don't necessarily get results that surpass what you would have gotten with less high-profile signings.

(On a wider note, it's always mildly annoying how the NHL operates with this herd mentality. Babcock has been universally anointed the Superstar of All Coaches even though his record doesn't really support any objective superiority over other elite coaches such as Quenneville or Vigneault. Similarly, remember a few years when teams had a fad for hotshot minor-league coaches like Dallas Eakins and Guy Boucher? Now we've swung in the other direction as teams jockey to recycle veteran NHL coaches. Fundamentally, teams don't seem to know what they're doing, coaching-wise, and just veer from Conventional Wisdom to Conventional Wisdom. Lame).

Babcock's "results" are three Stanley Cup finals appearances and a single Cup. The only active coach with a better resume right now is Sutter with three finals appearances and two Cups.

He's a very good coach. He was back when he was in Anaheim. He's also a flawed coach like the rest of them. I don't believe he's better than Quenn or Vig but if I'm the Toronto Maple Leafs, with unlimited financial resources, why not use them? It was honestly pathetic when we poached Dudley off them. Toronto should have tossed him $10M to not return our call. Instead they let their best hockey mind walk for nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Holland shot across the bow..."we won ONE playoff series in last 6 years."

Talked about playoff series losses and cup final loss to Pitt.

Said Babcock turned down 4 yr deal in summer, Holland said he wouldnt go longer than 5 yr deal.

Day after playoff loss this year Babcock asked Holland to explore 'open market'.

Holland said he knew real possibilty of moving on and he was gonna do what he thought best for Wings and have a great young copach in Grand Rapids, who may step up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this compensation thing is BS. If you fire a coach, it makes no sense to receive compensation if someone else hires that coach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this compensation thing is BS. If you fire a coach, it makes no sense to receive compensation if someone else hires that coach.

The Leafs have already indicated their AHL coaching plan is to hire people to eventually move elsewhere to acquire draft picks. I don't think that's what the NHL had in mind when they put this in.

I don't mind there being compensation - there was for the longest time; it's only the last little while where there wasn't. If you hire someone's assistant to become your head coach or GM, it shouldn't be for free. But for fired staff, compensation shouldn't be an option. Technically though, 'fired' staff members aren't truly fired, just re-assigned. That's the wrinkle that allows teams to seek compensation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Leafs have already indicated their AHL coaching plan is to hire people to eventually move elsewhere to acquire draft picks. I don't think that's what the NHL had in mind when they put this in.

I don't mind there being compensation - there was for the longest time; it's only the last little while where there wasn't. If you hire someone's assistant to become your head coach or GM, it shouldn't be for free. But for fired staff, compensation shouldn't be an option. Technically though, 'fired' staff members aren't truly fired, just re-assigned. That's the wrinkle that allows teams to seek compensation.

That's pretty lofty thinking from one of the most ignorant and highfaluting organizations in sports. One extreme to another. Just three years ago they had an all facepuncher line, now they're on the analytics fad like a 90's teen on a slap bracelet.

That's a cute idea, but their goal of their AHL coaching is a 3rd-5th round pick every few years?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's pretty lofty thinking from one of the most ignorant and highfaluting organizations in sports. One extreme to another. Just three years ago they had an all facepuncher line, now they're on the analytics fad like a 90's teen on a slap bracelet.

That's a cute idea, but their goal of their AHL coaching is a 3rd-5th round pick every few years?

It's either a 2nd (in-season hire) or 3rd (offseason hire). And while it does sound stupid, they did go and commit to Babcock for the rest of the decade and then some. It's not as if the next Marlie coach is in line to get the Toronto job in a year or two. Obviously development is still #1 but you won't see them go and hire the Sylvain Lefebvre's of the world. They'll either hire a former NHL head coach looking to get back in (like a Guy Boucher) or a junior coach who sees the spot as a stepping stone to an NHL hiring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Leafs have already indicated their AHL coaching plan is to hire people to eventually move elsewhere to acquire draft picks. I don't think that's what the NHL had in mind when they put this in.

I don't mind there being compensation - there was for the longest time; it's only the last little while where there wasn't. If you hire someone's assistant to become your head coach or GM, it shouldn't be for free. But for fired staff, compensation shouldn't be an option. Technically though, 'fired' staff members aren't truly fired, just re-assigned. That's the wrinkle that allows teams to seek compensation.

That's exactly what I think. But I suppose this isn't the first time a loophole has been exploited. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And if the 30 billionaire owners don't like compensation 'rules', they will change it as they constantly do to lots of stuff, so no big deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It really does not look like the NHL in their wisdom thought this compensation thing through. They will change it. Getting compensation for a guy you removed as head coach 1 or 2 years ago is silly. When the coach signs with a new team you get the benefit of not having to pay him anymore. That should be enough. Now hiring a working assistant GM or coach for that matter is a different matter and compensation is warranted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Leafs have already indicated their AHL coaching plan is to hire people to eventually move elsewhere to acquire draft picks. I don't think that's what the NHL had in mind when they put this in.

I don't mind there being compensation - there was for the longest time; it's only the last little while where there wasn't. If you hire someone's assistant to become your head coach or GM, it shouldn't be for free. But for fired staff, compensation shouldn't be an option. Technically though, 'fired' staff members aren't truly fired, just re-assigned. That's the wrinkle that allows teams to seek compensation.

Technically they would be moving from their new position then. That position should be named prior to moving to new team if their is a compensation issue. The compensation should reflect the new position. if I recall, most positions don't have compensation attached?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Technically they would be moving from their new position then. That position should be named prior to moving to new team if their is a compensation issue. The compensation should reflect the new position. if I recall, most positions don't have compensation attached?

It's the same compensation for GM's, head coaches, and team presidents (2nd or 3rd depending on the timing). Scouts (which is what fired coaches usually become) doesn't have compensation. However, they're not getting paid as one nor does their contract say they're scouts; they're still technically coaches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...