Babcock thread: Decision Expected 5/20/15 (SEE MOD WARNING IN OP AND POST 568)

[8snake]

You have to keep in mind that Nick Lidstrom only won 4 of his 7 Norris trophies while Babcock was coach. It's clear that Babcock was holding him back.

When I see posts like "Babcock took over a Ferrari", "all this roster needed was small tweaks after '05" and "Brendan Smith would be a dynamic d-man and leader under Blashill" I'm at a loss to even respond or debate comments like this. These posts aren't even rooted in reality.

 

[SoupNazi]

You have to keep in mind that Nick Lidstrom only won 4 of his 7 Norris trophies while Babcock was coach. It's clear that Babcock was holding him back.

That's a strawman with no basis in reality.

 

[YostisHome]

LOL from the other board....

 

[Winger98]

Under Dombrowski they refused to pay Scherzer, Granderson and some others. What that says is Mike Ilitch has looked at this and sees no reason to green-light a substantial bidding war for Holland.

Cabrera and Verlander were special... I guess Mr. I doesn't feel sentimental about Babcock delivering up to expectations with what has been provided, not enough to get engaged in an outrageous bidding war. Best of luck Marty Lapointe, great contract Hudler is the treatment Babs is seemingly getting.

I don't think there is any connection to be made with how Ilitch runs his baseball team and what Holland is doing with Babcock (or anything else to do with the hockey team). With the Tigers, they seem to have a pretty hard ceiling at whatever the luxury tax limit is every year. Even with their massive payrolls, I think they've had to pay the luxury tax just once, and that was largely because of moves made in season that hiked the team salary. Letting Scherzer walk, trading Granderson, etc. were all moves that were at least partly to do with fielding a competitive team while not having to pay that tax.

Also, despite the payrolls, the Tigers still get within shouting distance of breaking even every season. I know there's a storyline that Ilitch just spends spends spends, but from all that I see, he does not like losing money hand over fist when he doesn't have to with his teams.

Yeah, someone else said that in here somewhere I think, and I agree 100% -- everyone will know who's calling the shots once Babcock is gone.

I'm curious to see how Detroit drafts this year if Blashill is behind the bench. I think it's fair to say we've focused on drafting some bigger guys in recent years, and I figured that was at least partly due to Babcock's influence. Will the Wings drift back towards small/fast/skill guys? Or continue taking guys like Melen late in the draft?

 

[8snake]

That's a strawman with no basis in reality.

It's no more ridiculous than saying Mike Babcock is the reason Brendan Smith is not a good hockey player. Or any other Mike Babcock makes *insert player* a bad hockey player. None of this stuff about Babcock supposedly turning this team into a boring bunch of grinders playing a boring system is based on reality. The reality is the roster...and what Babcock has done from a schematic and structural standpoint to keep this team competitive. That's it, that's all.

 

[Chex LeMeneux]

Jurco played in the top 9 and top 6 for the first 50 games this season, he had 3 goals to show for it. He also played on the 2nd PP for the majority of the season. Jurco regressed because he wasn't very good.

The Tatar-Sheahan-Jurco line was ineffective early in the year. That wasn't Jurco's fault. The entire line was separated and he was shuffled around, after taking a substantial hit to his confidence and couldn't get off the schneid. From there he was relegated to playing on the fourth line, where he had no chance. So I won't be too harsh on how he played. What's far more concerning is the fact that he simply played differently this season, far more risk averse. And I have no doubt that was due to Babcock.

Hudler got more money from Calgary. He left Detroit to play in the KHL and then came back, if he hated Babcock so much he never would've came back so quick.

Ignoring the fact that it was widely believed Hudler and Babcock had issues the entire time he played here, Hudler himself said he left for the KHL because he wasn't satisfied with the role he was given, which is on Babcock. Who knows why he wanted to come back when he did. Maybe he became accustomed to the North American lifestyle. Maybe he wanted to make sure he didn't ruin his chances at ever playing in the NHL again. Maybe it was a financial issue, as he was released by his KHL team right before they merged with another team, which prompted his return to North America. Either way, he was an RFA when he left for Russia, and had no choice but to accept the contract the arbitrator gave him when he came back, which meant he had no choice but to accept playing under Babcock til he could get out of said contract. As soon as that contract was over, he booked.

Shanahan also had issues with Bowman, not sure what your point is.

So because Shanahan didn't get along with Bowman means we can suddenly disregard the fact that there is a substantial list of players, some of them very important players, who have had massive issues with Babcock? I mean if you want to use that as justification to ignore the fact there is a pattern here, then by all means.

 

[Heaton]

what pattern?

 

[Flowah]

It's no more ridiculous than saying Mike Babcock is the reason Brendan Smith is not a good hockey player. Or any other Mike Babcock makes *insert player* a bad hockey player. None of this stuff about Babcock supposedly turning this team into a boring bunch of grinders playing a boring system is based on reality. The reality is the roster...and what Babcock has done from a schematic and structural standpoint to keep this team competitive. That's it, that's all.

A coach has a much more significant impact on a young player who starts the NHL under his watch versus an established elite veteran D-man who has won the Norris and multiple cups before that coach ever made it to the team.

 

[FlashyG]

It's no more ridiculous than saying Mike Babcock is the reason Brendan Smith is not a good hockey player. Or any other Mike Babcock makes *insert player* a bad hockey player. None of this stuff about Babcock supposedly turning this team into a boring bunch of grinders playing a boring system is based on reality. The reality is the roster...and what Babcock has done from a schematic and structural standpoint to keep this team competitive. That's it, that's all.

Except nobody has said that Babcock is the reason Smith isn't good. Some of us think there is a chance though that he could improve under a different system.

Since Babcock was hired its been no secret that he and Holland have had differing opinions on what type of team they should be. Holland and the long time front office guys have always preferred skill over size focusing on puck possession and with a strong transition game. Babcock's style has always been a north south grinding type of game, that focuses more on defensive support especially from the center position.

I don't think either is inherently better than the other, and right now our roster is somewhat split between the 2 styles with a few guys who can play either.

It will be interesting to see what direction Blashill wants to take the team.

 

[Bench]

Holland has been gearing up for a fairly aggressive crack at the roster over the next 10 months anyway. We will see what happens there.

In my opinion Babcock's decision doesn't change the overall trajectory of how the team appeared to be operating and what they were pushing towards. I hope Blashill can speed up the youth movement in terms of those younger guys but we will see.

Either way to Heaton's point and several around here you include Bench there is no way the movement of Babcock doesn't radically change things for all in the organization. He is a big figure in the hockey world, there is no way this doesn't impact that dynamic. There is no way we don't see a change in how things operate on the day to day and how the team is evaluated in the media and by the fans, even by the organization itself. I am excited about that in all honesty. I think we need to shake things up, need new voices and the next series of moves that they have building towards have more options now in my opinion.

I'm with you on that. I'm very much excited to see a shake up and I hope this prompts a more aggressive Holland. It probably won't, but we'll see.

We've learned over the years who is a "Babcock type of player" so it will be interesting to see the differences that Blashill covets in his roster. What type of feedback will Blashill be giving Holland on future trades, call ups, and draft picks?

 

[Pavels Dog]

The Tatar-Sheahan-Jurco line was ineffective early in the year. That wasn't Jurco's fault. The entire line was separated and he was shuffled around, after taking a substantial hit to his confidence and couldn't get off the schneid. From there he was relegated to playing on the fourth line, where he had no chance. So I won't be too harsh on how he played. What's far more concerning is the fact that he simply played differently this season, far more risk averse. And I have no doubt that was due to Babcock.

Even in your elaborate "It's all Babcock's fault"-theory, it only paints a picture where Jurco can't possibly make it in the NHL considering his confidence is shattered by being moved from the 3rd to the 4th line at one point in his rookie season.

Jurco himself said he left his hands on the plane during training camp. Right from the start of the season his hands weren't there. Maybe he started playing it a bit more safe because he simply wasn't being succesful with anything else. Like mentioned many times, Jurco got plenty of opportunity. He stayed on the PP extremely long for someone who wasn't producing.

And this thing about having no chance on the 4th line is BS. Almost no other 4th line in the league got as much icetime as ours.

Get real.. one of the best coaches in the world tells a guy he loved on the 3rd line last season to play more like a grinder this season so he can score less goals and be less helpful? Yeaaaah....

 

[8snake]

Except nobody has said that Babcock is the reason Smith isn't good. Some of us think there is a chance though that he could improve under a different system.

Since Babcock was hired its been no secret that he and Holland have had differing opinions on what type of team they should be. Holland and the long time front office guys have always preferred skill over size focusing on puck possession and with a strong transition game. Babcock's style has always been a north south grinding type of game, that focuses more on defensive support especially from the center position.

I don't think either is inherently better than the other, and right now our roster is somewhat split between the 2 styles with a few guys who can play either.

It will be interesting to see what direction Blashill wants to take the team.

Except Babcock's preferred style is not a north-south, straight lines game. If he has the horses he let's them run and be creative. When he doesn't, he emphasizes structure and a more grinding style. If Brendan Smith was what you thought he was Babcock would let him go. The same way he lets Doughty and play his game,or let Rafalski play his game. Smith is not skilled enough to be that player...it should be obvious by now. Blashill isn't going to sprinkle some magic dust on him to make him a better passer or think the game better or have a better shot.

 

[Chex LeMeneux]

what pattern?

Given how many times over the years we've heard a certain player had issues with Babcock and the sheer amount of players that has been said about, it seems like there's a clear pattern to me. At any rate, it seems like neither of us are gonna move on this one, so it's probably best if we just agree to disagree.

 

[SoupNazi]

Approaching the 1,000 post limit. Please continue inPart II