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.