OT: Being the GM and Coach of an NHL team

Pickle Juice

Registered User
Sep 27, 2017
52
4
apparently it's possible in football and basketball but has anyone ever done that in hockey ? plus soccer too apparently i think

just want to know if you know any good hockey examples of coaching while being the gm of a team... or has it never been done before
 

Walshy7

Registered User
Sep 18, 2016
25,326
9,343
Toronto
I know no one suggested it. But Babcock would be the worst coach/gm possible, he has such a short term view we would lose talent so early on for ‘babcock’ players
 

Daisy Jane

everything is gonna be okay!
Jul 2, 2009
70,212
9,189
I know no one suggested it. But Babcock would be the worst coach/gm possible, he has such a short term view we would lose talent so early on for ‘babcock’ players

i don't think that's fair whatsoever.
the world view of a GM- is a lot different from a coach (which is why there should be some separation from church and state as far as it goes) but you can't say with any authority that we'd lose talent for "babcock" players. you don't know what his GM Philosophy would be.
 

Walshy7

Registered User
Sep 18, 2016
25,326
9,343
Toronto
i don't think that's fair whatsoever.
the world view of a GM- is a lot different from a coach (which is why there should be some separation from church and state as far as it goes) but you can't say with any authority that we'd lose talent for "babcock" players. you don't know what his GM Philosophy would be.

Sign Hyman types and Martin types. Also we would have hanafin instead of marner right now.
 

Daisy Jane

everything is gonna be okay!
Jul 2, 2009
70,212
9,189
Sign Hyman types and Martin types. Also we would have hanafin instead of marner right now.

i don't think Babcock was "wrong" in his assessment.
I don't think it was necessarily that he wanted Hanfin, but he wanted a defenseman instead of a "Mitch" player (winger or at the time, going by interviews, someone they can put in the middle). And I'll point out - there is nothing wrong with Hanafin either. And one could argue it's a lot easier to get a Marner-esque player, than it will be getting a Werenski/Provorov or even Hanafin type player.

There is nothing wrong with Hyman types.
There is nothing wrong with Martin types.
and I think it's unfair that you'd just assume that's all Babcock would do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BM14

Walshy7

Registered User
Sep 18, 2016
25,326
9,343
Toronto
i don't think Babcock was "wrong" in his assessment.
I don't think it was necessarily that he wanted Hanfin, but he wanted a defenseman instead of a "Mitch" player (winger or at the time, going by interviews, someone they can put in the middle). And I'll point out - there is nothing wrong with Hanafin either. And one could argue it's a lot easier to get a Marner-esque player, than it will be getting a Werenski/Provorov or even Hanafin type player.

There is nothing wrong with Hyman types.
There is nothing wrong with Martin types.
and I think it's unfair that you'd just assume that's all Babcock would do.

No he specifically spoke about hanafin, and you can’t blame him he wanted the best dman possible and every list hanafin was that.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with Hyman and martin there is a problem with a lineup of mostly hymans and martins though
 

Daisy Jane

everything is gonna be okay!
Jul 2, 2009
70,212
9,189
No he specifically spoke about hanafin, and you can’t blame him he wanted the best dman possible and every list hanafin was that.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with Hyman and martin there is a problem with a lineup of mostly hymans and martins though

I know he spoke specifically about Hanafin. but that doesn't mean he wanted Hanafin. and again. Even if he did. there's nothing wrong with Hanafin.

and that's my point. you can't assume that that's all Babcock would draft and sign. as he's never been a GM. no one knows.
 

Walshy7

Registered User
Sep 18, 2016
25,326
9,343
Toronto
I know he spoke specifically about Hanafin. but that doesn't mean he wanted Hanafin. and again. Even if he did. there's nothing wrong with Hanafin.

and that's my point. you can't assume that that's all Babcock would draft and sign. as he's never been a GM. no one knows.

Of course we don’t know. What we do know he loves Hyman type players over most other forwards.

There isn’t anything wrong with hanafin he just isn’t close to marner level, hanafin will not be a top pair dman he really is just your normal every day top4 d man at pick #4 you need better ceiling than that. I’d honestly take Rielly and gardiner over him obviously he has age on his side. He plays sheltered mins on the 3rd pair right now and isn’t close to outplaying that position. Anyway this kind of off on a tangent the Hanifon stuff sorry.

I would be massively disappointed if babcock became coach and gm,
 

Daisy Jane

everything is gonna be okay!
Jul 2, 2009
70,212
9,189
Of course we don’t know. What we do know he loves Hyman type players over most other forwards.

There isn’t anything wrong with hanafin he just isn’t close to marner level, hanafin will not be a top pair dman he really is just your normal every day top4 d man at pick #4 you need better ceiling than that. I’d honestly take Rielly and gardiner over him obviously he has age on his side. He plays sheltered mins on the 3rd pair right now and isn’t close to outplaying that position. Anyway this kind of off on a tangent the Hanifon stuff sorry.

I would be massively disappointed if babcock became coach and gm,


and Pat Quinn had his particular flavour of player but he didn't let that impact his decisions in drafting and signing players. I doubt v. much Babcock would be a GM, but again - assuming that all he'd do is get Hyman type players, is unfair.

Like I said. part of the reason why you never see any GM/Coaches anymore (like legitimate this is not an interim thing) is due to the fact that there needs to be a separation of sorts. Coaches see short term (how to win that night/that week), and GM's for the most part need to focus on how to cultivate a team for the year (or two) and why we see a lot of presidents now is that their job is to see a five+ year group. Many GMs who are both are splitting the role from GM/President which strengthens this argument.

but i've rarely seen a Coach/GM combo make decisons based on their particular flavour of play, and if for whatever reason, if Babcock got the job, assuming that all he'd want are gritty type players is playing into this boards biases that that's all Babcock cares about. Which is again. unfair and not true at all.
 

IBeL34f

Lilly-grin
Jun 3, 2010
8,226
2,649
Toronto
Babcock loves gritty players because they "get skilled guys the puck" - I'm sure Babcock is smart enough to understand that if you lose all of your skill for grit, those gritty guys don't have anyone to get the puck to...

What Babcock seems to appreciate is a balance of skill/talent and effort/hard-work, and I think a lineup based around that philosophy would have a lot going for it, as it allows you to beat teams any way you need to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Daisy Jane

francis246

Registered User
Nov 16, 2007
12,661
15,487
This is common in Major Junior as well where teams can shorten payroll by having the coach be the GM. Kelly McCrimmon did it, Brent Sutter did/does it. There are others as well
 

IBeL34f

Lilly-grin
Jun 3, 2010
8,226
2,649
Toronto
It's also more difficult for Junior teams to sustain success because of the ridiculously high player turn-over. Where a GM of an NHL team has to look at 5+ years down the road, an OHL GM might need to win this year or next, or risk their short window of opportunity closing. This means that that disconnect between a Coach's goal of immediate success and a GM's goal of sustainable success might be much smaller in Juniors than it would be in the NHL, essentially making it easier for someone to sufficiently manage both tasks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Elephanto

Tak7

Registered User
Nov 1, 2009
12,623
4,094
GTA or the UK
This thread makes me miss Pat Quinn; those years as coach/GM, he really wore those failures on his sleeve.

I remember him crying at the end-of-season presser one year.

Miss you, Sir Pat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Al14

Ignatius Reilly

Registered User
Nov 25, 2010
648
355
Babcock loves gritty players because they "get skilled guys the puck" - I'm sure Babcock is smart enough to understand that if you lose all of your skill for grit, those gritty guys don't have anyone to get the puck to...

What Babcock seems to appreciate is a balance of skill/talent and effort/hard-work, and I think a lineup based around that philosophy would have a lot going for it, as it allows you to beat teams any way you need to.

^^^^ This.

Babcock is no dummy.

He does believe in hard work, from every single player - even the talented ones. I think his turnaround of Kadri proves that.

I don't think he'd fill the roster with all grit.

25 years of coaching, 15 of them in the NHL. You probably learn some stuff. However, you can't ignore the fact that he only won one cup in all that time.....
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->