Lol my friend, he likely minced his word a tad and meant "one of the last games of the season".
And "poor producer"? He was playing 4th line duties, obviously he's not gonna be killing it. He even had a goal 2 games prior to that. And again, he played every game leading up to that with the Wings battling to clinch the Central every step of the way, like I said, it's a fishy way to scratch a respected vet who needs those games to get his milestone (and it's a 4th line player for crying out loud).
Don't try and accuse me of being dishonest when it was in fact you who never looked up the facts in their entirety. Like I said, Commodore probably knows the specifics of the story better than both of us seeing as he talked to him in person about it.
Likely minced words indeed. Amazing how it changes the entire concept of the claim when you go from "scratched me on the last game of the season" to "oh well I guess it wasn't the last game of the season but the one where we were trying to clinch before a swing of 2 out of 3 on the road, all against superior teams to that one including back to backs with Chicago".
Yup over his last 20 games the guy played over 10 minutes a whopping 10 times. Hard to imagine why he wouldn't be seen as being of key value and maybe someone else might better serve them? Not like that lines up at all with his playoff usage and several missed games. Obviously a clever ploy to deny him a "milestone" that literally means nothing to anyone. I mean, you'd probably have no problem listing off the players (without looking) in the 1500 club, right? Because, like, it's such a recognized milestone?
It's a nice touch saying he scored a goal or that he was -1. Of course he was also worse at +/- than all but 4 players, if that's your stat.
Not sure how you figured "I never looked up the facts" as I seem to be one of the only people in multiple threads that actually IS aware of the facts. When you state things that are lies or propagate others lies, guess what? It's dishonest. The simple solution is to actually state the facts and stop propagating the lies. Or you could do what another poster here did and say "whatever" when someone shows you it is incorrect.
Commodore is an ass who has been spreading lies and falsehoods going on a decade now. Even in his own case, he places all blame on Babcock and never once accepts responsibility or provides any context. Commodore got signed to 5 years then waived (not one team interested in his services) and bought out. Signs a base deal and Detroit deems him not good enough. Trades him to Tampa where he plays 13 games with no points. Proceeds to play with 2 AHL teams (4 Pts in 22 GP) then off to KHL (4 Pts in 27 GP). 6 teams, at least 6 coaches and 3 leagues all reached the exact same conclusion. Does that sound like Babcock was the issue or at some point do we expect Commodore to look in the mirror?
Chris Chelios. A 44 year old puts up 11 Pts in 81 GP, then 45 year old puts up 11 Pts in 71 GP, then 46 year old puts up 12 PTS in 69 GP then 47 year old puts up 0 Pts in 28 GP. Then goes to AHL. Then plays 7 with another team. Apparently Babcock is a bad guy for thinking he may have better options? Also worth considering the source. Guy is known as a bit of an idiot (a la Roenick type). Leave us not forget, he also has a previous record of not taking responsibility for actions (at least as part of a group) from the 98 Olympics and I believe skating a DUI on a technicality?
Don't know about you but every one of those screams coach trying to give his team the best chance of winning. Guys well past their prime and supported by evidence of what multiple other organizations and coaches saw in them.
The solution lied in their own hands: be better players.
All this aside, I have no doubt Babcock can be difficult and makes lots of decisions I wouldn't make. I also have no doubt there are players who don't like him. What I don't agree with is assessing him based on lies or misinformation or spreading such. What I also don't agree with is not actually looking at the context. In each of those cases, looking at the entirety of his decisions, they seem pretty well founded.
In all honesty, the recent Spezza decision is probably the only one of that group that seems odd and not necessarily supportable.
