Babcock is either very good or great.Babcock built a reputation on the back of J.S. Giguere carrying a mediocre team to the Finals, inherited the most complete post-lockout team, won a Cup, was beat in 2009 by a currently unemployed coach, and was bounced from the playoffs two years in a row by a team coached by a former assistant.
I'm not saying he's a bad coach but his record isn't unimpeachable.
The referees not injuries IMO.I mean, by the same virtue, Scotty Bowman almost exclusively coached elite teams. The 70's Habs, early 90's Penguins, and late 90's Red Wings are among the best ever. But there was a period, after his Buffalo stint, where all he did was work on HNIC. The question is: How much does a coach impact a great team, and vice versa. Is there a correlation? Does it lead to causation? I'm inclined Babcock is the best coach in the league regardless.
Additionally, the 2009 Red Wings were extremely injured in the finals. Lidstrom had been speared in the groin by Kane in the previous round, Hossa had a bad shoulder, Datsyuk was in and out. This left Zetterberg to play against Crosby and Malkin, the latter of which tore us up.
I don't doubt Babcock wants his payday, but I don't think money is the main hurdle. Just a few days ago it was rumored the Wings were willing to make him the highest paid coach in the league, which would probably be $3+ million a season. And how often have the Wings been unwilling to pay a guy they think highly of? Especially one who is already associated with the organization?
My read has been that Babcock not only wants the cash, but more of a say in how the roster is put together. Maybe that means more of a say in who we sign, but I think it's in who he keeps out of camp. That's where we've seen the most consistent friction the past few years, where Babcock has wanted to keep someone out of camp, but Holland has said no and sent a kid back to GR instead.
I'm thinking Babcock is pushing for that, Holland is balking, and that's where we're seeing this, "well, maybe it'll be better if I just sign one year deals" bit coming from the Babcock camp.
Personally, I wouldn't mind so much if Babcock had more of a say in who he kept out of camp. I would have no interest in this year to year business, though.
Do you mind to mention the players? Just curious.