• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

Can a coach change?

Didn't stop the Canucks from turfing "immensely successful" torts after one season.
 
mbow30 said:
putting all that aside, they hired carlyle because he has been an immensely successful coach throughout his coaching career. what message does it send to prospective hires if you turf the guy because of a bad finish during his second season with the team - one year after he guided them to the playoffs?

good luck getting babcock to sign up for what is clearly a long-term project when he knows, going into it, that if immediate results aren't there the team will let him go?
Click to expand...

I'm okay with the sending the message that if your team gives up a nearly historically bad number of shots against, you'll probably get canned too?
 
an immensely successful coach who joined a team that hadn't missed the playoffs in five seasons and missed the playoffs, and who had such serious friction with the team's star forwards that a couple of perennial ppg players (and they're right back there this year) combined for just 97 points....

the team totally fell apart and he was the only factor that changed from 12-13 to 13-14.

not to mention the fact that they cleared out the entire front office.
 
You would think the reason they didn't can him after last season was that they didn't have desirable options for a replacement. But they also extended him for another 2 years. You have to think they thought he could turn it around. I mean, this GM thought Clarkson was a good deal and tried to throw a similar contract at Bolland.
 
BeLeafer said:
You would think the reason they didn't can him after last season was that they didn't have desirable options for a replacement. But they also extended him for another 2 years. You have to think they thought he could turn it around. I mean, this GM thought Clarkson was a good deal and tried to throw a similar contract at Bolland.
Click to expand...

they gave him one year plus an option.

it just avoided the lame duck distraction.
 
I still think it was a golden handshake. Nonnis knew he probably wouldn't last to the end of the contract and took care of him. Dude is 58, he's probably not getting another gig after this disaster.
 
So if I'm misinterpreted, feel free to correct me mbow, but it almost seems like you're suggesting that the Leafs firing Carlyle is unfair in some way...? Or that prospective hires should find it unfair.
 
The leafs suck so bad that they have to reward a coach for squeaking into the playoffs in a 4 8gms season, even when the team is setting shots allowed records every year.

That is sad.
 
Montana said:
Hiring a better coach this coming offseason, than we would have last offseason.....would offset any 'mistake' they made by keeping Carlyle, for me personally.

If Babcock or Deboer end up being our guy, I'll be fine with us having had to keep Carlyle around a few months longer than was ideal.

Especially if there weren't any coaches available that they were in love with last summer.
Click to expand...

This exactly. And now Shanny will have a chance to evaluate our 'core' independent of Randy and his apparent systems issues.

If we really are all in on Babcock, which everyone here seems to support, then what other decisions could they have made this summer? Bring in a guy knowing that you plan to can him after a year regardless of how good he is? Plus, this all fits with Shanny's approach of patient evaluation before making any moves.

Like leafman said, he reacted pretty quickly. I'm pretty sure we're the only team that canned our coach this year while in a playoff spot...
 
hockeylover said:
So if I'm misinterpreted, feel free to correct me mbow, but it almost seems like you're suggesting that the Leafs firing Carlyle is unfair in some way...? Or that prospective hires should find it unfair.
Click to expand...

If Babcock is the end game for Shanny, there weren't really any other options this past summer. You can't hire a new coach with a plan to fire him after a season regardless of how the team performs.
 
Lebrun was on the radio yesterday talking about how Babcock believes he can push NHL coaches salaries more in line with coaches in other leagues, and believes this contract could be a big moment for NHL coaches.

Only one team in the league would throw insane money at him.
 
The leafs should overpay for coaches. Use their advantage.

And it's hard to argue against Babcock as a coach. He checks every possible box.

I would be a bit wary of handing him the GM duties too though.
 
I like Babcock a lot, I would just be very wary of thinking 1. changing a coach can fix ALL the problems on the roster and 2. Babcock is in a totally different league compared to some of the other top coaches in the league.

Babcock is one of the better coaches, but coaching only goes so far. I have no doubt Babcock, or any of the top coaches like Hitch, Queensville, Trotz just off top of my head, can get a LOT more out of our roster just because Randy was so bad, but I also think we need more changes in our lineup if we're to improve ourselves from a bubble team to a cup contender.
 
IMO its not even just about improving this version of the roster. Mike Babcock is that shit captain kind of guy that can set the foundation for your organization moving forward. IMO he'd be a much more impactful hire than just a good coach that would make the team better now.

He's the type of guy that can actually change the culture of a team moving forward. Won't make them contenders immediately. But we'd see the benefits in the long run.

He's a very bright guy. Getting that behind the scenes look at him in 24/7 last year was really interesting.
 
See but that's what I'm wary of.

When has Babcock shown he can change the culture of a dressing room?? I think we're giving the man too much credit, and while he's had success in DET, he's also had a pretty darn good roster with the best dman of the league, not to mention a room full of veteran leaders for > half of his time in Detroit.

And I'm not dissing Babcock as a coach, instead I think a coach can only do so much. Expecting a coach to be able to do over and above what a coach can do would be a mistake.
 
This market messes with coaches' heads.

I think Babcock, like Quinn, could handle it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top