Hitchcock Gone?

[Instant Karma]

I know Hitchcock is considered a great coach...but who will hire him? There's a ton of high quality candidates out there this summer, I wonder if he might be sitting around waiting for a while (or a few years).

I think more and more that Hitch is the Don Nelson of hockey. You give him a fundamentally bad team and he'll make it better practically overnight. It's progressing past that next stage that seems to be the problem. Still, that can be attractive if you have a team that's in need of radical shake-up.

My feeling on Hitch is that he's an excellent coach, but his style of coaching only lasts so long before it begins to grate on the players and they start to tune him out. This tends to give his style a relativley short shelf-life.

[4horsemen]

Wanna bet...?

EDIT: and I disagree w/your general premise too.

OK, so you'd like to bet that (based on the information made available to the public regarding the financial compensation packages offered) the Leafs will come in under the compensation offered by any other team? As a gentlemans bet I'll take it!! If you want to throw money on it then I'll need odds because playing one team vs The Field should almost always come with odds. If you'd like to bet on the Leafs vs any other particular team then I'm all in for even odds.

As for the disagreement with the general premise, I'm intrigued by your world view but the evidence would suggest otherwise. If we were to test the hypothesis within the confines of the NHL and generated a list of players who went with the highest bidder vs those who were known to have taken a hometown discount to stay put or those who went to a particular franchise for less than market value, are you suggesting that there might be an even split or that more often than not players and coaches don't take the most money offered?

[Bomm Bastic]

OK, so you'd like to bet that (based on the information made available to the public regarding the financial compensation packages offered) the Leafs will come in under the compensation offered by any other team? As a gentlemans bet I'll take it!! If you want to throw money on it then I'll need odds because playing one team vs The Field should almost always come with odds. If you'd like to bet on the Leafs vs any other particular team then I'm all in for even odds.

As for the disagreement with the general premise, I'm intrigued by your world view but the evidence would suggest otherwise. If we were to test the hypothesis within the confines of the NHL and generated a list of players who went with the highest bidder vs those who were known to have taken a hometown discount to stay put or those who went to a particular franchise for less than market value, are you suggesting that there might be an even split or that more often than not players and coaches don't take the most money offered?

I was just being cheeky w/regard to actually betting on it. But I will safely assume Babcock will be the Sabres next coach. Because if your assertion holds (ie, whoever throws the most coin at Babcock wins) then no one will out bid Pegula. He'll give Babcock a gas well named after him.

I hope you're right, believe me.

There's more to it than just coin. Otherwise, Babcock would have been a Leafs coach years ago.

EDIT: ...and I never stated a world view about anything. So don't get all hyperbole on me or we'll have to end this otherwise interesting discussion. Last Babcock is a coach, not a player. Apples and oranges.

[rataylor22]

I agree with Bomm, both with the premise that no-one will offer as much as TML (other teams will) and the only thing that matters to Babcock is money (I truly don't believe it is).

[Bomm Bastic]

Not to mention Babcock is an outlier among other other NHL coaches. I think generally 4horsemen is correct in asserting coaches much like players go where the money is cuz they have to. Most coaches are not of Babcock's level (rightly or wrongly). So projecting babcock's motive based on other middling coaches is wrong in my opinion.

Babcock can write his own ticket. Very few coaches not named Bowman get that privilege (as a numerator atop all NHL coaches ever). Look he could wind up in TO. It's not like I dine w/him every night (dare to dream).

I just don't see TO as a fit. That's all.

[blayze]

I was just playing devil's advocate... I think the probability is lower that Babcock land in Toronto, but I still think it's a possibility if he truly is one of those guys who wants to tackle the biggest challenges out there.

STL would be a great place for him... I can see him turning those guys into contenders.

I wouldn't mind me some Hitchcock in Toronto... he won't take us to the Cup, but he will instil some much needed discipline and accountability in the players.

[4horsemen]

I was just being cheeky w/regard to actually betting on it. But I will safely assume Babcock will be the Sabres next coach. Because if your assertion holds (ie, whoever throws the most coin at Babcock wins) then no one will out bid Pegula. He'll give Babcock a gas well named after him.

I hope you're right, believe me.

There's more to it than just coin. Otherwise, Babcock would have been a Leafs coach years ago.

EDIT: ...and I never stated a world view about anything. So don't get all hyperbole on me or we'll have to end this otherwise interesting discussion. Last Babcock is a coach, not a player. Apples and oranges.

If Pegula offers Babcock the most money then I predict that is were he will end up!! That being said, in general there are things at play that can't be quantified on a balance sheet and those things will always play into a persons decision making process (eg. proximity to children, climate, pre-existing relationships) but the ultimate driver of most decisions is money and I believe that almost everyone has a price (ie. enough extra money will minimize the role of those other concerns. Yes, I'm mostly a cynic) and I would define that sort of thinking as broadly fitting into what can best be described as a 'worldview'.

I'm curious to know the rationale behind why players and coaches should be viewed differently in this regard? I make no such distinction.

[JagrBomb]

if we're talking $$$ there is no way pegula outbids toronto.

if it comes down to these two teams, $$$ wont be the deciding factor as both will empty their wallets. i think toronto will still pay more but regardless, babcok would choose the one he prefers.

if he wants the bigger challenge then he'll pick the leafs. higher risk/higher reward with the leafs, but if he doesnt want to deal with all the crap that could come with the job, then he'll go with the sabres.


i think he stays with detroit. i dont think he would leave a competitive team to join a better one (st.louis). if he leaves it's because of family reasons or something personal like he wants a bigger challenge.

wild card is edmonton. cant rule out the mcdavid factor.

[Bomm Bastic]

I agree w/Praba in that I believe Babcock ultimately decides to stay put.

I think the Sabres go after Luke Richardson, but will take a run at Babs.

As far as Hitch, he could easily stay with the Blues. He's done great considering he never had a true #1 goalie. Elliott's a great plug-n-play for less than 10 games at a time. But he's a good backup, nothing more (see: Enroth). Blues lost the series due to tending, and players not named Tarasenko failing to score. Which is why I picked the Wild in the first place.

As for 4horsemen..

..but the ultimate driver of most decisions is money and I believe that almost everyone has a price (ie. enough extra money will minimize the role of those other concerns. Yes, I'm mostly a cynic) and I would define that sort of thinking as broadly fitting into what can best be described as a 'worldview'.

I'm curious to know the rationale behind why players and coaches should be viewed differently in this regard? I make no such distinction.

Two reasons: (1) what applies to the group doesn't necessarily apply to the individual. If you read my response, you'd see that i agreed with you generally, but felt there are exceptions or outliers. In this scenario, Babcock is that.

(2) as far as coaches vs players it's just numbers thing. There are less individuals in the coaching talent pool than there are players. So coaches (again...generally speaking) have more control over their destination. Money is an important factor. So is term of contract. So is final say of player roster. Certain coaches don't appreciate a GMs who micro-manage.

The list of deciding factors is numerous. You boil all decisions down to money. I don't. I believe it's more complex than that. Especially for a generational coach as Babcock.

[rataylor22]

Blues scribes have already made it public knowledge that Hitch is expected to get fired. He hasn't been yet, so I guess things could change, but I don't expect him back.

[4horsemen]

Two reasons: (1) what applies to the group doesn't necessarily apply to the individual. If you read my response, you'd see that i agreed with you generally, but felt there are exceptions or outliers. In this scenario, Babcock is that.

(2) as far as coaches vs players it's just numbers thing. There are less individuals in the coaching talent pool than there are players. So coaches (again...generally speaking) have more control over their destination. Money is an important factor. So is term of contract. So is final say of player roster. Certain coaches don't appreciate a GMs who micro-manage.

The list of deciding factors is numerous. You boil all decisions down to money. I don't. I believe it's more complex than that. Especially for a generational coach as Babcock.

I did read your response and what I find truly interesting here is that Babcock is widely rumoured to be the one wanting to push the envelope on coaching salaries and fully intends to become the highest paid coach in the NHL so I do not see him as an outlier at all. Does anyone really think that if Holland had offered him 5.5 mil per year that he wouldn't already be locked up long term in Det? The reason he's testing the waters most likely boil down to: a) leverage for more money out of Holland and/or b) to follow the massive offer he's likely to receive from another club. What then would constitute a significant differentiator? Where a 5-10 or even 15% difference might not sway him towards a destination he's not entirely comfortable with I'd wager that 25-30% absolutely would (Contract term is money at the end of the day so I also make no distinction between yearly salary demands and term length demands....all part of the same equation).

I do not boil all decisions down to money but I do boil almost all business decisions down to money, it's a very safe strategy and one that I'll wager on 95% of the time!! All things being roughly equal there are obviously many factors that will play into Babcock's decision but if all things are not close to equal then those other considerations quickly become noise. Now, all this being said, I do not believe that a team will actually make an offer that is so far out of line with what other teams are offering that it will trump all other considerations but it's possible and the Leafs are a strong contender to make that sort of offer.

p.s. didn't mean to de-rail the Hitch thread. Please continue on as I'm sure there are more Babcock threads than Hitchcock.

[Bomm Bastic]

I'll agree to disagree, 4horsemen, and leave it at that.