Leafs search for a new coach/GM

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

Yeah, Burke sounds like a good goalie coach, but I'd steer clear of someone with that kind of past.

 

[Tigger]

If the Leafs could get him I'd love to see Mike Futa for GM and Sean Burke as an assistant.

Read about Futa and see the appeal. Not sure sure about Burke. What's the big deal other than he's been rumored to be connected to the Leafs and folks say he's an up and comer? Kinda reminds me of Joe Nieuwendyk -- tho with more domestic abuse -- but I have no idea really. What's he actually done that's so impressive?

Burke would be a guy the Leafs also bring in for goaltending development, should have mentioned it. I don't know about the domestic stuff, he seems to have carved out a decent career for himself subsequently.

I have a soft spot for Mike, admittedly, I've met him a few times, intelligent hockey man.

 

[rdowdall]

I'm pretty sure teams have that option with executives too. If the Leafs went to Nonis right now and said "Just kidding, we do want you to be GM" I'm pretty sure that if he wanted to keep getting paid he'd have to come in to work. I don't know how it might work if, say, the Leafs decided they wanted to employ Nonis in a different capacity(if, say, they wanted to demote him) but I think there's not much practical difference there.

Roger Neilson

 

[rdowdall]

Interesting information about Tippet:

http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/2015/04/12/tippett-who-might-be-able-to-opt-out-cant-see-himself-doing-that-again/

"He might not have to put up with it. While he does have three years left on his contract, he also reportedly has two different out clauses. If true, he has the option to leave should the club relocate or, more relevant to this, if the Coyotes change ownership. In other words, he might have the option to walk away because Andrew Barroway bought a majority stake in the team. That being said, Fox Sports Arizona cautioned that the clause?s details aren?t clear and it?s not known for certain if he can truly get out of the contract."

 

[mr grieves]

Burke would be a guy the Leafs also bring in for goaltending development, should have mentioned it. I don't know about the domestic stuff, he seems to have carved out a decent career for himself subsequently.

Guess I should've added: the confusing part is I hear there's interest in him as some sort of hybrid goaltending development exec (or coach?) and some higher-up, AGM or even quasi-GM (what any GM is likely to be in this set up, where Shanahan looms large)... It's the higher up position I don't get. What's he done?

 

[Kin]

Burke would be a guy the Leafs also bring in for goaltending development, should have mentioned it. I don't know about the domestic stuff, he seems to have carved out a decent career for himself subsequently.

Guess I should've added: the confusing part is I hear there's interest in him as some sort of hybrid goaltending development exec (or coach?) and some higher-up, AGM or even quasi-GM (what any GM is likely to be in this set up, where Shanahan looms large)... It's the higher up position I don't get. What's he done?

Yeah, I was wondering that too. Wikipedia says he's been the Coyotes' "Director of Prospect Development" since 2008 and the Coyotes in that time...they've developed OEL and then virtually nobody of note.

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

http://theleafsnation.com/2015/5/11/the-underlying-numbers-of-the-leafs-head-coaching-candidates

This was a fascinating look at the coaching candidates for the Leafs job from a numbers perspective.

Spoiler Alert: There is a reason Babcock is going to get paid.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

http://theleafsnation.com/2015/5/11/the-underlying-numbers-of-the-leafs-head-coaching-candidates

This was a fascinating look at the coaching candidates for the Leafs job from a numbers perspective.

Spoiler Alert: There is a reason Babcock is going to get paid.

According to Cathal Kelly Babcock is basically just Randy Carlyle minus a few pounds and never having coached the Leafs:

Maybe the easiest way to parse this out is contrasting Babcock with someone of similar accomplishment. Hey, Randy Carlyle?s not doing anything right now. Maybe forever.

Both men have one championship as a head coach. They have (very roughly) similar winning percentages. Carlyle was far and away the better player (he played in 1,055 NHL games; Babcock played in none). Both are as Canadian as ketchup chips.

However similar they are on paper ? and though Carlyle has the better all-round hockey pedigree ? no one would seriously compare the two.

That?s because Carlyle took three serious missteps in his managerial career: He didn?t get put in charge of the national team; he lost his hair and put on a few pounds in middle age; and he took a job with the Toronto Maple Leafs. Very heavy emphasis on number three.

The lesson here: Babcock isn?t viewed as the best coach in the game just because of the things he?s done right. It has every bit as much to do with the things he hasn?t yet gotten wrong.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/is-mike-babcock-really-the-best-coach-in-hockey-how-do-we-know/article24380450/

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

You lost me at Cathal Kelly.

 

[herman]

Must be nice getting paid to troll.

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

What troubles me most about this type of thing is that there are enough mouth breathers that will read that and adopt it as their own opinion, they then call in sports radio and go off on Twitter, so much so that the talking heads start repeating it and the cycle just spins and spins.

 

[Highlander]

Just maybe Cathal has a point, however he was the one to suggest long ago that Babcock was the perfect fit with the Loafs.

 

[bustaheims]

Just maybe Cathal has a point, however he was the one to suggest long ago that Babcock was the perfect fit with the Loafs.

No, he doesn't. He's not looking at any of the reasons why Babcock is so highly regarded, the difference in his strategies in comparison to Carlyle and others, etc. He's making a very superficial "analysis" and patting himself on the back for digging deep and revealing what's on the surface.

 

[Al14]

http://theleafsnation.com/2015/5/11/the-underlying-numbers-of-the-leafs-head-coaching-candidates

This was a fascinating look at the coaching candidates for the Leafs job from a numbers perspective.

Spoiler Alert: There is a reason Babcock is going to get paid.

Based on the numbers alone, how can Shanahan and Company not just open the vault and pay Babcock all that he wants.

Babcock is the best of the best coaches available.  Just give him a blank cheque and give him all the power he feels that he needs to coach the Leafs.

 

[rdowdall]

http://theleafsnation.com/2015/5/11/the-underlying-numbers-of-the-leafs-head-coaching-candidates

This was a fascinating look at the coaching candidates for the Leafs job from a numbers perspective.

Spoiler Alert: There is a reason Babcock is going to get paid.

Based on the numbers alone, how can Shanahan and Company not just open the vault and pay Babcock all that he wants.

Babcock is the best of the best coaches available.  Just give him a blank cheque and give him all the power he feels that he needs to coach the Leafs.

I think that after a while fans may look at that as a mistake.

 

[princedpw]

http://theleafsnation.com/2015/5/11/the-underlying-numbers-of-the-leafs-head-coaching-candidates

This was a fascinating look at the coaching candidates for the Leafs job from a numbers perspective.

Spoiler Alert: There is a reason Babcock is going to get paid.

Based on the numbers alone, how can Shanahan and Company not just open the vault and pay Babcock all that he wants.

Babcock is the best of the best coaches available.  Just give him a blank cheque and give him all the power he feels that he needs to coach the Leafs.

Unless somebody gives me more background information, these numbers don't tell me how good a coach Babcock is.  These numbers do say that Babcock's teams had great possession numbers.  But how much of that is Babcock and how much of that is the players/Holland?  Incredibly hard to say from what is presented there.

Is Babcock getting a 58% Corsi out of some of his Lidstrom/Datsyuk teams in the mid-2000s a better achievement for the coach relative to the players than DeBoer in NJ in 2013 getting 56%? How do we know?  How many more wins will that translate to Leafs next year?  Is DeBoer 2013 better than Deboer 2012 better than Deboer 2011 or is it actually the rosters?  Should we really be comparing the team corsi of the guy coaching Florida to the guy in Detroit? I have no idea how to adjust for the differences in those rosters, which I'm guessing is enormous.

I'd wager that Babcock is probably a good coach but it is hard to know what exactly we can take from those numbers.  Of course, I'd be happy if someone enlightened me.

 

[L K]

http://theleafsnation.com/2015/5/11/the-underlying-numbers-of-the-leafs-head-coaching-candidates

This was a fascinating look at the coaching candidates for the Leafs job from a numbers perspective.

Spoiler Alert: There is a reason Babcock is going to get paid.

Based on the numbers alone, how can Shanahan and Company not just open the vault and pay Babcock all that he wants.

Babcock is the best of the best coaches available.  Just give him a blank cheque and give him all the power he feels that he needs to coach the Leafs.

Unless somebody gives me more background information, these numbers don't tell me how good a coach Babcock is.  These numbers do say that Babcock's teams had great possession numbers.  But how much of that is Babcock and how much of that is the players/Holland?  Incredibly hard to say from what is presented there.

Is Babcock getting a 58% Corsi out of some of his Lidstrom/Datsyuk teams in the mid-2000s a better achievement for the coach relative to the players than DeBoer in NJ in 2013 getting 56%? How do we know?  How many more wins will that translate to Leafs next year?  Is DeBoer 2013 better than Deboer 2012 better than Deboer 2011 or is it actually the rosters?  Should we really be comparing the team corsi of the guy coaching Florida to the guy in Detroit? I have no idea how to adjust for the differences in those rosters, which I'm guessing is enormous.

I'd wager that Babcock is probably a good coach but it is hard to know what exactly we can take from those numbers.  Of course, I'd be happy if someone enlightened me.

Pretty much what I was going to post.  The numbers suggest that when Babcock has two hall of fame forwards who are both pretty darn good defensively as well as one of the greatest defensemen in the history of the sport that he puts up great numbers relative to those teams.  It doesn't do much to support the notion that Babcock would be a good coach through a rebuild.  I certainly don't think he would be a bad choice if he wants to come here, but those numbers really only support the notion that when given a good team, Babcock gets good results. 

What the Leafs should be looking for in their coach is a guy who excels at mentorship and an ability to engage players and get them to buy into his approach to the game.  The Leafs really shouldn't be worrying about shot totals or possession time over the next year or two, they need to be focusing more on team building and individual player development.

 

[Kin]

What the Leafs should be looking for in their coach is a guy who excels at mentorship and an ability to engage players and get them to buy into his approach to the game.  The Leafs really shouldn't be worrying about shot totals or possession time over the next year or two, they need to be focusing more on team building and individual player development.

I also think an eye should be given towards someone who can be good with the media, who can effectively communicate what they want to see in terms of the sort of development you're talking about and managing expectations over what should be a long process.

 

[herman]

What the Leafs should be looking for in their coach is a guy who excels at mentorship and an ability to engage players and get them to buy into his approach to the game.  The Leafs really shouldn't be worrying about shot totals or possession time over the next year or two, they need to be focusing more on team building and individual player development.

I also think an eye should be given towards someone who can be good with the media, who can effectively communicate what they want to see in terms of the sort of development you're talking about and managing expectations over what should be a long process.

I agree with the above. Babcock would be a nice-to-have when we're competitive. Unless he is up for the ground-up rebuild and desires to mold a team from scratch, we're not his meal ticket.

With regards to his team possession stats, it does still show that Babcock's system (and his ability to get players to play that system) is very effective. From Carlyle's numbers in Anaheim, a poorly conceived system of play can still tank the possession stats of talented players when it pulls them out of positions to succeed.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

With regards to his team possession stats, it does still show that Babcock's system (and his ability to get players to play that system) is very effective. From Carlyle's numbers in Anaheim, a poorly conceived system of play can still tank the possession stats of talented players when it pulls them out of positions to succeed.

No doubt his great rosters heavily influenced those possession stats from 2005-2009. Last season though was when I was really impressed by Babcock. Took a team that was destroyed by injuries into the playoffs and still had top-10 possession stats. Datsyuk and Zetterberg each only played half the season. Nyquist was held to just 57 games because of cap issues. Nobody on the team scored more than 50 points. Of their top 16 scorers only 4 played 70+ games. I know that they only barely got into the playoffs and weren't really a threat, but I was amazed they even got that far.

But yeah, for a lot of the same reasons others have mentioned Babcock isn't really a guy I would fall over myself to get. He's a great coach, but if he doesn't want to come here then oh well.