Now that Toronto is out, can all of those god awful commercials that fellate the Leafs go with them? In particular, that atrocious scotiabank commercial?
The Following User Says Thank You to Resolute 14 For This Useful Post:
Well they actually have 25 million reasons. More if the rest of the staff is replaced, as is the norm.
I know MLSE has boatloads of money at their disposal, but are they really willing to pay someone that kind of cash not to work for them? Then add another 20 million or more for the new guy and his assistants?
When you add in that slate of defencemen the coaching staff is saddled with....well as the saying goes, its hard to make chicken soup out of chicken ####, and then complain when it doesn't happen.
According to Sportsnet Babcock's contract was frontloaded so although nobody knows how much has been paid out already it's likely a big chunk. Also after the 5th year there is an opt-out clause but it's not clear if that is Babcock's option or the team's.
The Leafs played very well defensively this series and if you watched the games I think it's clear that the whole "Leafs defence is horrible" trope was wrong.
Because the Leafs played pretty well defensively this series I'm okay with them bringing back Babcock for next year.
Some of the rumours out there are that both assistant coaches will be fired which I think makes sense. Both the Leafs powerplay and penalty kill were not great this season, especially in the playoffs, and that falls on the assistants.
The rumour is that Keefe from the Marlies and Guy Boucher might be brought in as assistants. Keefe handling the powerplay and Boucher handling the penalty kill.
According to Sportsnet Babcock's contract was frontloaded so although nobody knows how much has been paid out already it's likely a big chunk. Also after the 5th year there is an opt-out clause but it's not clear if that is Babcock's option or the team's.
The Leafs played very well defensively this series and if you watched the games I think it's clear that the whole "Leafs defence is horrible" trope was wrong.
Because the Leafs played pretty well defensively this series I'm okay with them bringing back Babcock for next year.
Bruins had, in their four wins, 41, 31, 41 and 32 shots. In the losses 38, 36 and 29. And to my eye, a lot of those shots were stellar chances. Anderson was great and they still lost. That's not great D.
My erection hasn't subsided, at what point should I call a doctor? Or should I accept my fate, lay down on my back, and become a human sundial for the remainder of my days?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by oilboimcdavid
Eakins wasn't a bad coach, the team just had 2 bad years, they should've been more patient.
The Following User Says Thank You to PaperBagger'14 For This Useful Post:
News is out that Hyman tore his ACL in game 4 and proceeded to play on one leg for the rest of the series. Babcock got destroyed over this on Tim and Sid
Forget if Babcock is qualified or not for a sec. You don't pay a guy that much money to sit on his butt for years because there's some marginally better coach out there. There's enough monetary reasons to give him one year to try. At least that would probably be what Shanahan would have on his mind to meet in the middle with his GM (if the GM wants the coach out). Getting rid of the coach is inevitable though. When Lamorillo was let go, Shanahan said he believes during different phases of the journey, different personnel is brought in to take you to the next phase. If Babcock is seen as a player development coach (by management), and can't get the job done with mature players, then perhaps when the team matures the next guy is brought in to work better with players more mature. Seems to be what the Leafs are about.
News is out that Hyman tore his ACL in game 4 and proceeded to play on one leg for the rest of the series. Babcock got destroyed over this on Tim and Sid
Not only did he play, but I thought I saw he played more 5-on-5 than Matthews in the 3rd, or at least it was very close.
I'm pretty sure I mentioned it before, and it sounds minor, but I think it's kind of a microcosm of what some of his issues are - I think like 3 quarters of the way through the season, Justin Holl had played something like 2 games.
Now, Justin Holl is never going to be a top 6 guy, probably. But he seems to like not playing guys on his roster. Justin Holl, Frank Corrado, Josh Leivo - unless he has no choice.
Then, when you need them, like when they lost Dermott and Gardiner, the replacements aren't good enough because they don't play. You don't send them down because you don't want to lose them to waivers, but if you don't play them, you're losing them anyway, because they're never going to develop. What's the point of having them? If they're not good enough to draw in semi-regularly then who cares if you lose them?
Just a mind-boggling way to treat players imo. Sure, people say who cares they're not that good, but they never get the chance to be more either.
This guy is hilarious. You only really have to watch the first 5 minutes of the video to appreciate his rant because after that he calms down and starts dissecting the series reasonably. Personally, I enjoy watching the rant
1 at 
5 
must show all Flames games nationally when they play on Saturdays, Mondays, and Wednesdays !!!
