WHOA - Mike Babcock OUT | Sheldon Keefe IN

[Bates]

Gotta go a long ways back now to see that success.

I'm referring to his success with the Leafs.

We define success differently then.

 

[Hobbes]

I'm not terribly optimistic at the chances of us seeing a Bluesian type of turn-around, but at this point I'd settle for some half-decent up-tempo hockey with pace, and that's Keefe's MO so if nothing else at least it ought to be watchable.

I'm pretty bummed out that the lesson people took from the Blues seems to be "Fire a coach mid-season and anyone can win the cup!" and not "In the modern era of parity, no team is good enough to overcome bad goaltending and no team is bad enough to stink with good goaltending".

That's the lottery principle isn't it? Despite the staggering odds against it, millions of people still sink money into lotteries week after week on the flawed logic that "someone's got to win so it might as well be me"

 

[4EVRLEAFAN]

Should have fired Dubas as well

Turn it around all they want and all we'll get is a team that makes the playoffs, we are not a Stanley Cup team. Dubas is building a fast skilled team with zero toughness, no matter what that will never win a cup. Dubas must go!!

Yep.

In what world does a GM get 18 months, doesn?t get to hire his own coach and gets fired?

As in should have, obviously it would have been unorthodox for Dubas to be fired as well.

I wouldn't have hired Dubas, I would have gone with Hunter.

His 3 big re-signings were not "wins". He bungled the back up goalie situation. Both defensemen trades this summer were big misses. I have reasons why i have doubt in Dubas' ability.

As astray Babcock went in his performance, Dubas has been just as culpable.

Contracts aside you?re basing this on the teams and players performance the first 23 games. If they turn it around and look good are the d signings and goalie situation better? Winning fixes a lot of things.

They can turn it around all they want and all we'll get is a playoff team and no Cup, Dubas is building a fast skilled team with no toughness and that will never win a Cup, Dubas must go.

 

[Chris]

I don't agree that this move had anything to do with placating anyone. It's been obvious for a while now - almost the entire calendar year 2019, actually - that this team wasn't performing at a reasonable level compared to the raw talent available. The team is often flat, doesn't give maximum effort except for short periods (usually when they are behind in the 3rd period), takes lazy penalties, can't score on the PP or kill penalties. Matthews often floats through games. How many times this year has he been the best player on the ice? Even the best player for the Leafs? Not nearly often enough. There's obviously a problem with this team, what none of us know for sure is where the problem lies. But it sure looks to me like the message from Babcock isn't getting through anymore. Whether you want to characterize that as "he's lost the team" or whatever, it wasn't working. And wasn't working for a long time, long enough that you can't reasonably blame it on injuries or personnel changes.

So what do you do - start trading that expensive core you've assembled, or change the coach? It's obvious to me that the latter is the way to go. If that doesn't work, then you start looking at moving major pieces and redesigning the basic structure of the team. We all saw this team outplay Boston at even strength in the playoffs last year, so we know what they are capable of. Sometimes a team just needs a change in leadership.

Can't wait to see how things go from here.

 

[Highlander]

I feel like this was more of a sign that Dubas wanted to do this in the offseason but Shanny blocked it.

Could be. I still don't think Babcock is really what's wrong with the team though and I think his past success earned him more than this.

Gotta go a long ways back now to see that success.

r

Ya, he hasn't had either Detroit or Toronto past the first round in the last 1st round 5 times in the last 6 and only to the 2nd round in 4  years previously.

 

[Kin]

That's the lottery principle isn't it? Despite the staggering odds against it, millions of people still sink money into lotteries week after week on the flawed logic that "someone's got to win so it might as well be me"

Yes. And while I tend to have some sympathies for people who play the lottery in the hopes of a better life, I think that very profitable multi-billion dollar sports teams should be run smarter than that.

 

[Highlander]

I'm not terribly optimistic at the chances of us seeing a Bluesian type of turn-around, but at this point I'd settle for some half-decent up-tempo hockey with pace, and that's Keefe's MO so if nothing else at least it ought to be watchable.

I'm pretty bummed out that the lesson people took from the Blues seems to be "Fire a coach mid-season and anyone can win the cup!" and not "In the modern era of parity, no team is good enough to overcome bad goaltending and no team is bad enough to stink with good goaltending".

That's the lottery principle isn't it? Despite the staggering odds against it, millions of people still sink money into lotteries week after week on the flawed logic that "someone's got to win so it might as well be me"

Yes but it will be me

 

[Guilt Trip]

I'm not terribly optimistic at the chances of us seeing a Bluesian type of turn-around, but at this point I'd settle for some half-decent up-tempo hockey with pace, and that's Keefe's MO so if nothing else at least it ought to be watchable.

I'm pretty bummed out that the lesson people took from the Blues seems to be "Fire a coach mid-season and anyone can win the cup!" and not "In the modern era of parity, no team is good enough to overcome bad goaltending and no team is bad enough to stink with good goaltending".

That's the lottery principle isn't it? Despite the staggering odds against it, millions of people still sink money into lotteries week after week on the flawed logic that "someone's got to win so it might as well be me"

Staggering odds?? Crap, I need to rethink...

 

[Frank E]

I'm not terribly optimistic at the chances of us seeing a Bluesian type of turn-around, but at this point I'd settle for some half-decent up-tempo hockey with pace, and that's Keefe's MO so if nothing else at least it ought to be watchable.

I'm pretty bummed out that the lesson people took from the Blues seems to be "Fire a coach mid-season and anyone can win the cup!" and not "In the modern era of parity, no team is good enough to overcome bad goaltending and no team is bad enough to stink with good goaltending".

I hate that I agree with you again.

 

[Joe S.]

Do you think Keefe will help Matthews have more than 1 goal on the road?

 

[Hobbes]

That's the lottery principle isn't it? Despite the staggering odds against it, millions of people still sink money into lotteries week after week on the flawed logic that "someone's got to win so it might as well be me"

Yes. And while I tend to have some sympathies for people who play the lottery in the hopes of a better life, I think that very profitable multi-billion dollar sports teams should be run smarter than that.

Worth watching sometime...

And yeah, you'd hope that the Leafs brass is making the move for a reason other than pure fantasy. I guess the rationale would be one where they simply don't believe he can turn the team around, or perhaps rather that the team won't turn it around with him still at the helm. A lot of Babcock's success as a coach has come in shorter periods of time (Olympics, Worlds, etc) where you need his intensity and attention to detail and he doesn't have time to wear on you. Many of his former players find that he doesn't age well...much like the rep Hitch and Torts have had.

 

[Kin]

It's kind of a side note but for years when we talked about the lack of a specific and clearly designed power structure despite some strong personalities with different approaches and we got a lot of talk back, specifically from Dubas, about how he didn't like to work that way and how he liked managing "by consensus" and so on.

I'm not really an "I told you so guy" but a lot of people here said that seemed doomed to failure and it was and, quite frankly, it's very hard to attribute that to anything outside of either Dubas being too young to understand why that was a crummy way to run a team or Shanahan not really having the guts to structure an organization properly.

 

[Highlander]

Just showed on Sporstnet, Keefe record with the last three teams he has coached,  Double the amount of wins than losses, when he showed up in the Soo, they were in a mess. He turned them around and took them on a winning streak. Won the Calder Cup.
Lets hope for the same results: Burkie just said Keefe's "winning percentages everywhere he has gone is phenomenal , let's Give him a chance".

 

[Guilt Trip]

Do you think Keefe will help Matthews have more than 1 goal on the road?

I think he will give him more ice. Who knows, maybe we may see him kill penalties.

 

[Kin]

A lot of Babcock's success as a coach has come in shorter periods of time (Olympics, Worlds, etc) where you need his intensity and attention to detail and he doesn't have time to wear on you.Many of his former players find that he doesn't age well...much like the rep Hitch and Torts have had.

Maybe. But in the three full seasons here where the team was trying to win they were 135-81-30. That includes absolutely no gap between the first overall pick and a playoff appearance and as much as people like to whine about it, it doesn't include any playoff losses where the Leafs were a decidedly better team or lost badly to a comparable team. A more equitable playoff format and the Leafs probably win a series or so over the last two years.

If someone doesn't want to define that as a successful tenure, well, that's up to them I suppose.

 

[Highlander]

It's kind of a side note but for years when we talked about the lack of a specific and clearly designed power structure despite some strong personalities with different approaches and we got a lot of talk back, specifically from Dubas, about how he didn't like to work that way and how he liked managing "by consensus" and so on.

I'm not really an "I told you so guy" but a lot of people here said that seemed doomed to failure and it was and, quite frankly, it's very hard to attribute that to anything outside of either Dubas being too young to understand why that was a crummy way to run a team or Shanahan not really having the guts to structure an organization properly.

Dubas did not hire Babcock. Shanahan hired Bab's to give credibility to the team and its aspirations when they were at the bottom of the barrel. Tavares came home more than likely because Babs's was in place.  He was given huge money and a long term as that was market demand.  He did not get the team past the 1st round in three tries.
Keefe is Dubas man, waiting in the wings, same mindsets and belief structures and a winner everywhere he goes, big time.  Dubas wanted to change Babcock out and install Keefe for the beginning of this season and was blocked by the higher ups. So lets give Keefe a chance and we will see if the vision pans out.

 

[Phileas Fogg]

I feel like this was more of a sign that Dubas wanted to do this in the offseason but Shanny blocked it.

Could be. I still don't think Babcock is really what's wrong with the team though and I think his past success earned him more than this.

Gotta go a long ways back now to see that success.

r

Ya, he hasn't had either Detroit or Toronto past the first round in the last 1st round 5 times in the last 6 and only to the 2nd round in 4  years previously.

Yeah, it's amazing how the goalposts can be moved to fit a narrative. Babcock pulled of a minor miracle in a lot of those seasons getting Detroit into the playoffs, considering age and injuries to those detroit teams, and in his first few seasons with the Leafs, playoffs were either impossible, or the finish line - like the first round loss to Washington year.

The last two seasons have seen a lot of young leaf players develop under babcock, and despite extremely weak defense personnel, had good regular seasons. Losing to Boston in the first round is more a matter of circumstance than failure; it's not Babcock's fault the Kadri put the team in such a hole matchup wise, and being bounced by a team in 7 games that was ahead of them in the standings and had home ice, and almost won the cup isn't exactly absymal failure.

I think Dubas set up Babcock to fail; he traded away any semblence of physicality for possibly the softest team that has ever played in the NHL, based on what appears to be baseball-style analytics, as opposed to teambuilding. They're even weaker at defense, due to the Ceci acquisition, overrating Barrie's defensive upside, and the loss of Hainsey/Gardner/Rosen. He gave babcock two backup goalies that have no business starting in the NHL due to substantial overpayments for RFAs. And to boot, they were never a healthy team at any point this season.

Despite all this, I think that Dubas had to let Babcock go, because Babcock wasn't given the players that he needed to coach effectively in the style of coaching that he specializes in.

So you won't find me popping any champagne bottles; taking the players out of the equation, the bad start falls far more to the GM than the coach.

 

[Hobbes]

A lot of Babcock's success as a coach has come in shorter periods of time (Olympics, Worlds, etc) where you need his intensity and attention to detail and he doesn't have time to wear on you.Many of his former players find that he doesn't age well...much like the rep Hitch and Torts have had.

Maybe. But in the three full seasons here where the team was trying to win they were 135-81-30. That includes absolutely no gap between the first overall pick and a playoff appearance and as much as people like to whine about it, it doesn't include any playoff losses where the Leafs were a decidedly better team or lost badly to a comparable team. A more equitable playoff format and the Leafs probably win a series or so over the last two years.

If someone doesn't want to define that as a successful tenure, well, that's up to them I suppose.

Without question his last 3 years have been excellent. There were signs of some issues in the latter part of last year, but they pulled it back together and gave Boston a decent fight. That said, they finished last year with a record of 7-8-4 after March 1st, which when combined with this year's start gives us a 16-18-8 record...not something to hang your hat on.

I have no idea how much of a factor Backcock was in the team's struggles. I have no idea whether anything Keefe does will help to right the ship. It seems the people in the best position to make that evaluation feel that for whatever reason a change was needed and this was the change they made. I get the sense that it's more than a knee-jerk reaction to outside pressure, but I guess only they know for sure.

 

[Kin]

Yeah, it's amazing how the goalposts can be moved to fit a narrative. Babcock pulled of a minor miracle in a lot of those seasons getting Detroit into the playoffs, considering age and injuries to those detroit teams, and in his first few seasons with the Leafs, playoffs were either impossible, or the finish line - like the first round loss to Washington year.

The last two seasons have seen a lot of young leaf players develop under babcock, and despite extremely weak defense personnel, had good regular seasons. Losing to Boston in the first round is more a matter of circumstance than failure; it's not Babcock's fault the Kadri put the team in such a hole matchup wise, and being bounced by a team in 7 games that was ahead of them in the standings and had home ice, and almost won the cup isn't exactly absymal failure.

This is well said and what I was getting at. The fact that people are somehow putting the loss against Washington into their case against Babcock's success is just so completely ridiculous.

 

[Kin]

That said, they finished last year with a record of 7-8-4 after March 1st, which when combined with this year's start gives us a 16-18-8 record...not something to hang your hat on.

Which is probably why a team's record from March 1st-November 20th isn't actually a thing. Last year from March 1st on an already defensively weak team was missing two of their better defenders and this year's team has struggled with ECHL quality backup goaltending. They're two separate things affecting two different teams, neither of which were under Babcock's control.

Like you, I have no idea how this will play out but I don't think there are many convincing arguments that Babcock ever really struggled to get roughly what he should of out of this team and at times he exceeded it significantly.