...

I saw a UFO the other day. Just saying.

Why do the interview, then? And, when you're uncomfortable in front of a camera, or in any public-speaking type situation, normally you're going to lock on to something comfortable and familiar. He had Babs there the whole time and only looked at him once, maybe twice.

It struck me while I was watching the interview that Holland is letting Babcock test the waters early not only because it will end Babwatch as early as possible, but also, and perhaps mainly, as a play against Babcock. By letting him look, he is, in effect, saying "go ahead Babs, take a look around and see how good you have it." Holland knows Babcock - and Babcock's family - well. I bet he knows, or thinks he knows, all of the right buttons to push. I think this interview is part of that play. And, I'm going to surmise, but I would say that maybe part of Holland's obvious discomfort, and Babcock's steady confidence, during this interview, indicates that Holland may have gambled incorrectly with his play against Babcock. Holland was trying to sell the situation to Babcock even during that interview. I think money is an issue here, I think part of the play may have been to get Babcock to stay and give Detroit a little home-town discount, although still expecting to pay more. I wonder if Babcock, with all of the "car time" they had, revealed to Holland what he likes about, oh, say Buffalo, and how much Pegula may have offered. Hence, uncomfortable Holland on camera. I could be way off, too.

Running commentary as I watch this. GO! I don't see two men relating completely on the level, at all. There is tension there, mitigated by familiarity. I agree, Babcock looks torn, but if I could read between the lines, it's because Holland is saying they need to do some re-building to their core, and since they don't have the assets it will take a while. I think Babcock is torn because of loyalty and personal history, but it looks to me like he knows Detroit isn't going to be any more competitive than they are for a long time. Holland is barely looking at Babcock...and, come on, you work 10 years with a guy, talk to him "every day" and you're going to say you don't know what he's thinking? I get why he said that, but, again, reading between the lines, he's not looking at Babcock during this. Hmmm...not sure I like it when someone references themselves in the third person. Babs has done this a few times now. "I do want to be paid..." - yup. Holland is clearly uncomfortable during this. I have experience with media interviews...this guy is not comfortable. 18 minutes into the interview and Holland finally looks at Babs. Well, I finally get to see the "special, special thing" quote in context and the people bringing it up are way, way over-blowing its significance. Babcock is just stating the obvious by saying that, he has no extra special emotional commitment to the content of that quote. "Is change important to invigorate ya..." that right there is insight into what he's really thinking. I would say he must feel flat and stuck in a routine there if he's thinking about what will invigorate him. I do not agree with anyone saying this interview is definitive. Frankly, Babcock looks to me like a guy who is up for a change, but realizes he has it good where he's at in terms of career stability. I think, using Buffalo as the comparative, the idea of Buffalo and our roster, the organization, the Pegulas, and the money, all of that excites him - but he's weighing that against the hassle of moving, his loyalties, and uncertainly of whether the decision to go will be right for him in, oh, five years say. Again, Detroit is clearly in their own version of a rebuild. I think only Babcock really knows what that means, especially for himself. Did Larkin light a fire for him? I think what he's going to do, is he's going to go home and lay it all out to his wife and any other member of his immediate family and let them tip his decision either to stay or leave. BTW, thanks, Hoss, for the link. Don't know why it wasn't working for me earlier.

Keeping this thread up high, because the CHL lesson of keeping your chin up apparently doesn't apply to coaches. FWIW, I would be happy with a coach we referred to as "Disco Dan". But since GoDD is opening this up to other coaches...while I'm still not convinced Disco Dan is a Murray "I'll meet you at the bar after the game, Tim" kind of guy, I am definitely certain Torts and Murray would get along as well as Nolan and Murray got along.

Wish I could see this, but haven't found a linky yet. Are they showing it on the NHL network, or something, how is everyone else getting to see this. Am I stupid and just not looking in the right place. Hello? Testing...1...2...3...

So, maybe we wind up with Disco Dan by attrition.

Chabot or Carlo with 21. Bank on it, unless, of course, it's traded away.

I'm not overly fond of Tampa, but, God, I did not like watching NY play. So, I think I'm with Hoss and will look forward to a Tampa/Chicago SCF.

Well, I think it's safe to say that so far, all of the "zero f#$ks given" moves by Murray have felt really good. I can dig the argument to continue down that path since, again ...so far... it feels right.

I'm willing to be sold on Blysma, but I haven't seen anything that has won me over. He's charming on video, but, mmmm....still not sold.

Goes for Torts, too, although I think his rep is strongest amongst armchair GMs, and only ranks in the media as a source for season-long drama.

So, wait, we're supposed to be swayed by his YouTube savvy? Really?

Wait, if they could fly McLellan in, they would, or will, when he's available to do so. I think some of you folks might have too much time on your hands reading into things that are not reading-into-worthy. What I want to know is where the "Murray won't want to share power" meme has come from. It's ridiculous and I can't believe people are calling WGR and bringing it up as if it's a serious, real point.

Your argument is well made, but the supposition is that Babcock can't handle the "dirt horses". He's a smart fellow, I would have to think he knows what he would be getting into. This isn't Ruff we're talking about, here, or Nolan, for that matter. Indeed, you could actually say that what Babcock may want is a team like this, after having to coach a certain style all of these years. Maybe he's tired of the culture and style of play he has had in Detroit; kind of like having to eat steak and salad all of time. Maybe he wants BBQ brisket, nachos, and bacon burgers now.

Great.

I'm compiling factors for and factors against. I would say Philly's distance from Saskatoon and Canada falls in the "against" column when compared to Buffalo's. Here, at least, Toronto, and Canada, is a Friday evening drive away. Factor in, as I mentioned initially, a favorable working environment vis-à-vis his compatibility with Murray, the Pegula's overt desire to win a championship (despite the cost), brand new practice facilities, a stocked talent pool, the proximity to Canada. Now put Philly's "it's a nice city" next to that and that factor wilts.

I don't see how that's a "shot" at anything. You can call any area "nice" with "nice...surroundings", but what is the draw for someone like Babcock? It's as far away from his home as any potential suitor. He's an middle-aged, contemplative family man, so I have my doubts a high-density urban center is going to be a positive factor in his selection, regardless of how "nice" it is.

Absolutely. I think Babcock and Murray are nearly peas-in-a-pod when it comes to running a hockey team. Where we barely saw Nolan and Murray together, and when we did, it was uncomfortable, I can imagine seeing a Babcock/Murray combo just as much as, or more than, we saw Ruff/Regier. I don't see the draw to Philly, I really don't. WTH would Babcock want from that area, as a region? Conversely, I would NOT rule out Edmonton, at all. Saskatoon is just down the road, relatively, and they have just as much talent in their pool as we do, if not more. This comes down to Buffalo or Edmonton as far as I can see it.

That just gives you two more weeks to figure out what you're going to call yourself next. Seems when you choose a player...they go away!

My brackets this year have inspired me to pay closer attention to the rest of the NHL next season.

It's pretty clear SFIR is elaborating on why he thinks the way he does about Grigorenko. It's not off topic, far from it.

Murray would be a fool to trade Grigorenko unless the return is significant. Look what we got in return for Myers after being patient enough to let him "return to form". Any one of you who see Grigorenko as trade bait are simply going to have to wait until he develops more. But unless it's obvious this season he's hit his limit, I doubt he gets traded any time in the next three to five seasons.

That's what I was thinking. Or at least re-play the IIHF game. Something. I was looking forward to watching a hockey game after a marvelous day in the sun.

This is going to be a long summer. Bank on it.