Skip to content

Babcock: Cleary a ‘calculated risk’ after playing last year ‘on one leg’

Jul 17, 2014, 3:03 PM EST

Daniel Cleary AP

Detroit’s decision to re-sign Dan Cleary to a one-year, $1.5 million contract after a disappointing ’13-14 campaign was met with scorn by fans and media.

But to hear head coach Mike Babcock explain it, the Wings had reason to take a gamble.

“Last year, he didn’t bring anything,” Babcock told Detroit Sports 105.1 radio. “But the year before, he was a key, key component leadership-wise, forechecking-wise, heavy on the puck-wise, just being a heck of a player for us.”

The key to the deal, it seems, is Cleary’s knee. It was a problem throughout last season, forcing him to miss the final 22 games of the regular season and Detroit’s entire five-game playoff loss to Boston in the opening round. Even when he was able to play, the 35-year-old looked a step slow, scoring just four goals and eight points in 52 games, posting a minus-11 rating.

But a summer working with Red Wings trainer Mike Barwis — who Babcock called “the best in the business” — has led the Wings to believe Cleary’s knee issues are a thing of the past, though they’re still cognizant of the risks involved.

“We’ve been told that his knee’s really come on,” Babcock explained. “If he’s on one leg like he was last year, he can’t play on our team. If he’s on two legs, he can help us win.

“Is it going to happen for sure? No. Would we have wasted the money if he can’t play? I guess. Is it a calculated decision and risk on our part? Yes.”

As for Cleary, he says he’s taking the backlash and using it as motivation to make up for what he acknowledged was a disappointing campaign.

“You want to prove people wrong,” Cleary said, per the Detroit News. “My main objective is get healthy and play the way I know I can. Last year was a tough year.”

  1. lowenni - Jul 17, 2014 at 3:18 PM

    He was evidently playing through some pain last year and I do believe the veteran two-way play he brings is important to a team. He’s still a real solid fourth or maybe third liner if he’s fully healthy and playing to his ability. People are saying they don’t want Cleary taking players like Tatar’s or Jurco’s roster spots, but I think Babcock knows Cleary’s not a top-6 forward anymore. It’s not their spots he’d be taking, and you don’t want finesse guys like Tatar or Jurco or Mantha developing on the fourth line anyways. With that said, if Cleary is fully healthy and plays to his role, then there’s nothing wrong with a great vet like him coming back to the team.

    • polegojim - Jul 17, 2014 at 7:12 PM

      Classic Babcock on this:

      “Last year, he didn’t bring anything. But the year before, he was a key component, leadership-wise, forechecking-wise. … We had a decision to make. We signed Dan to what I consider a great contract. Hardly any cap hit whatsoever. What we’re betting on is he’s training with Borowitz. … We’ve been told that (Cleary’s) knees have really come on, if he’s on one leg like he was last year, he can’t play on our team. If he’s on two legs, he can help us win.”

  2. rbbbaron - Jul 17, 2014 at 3:31 PM

    Babcock now has to resort to using rhetorical questions in dealing with the press…

    • shoobiedoobin - Jul 17, 2014 at 4:10 PM

      You should print out and bronze your first positive statement. It’d be your first and last and we don’t want to lose that memory.

      Every Detroit fan losing their mind will see that the sky hasn’t actually fallen in a few months. Just give it time, as usual. Guaranteed. Not kidding. Bookmark this, come back and see.

      Cleary fully healthy can contribute and I like Jurco too, but he looked completely lost at times. This is just a case of fans having their new toy taken away and being given an old one they don’t want. You see it every free agent day/trade deadline. We want new toys. It’s that simple. That toy isn’t going anywhere and when a forward gets hurt, Jurco is back.

      Everything Babcock said negates the message board panic from the shriekers.

      • rbbbaron - Jul 17, 2014 at 4:19 PM

        Wait now, is this the same commenter who tried asserting that Barry Trotz told Jarnkrok to “screw defense, don’t bother being a responsible center” and just go offensively wild out there? And that the trade for Legwand got the wings into the playoffs? And how Legwand would still be in the winged wheel if we weren’t loaded at C? And then topped it all off by saying how “Internet-age hockey fans are so clueless”?

        As you can see, I don’t need bronze to remember things.

      • shoobiedoobin - Jul 17, 2014 at 4:23 PM

        I also said if Trotz didn’t say that, Jarnkrok did it himself. The point (obviously) was how he played, not who gave the orders. When you pull stunts like purposely ignoring what I said just to spin a point, you look like a p*ssy. You can be a hate filled goth kid but why become a puss? At least people can kinda sorta respect the hater thing.

        So yeah maybe we do need to bronze things to remember them for you kid.

      • rbbbaron - Jul 17, 2014 at 4:29 PM

        Ahem: ” those 7 points is more an anomaly than anything. He could easily hit a wall and average out around 30 points a season. Look at how they used him. They told him screw defense, don’t bother being a responsible center, we’re going to toss you out for offensive zone draws so just try to set guys up. He got 7 in 9 instead of his average pace for the same reason Datsyuk could score 120 instead of 95 if he forgot about the defensive zone and did nothing but try to rack up points.”

        Selective memory?

      • shoobiedoobin - Jul 17, 2014 at 6:16 PM

        You should link to the topic where right after that I said “If Trotz told him to play D, he didn’t listen”.

        Go on, throw up a link kid. I think you dodged that. And you’ll dodge it here too. Because the point was how he played, not who told him to do it.

        For the 3rd time now.

        Some people debate to come to a conclusion. Some people argue to be contrary and purposely ignore facts they can’t refute, or ignore evidence that doesn’t paint them as 100% correct.

        Dude, better to be a goth kid than a puss. Seriously.

      • elrock7 - Jul 17, 2014 at 8:59 PM

        Yup exciting times in Detroit for next season…..Cleary may be able to use both legs!

      • rbbbaron - Jul 17, 2014 at 11:08 PM

        Here’s your link: http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/2014/07/14/babcock-ambivalent-on-if-hell-sign-extension-in-detroit/

        Now everyone can see how you quickly abandoned your BS after I called you out on it. “The point was” you didn’t have a coherent argument that was based on anything resembling facts– the best you could manage was to say go back and watch the games (as is you yourself did, surely! lol). According to the data you couldn’t be more wrong, but who likes objectivity anyways? lol, that’s why it’s so comical everytime you posture yourself to be an authority here:

        “Some people argue to be contrary and purposely ignore facts they can’t refute, or ignore evidence that doesn’t paint them as 100% correct.”
        Talking as if it doesn’t apply squarely to himself, lol. So what are those facts you’re referencing? That Jarnkrok had some of the best advanced stats on the Preds squad last year somehow supports your narrative? Compulsive BSers like yourself have probably gotten away with a lot on this website; sorry that you’re in over your head on this one

      • shoobiedoobin - Jul 18, 2014 at 12:14 PM

        Here’s the part you left out smart guy.

        “Then if Trotz told him to play D he didn’t listen. Go watch-he didn’t backcheck, he hung out looking for passes and stayed deep quite a bit. It doesn’t matter who told him to do it, my point still stands. Even though judging from everything I ever see from you here, you’ll argue anyway.”

        The whole argument began when you asserted with complete certainty that Jarnkrok was a legit NHL center. I said his points came from playing nothing but offense. You randomly brought up Trotz like players never play their own style sometimes.

        This isn’t complicated kid, even for you. Try to keep up.

      • rbbbaron - Jul 18, 2014 at 12:51 PM

        “The whole argument began when you asserted with complete certainty that Jarnkrok was a legit NHL center.”
        Could you please find me that part? lol, I’m trying to figure out whether you are intentionally ignoring what I said (something about a strawman…) or if your reading comprehension is simply that damn terrible.

        “I said his points came from playing nothing but offense.”
        Lol, you mean you don’t get pts for playing defense? No $#it…
        Again, hilarious to hear your version of the events, which are in fact written down. Allow me to refresh your selective memory: you said “those 7 points is more an anomaly than anything. He could easily hit a wall and average out around 30 points a season. Look at how they used him. They told him screw defense, don’t bother being a responsible center, we’re going to toss you out for offensive zone draws so just try to set guys up.”

        “You randomly brought up Trotz like players never play their own style sometimes.”
        Everybody and their mother knows what kind of system Trotz & Co. were running in Nashville. If Jarnkrok was marching to the beat of his own drum, then why didn’t they reel him in? Was there no accountability out there?
        Again, please refer to what you wrote ($#it do I need to copy it for you again?) and recognize how ridiculous it is in light of a. common sense and b. objective data.

        You’re absolutely right: it’s not complicated. When you don’t have anything solid to argue you can always just throw a bunch of spaghetti at the wall and something will eventually stick. You dug yourself a deep BS-filled whole and it’s entertaining to see your attempts to squirm your way out of it.

      • shoobiedoobin - Jul 18, 2014 at 1:06 PM

        “Lol, you mean you don’t get pts for playing defense? No $#it…”

        You aren’t going to score as much by being defensively responsible. IE; Datsyuk could score 20 more a year, maybe 30 if all he did was take offensive zone draws and float around the neutral zone looking for a pass.

        I know you understand this, you’re just fishing for argument material.

        “Everybody and their mother knows what kind of system Trotz & Co. were running in Nashville. If Jarnkrok was marching to the beat of his own drum, then why didn’t they reel him in? Was there no accountability out there?”

        LMAO dude, we see players play their own game for entire quarter and half seasons. That’s just hockey (quick, tell me how it’s not solely for the sake of being contrary). He played 9 games. Go ask a Nashville fan if you’re curious.

        Your argument is “it couldn’t possibly happen”. That’s not exactly solid, kid. I watched him. How he played was the point. You’re grasping at straws.

        Who are you pandering to? It’s just us reading this. We both know that 9/10 times you can open your mouth and talk your way out of something but you happened to run into a guy much smarter than you. Bad luck son. Sorry.

        You really think every single forward under Barry Trotz was concerned with defense? Every point you try to make hinges on complete speculation and assumption and yet you march around like the fact police to everyone else lol. Let’s not forget, this team put Viktor Stalberg on the ice-a notorious floater. By your logic, there’s no way he could do that simply because Trotz is around.

        Read what you’re saying out loud to yourself-it sounds insane.

      • shoobiedoobin - Jul 18, 2014 at 1:07 PM

        Or 10 games, or 11, whatever he played. Going off of memory from watching.

      • rbbbaron - Jul 18, 2014 at 1:47 PM

        “You aren’t going to score as much by being defensively responsible. IE; Datsyuk could score 20 more a year, maybe 30 if all he did was take offensive zone draws and float around the neutral zone looking for a pass.”
        No $#it, but that holds true for all players, Nashville players especially. But that’s not the point, which you apparently insist on missing: the data doesn’t support your claim that Jarnkrok “float[ed] around the neutral zone looking for a pass.” Not in the least bit.

        “Go ask a Nashville fan if you’re curious.”
        No no no, lol. Why would I need to do that when I can ask you. Because you saw Jarnkrok play, right? Lol.

        “Your argument is ‘it couldn’t possibly happen’. That’s not exactly solid, kid. I watched him. How he played was the point. You’re grasping at straws.”
        Wow. To create and present a quote as if it came from me and then to say that I’m “grasping at straws”. Wowwwww.
        But yes, how he played was the point, and by all objective measures you’re narrative is BS.

        “Who are you pandering to? It’s just us reading this. We both know that 9/10 times you can open your mouth and talk your way out of something but you happened to run into a guy much smarter than you. Bad luck son. Sorry.”
        Lol, please tell me more about yourself and how much smarter you are. Too smart to pay attention to statistics? Lol.

        Seriously, arguing with you is like playing with a young, stupid kitten:
        “You really think every single forward under Barry Trotz was concerned with defense?”
        Straw…
        “Every point you try to make hinges on complete speculation and assumption”
        Sweeping generalization (that just might include yourself)

        “and yet you march around like the fact police to everyone else lol.”
        We’ve got you on record, many times in fact, stroking your own ego– which is fair when it’s merited. And “fact police”? Oh, that’s a good one. Especially when you try to tell me and anyone else you argue with facts and truth and all that good stuff. But f*** off you fact police!
        But as you gracefully demonstrate, we’re all entitled to our own facts now aren’t we, lol.

        “Let’s not forget, this team put Viktor Stalberg on the ice-a notorious floater. By your logic, there’s no way he could do that simply because Trotz is around.”
        Straw again. My logic didn’t imply that it would be impossible for Trotz & Co. to ice any particular player– what was implied was that if a player was shirking his defensive responsibilities (of which Trotz & Co. demand a considerable amount) in a way that was detrimental to the team, then management would’ve have characteristically held them accountable (read: punishment, ask the Kostitsyns). Jarnkrok’s TOI remained fairly steady. Again, doesn’t seem to fit your narrative.

        “Read what you’re saying out loud to yourself-it sounds insane.”
        Read and compare what you write and tell me what you find coherent about it. (The trade for Legwand got the wings into the playoffs? Legwand would still be in the winged wheel if we weren’t loaded at C?)
        You know what they say about consistency and small minds…

        At this point, you’re not worth anybody’s time.

      • shoobiedoobin - Jul 18, 2014 at 2:03 PM

        So now it’s about data? I like how you slowly morphed your argument from “it can’t possibly be true” to “the data doesn’t support it”. What a b*tch move lol.

        “No no no, lol. Why would I need to do that when I can ask you. Because you saw Jarnkrok play, right? Lol.”
        Are you confused? You asked why they didn’t reel him in. Am I on the bench with Trotz? Dude, use your brain.

        You claim he couldn’t have been irresponsible defensively BECAUSE OF TROTZ. LOL. Under your logic, that has to hold true for everyone. No straw men, just using your own stupid point against you lol.

        “We’ve got you on record”

        LMMFAO who is “we”? Who are you talking to ya weirdo?

        Stalberg played a whole season missing what, as many games as Jarnkrok played? He’s a known floater. It happens. Are you really going to keep devolving this into a series of ever-changing microarguments just because you can’t admit you’re wrong? Holy hell kid, grow a pair.

        If I’m not worth your time, bye bye. No skin off my ass, kid.

      • rbbbaron - Jul 18, 2014 at 4:31 PM

        “So now it’s about data? I like how you slowly morphed your argument from “it can’t possibly be true” to “the data doesn’t support it”. What a b*tch move lol.”

        Yeah, sneaky of me to start trying to talk about data now, huh? Lol. But seriously, get yourself check for early alzheimer’s:
        prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/2014/07/14/babcock-ambivalent-on-if-hell-sign-extension-in-detroit/
        Jul 15, 2014 at 6:54 PM, Me (first quoting you) ““Internet-age hockey fans are so clueless.”
        By and large, yeah. Especially when they’re ignorant of the advanced statistics that are readily available to them. You wouldn’t happened to have given them a look before you decided to praise Legwand, would ya?”

        Jul 17, 2014 at 11:08 PM, me: “best you could manage was to say go back and watch the games (as is you yourself did, surely! lol). According to the data you couldn’t be more wrong, but who likes objectivity anyways?”

        Same post: “So what are those facts you’re referencing? That Jarnkrok had some of the best advanced stats on the Preds squad last year somehow supports your narrative? Compulsive BSers like yourself have probably gotten away with a lot on this website; sorry that you’re in over your head on this one”

        Jul 18, 2014 at 12:51 PM, me: “Again, please refer to what you wrote ($#it do I need to copy it for you again?) and recognize how ridiculous it is in light of a. common sense and b. objective data.”

        Jul 18, 2014 at 1:47 PM, and here’s where I really pull one out of the hat: “But that’s not the point, which you apparently insist on missing: the data doesn’t support your claim that Jarnkrok “float[ed] around the neutral zone looking for a pass.” Not in the least bit.”

        “Are you confused? You asked why they didn’t reel him in. Am I on the bench with Trotz? Dude, use your brain.” When someone talks out of the @ss and whips up a BS-narrative like yours, then yes I am typically confused. Again, please refer to your own writings and find me the coherent message. My message is and has been that your narrative, both concerning Legwand and Jarnkrok, is BS. The slightest amount of critical thinking has exposed that, and objective data suggests you couldn’t be more wrong. Nice attempt to evade that though

        “You claim he couldn’t have been irresponsible defensively BECAUSE OF TROTZ. LOL. Under your logic, that has to hold true for everyone. No straw men, just using your own stupid point against you lol.”
        Again, you don’t quite get it. Please work on your reading comprehension, but maybe that’d be of limited help anyways because something tells me that you don’t even know what logic is. Come back when you’ve got a definition and explain how you’ve used it correctly in this instance.

        “Stalberg played a whole season missing what, as many games as Jarnkrok played? He’s a known floater. It happens.”
        Again, all you have is your BS-narrative to fall back on.

        “Are you really going to keep devolving this into a series of ever-changing microarguments just because you can’t admit you’re wrong? Holy hell kid, grow a pair.”
        …says the guy who wrote this masterwork (from the link above):

        “Jarnkrok wasn’t going to magically leapfrog anyone for a spot. He wouldn’t or couldn’t get bigger, his play in the AHL was good but nothing worthy of jumping ahead of the what, 4-6 centermen ahead of him on the overall depth chart?”
        [Notwithstanding the following from Jiri Fischer: “He’s certainly one of our most talented, if not the most talented prospect,” Fischer said. “Not to take anything away from others like Anthony Mantha, but Calle, the stuff he can do – he is as good as anybody in terms of hand-eye coordination and skill in tight places. He makes plays and it’s just a matter of time until he really starts putting up big numbers.” now back to your drivel:]

        “Combine that with the possible threat of bolting to europe and you’ve made yourself expendable. Hey, if you want to play for the big club, don’t plant that seed of dount in the minds of those in the front office.
        [that seed got him time in the big league, didn’t it?]

        “And those 7 points is more an anomaly than anything. He could easily hit a wall and average out around 30 points a season. Look at how they used him. They told him screw defense, don’t bother being a responsible center, we’re going to toss you out for offensive zone draws so just try to set guys up. He got 7 in 9 instead of his average pace for the same reason Datsyuk could score 120 instead of 95 if he forgot about the defensive zone and did nothing but try to rack up points.”
        [this should look familiar]

        “David Legwand is not a bad player and we needed help desperately, not just for those who were hurt, but with the way the season was going it was for the potential of even more injuries later. It got us into the playoffs and anything can happen when you’re there. We lost in 5 but that doesn’t mean winning was impossible. He’d still be here if we weren’t loaded at C (part of why Jarnkrok isn’t either, see the puzzle pieces coming together?).
        [HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA]

        “You’re calling him a future legit center without any hesitation. Please don’t tell me it’s not just for ammo to shoot at Ken Holland.”
        [“You” in this case was some other guy, just for clarification– which you are in desperate need of because you obviously confused me for him, lol dumd@ss]

        “Internet-age hockey fans are so clueless.”
        [nothing like a little self-jerking, which you produce rather often]

        In conclusion: you are verifiably stupid.

      • shoobiedoobin - Jul 18, 2014 at 4:53 PM

        I thought I wasn’t worth your time anymore?

        “““Internet-age hockey fans are so clueless.”
        By and large, yeah. Especially when they’re ignorant of the advanced statistics that are readily available to them. You wouldn’t happened to have given them a look before you decided to praise Legwand, would ya?””

        Funny, you never mentioned Jarnkrok there. Your last reply was your last one of the night, after you talked all day about exactly what I said you did.

        You’d make a great lawyer. Actually you’d make a piss poor lawyer, but a spin job attempting lawyer either way.

        So, I’ll ask again and spare me the paragraph of nothing. Are we on the bench? You asked why they didn’t reel him in, how would we know unless we’re on the bench?

        Simple straight question. You are obviously scared to answer it straight because you spew a paragraph worth of absolutely nothing lol.

        Thanks for quoting my replies. There’s no one else reading this and we both know I’m smarter than you. You look like the type of clueless schmuck who keeps digging the hole deeper.

      • rbbbaron - Jul 18, 2014 at 5:38 PM

        Read between the lines. And learn how to form a coherent argument. Good luck in life.

      • shoobiedoobin - Jul 18, 2014 at 6:00 PM

        I don’t need luck judging from how I dispose of chumps like you. You’re not the first kiddo. You just picked the wrong guy.

        You’ll be much better off when you just admit you’re wrong, keep focused and stop digging your own hole deeper. You go way off of subject or build straw men with every argument, and then to boot you project your flaws onto everyone. You’ll grow up but until then some other poor soul is going to have to deal with you. If he has half a brain he’ll own you like I did.

      • rbbbaron - Jul 18, 2014 at 6:33 PM

        Tell us now, how did you “dispose” of a chump like me? By insisting on getting the last word? By running for the hills from your comments on Legwand? By trying forlornly to downplay your narrative Jarnkrok’s time in Nashville?
        But here’s something where you are right: I picked the wrong guy. I should’ve known better than compulsive BSers don’t care for objectivity. You are a living testament that there is no cure for stupid.
        “You’ll be much better off when you just admit you’re wrong,”
        about what? Please explain, if you can. And please explain what happened to your objective assessments Legwand and Jarnkrok, lol.

        “keep focused and stop digging your own hole deeper. You go way off of subject or build straw men with every argument, and then to boot you project your flaws onto everyone. You’ll grow up but until then some other poor soul is going to have to deal with you. If he has half a brain he’ll own you like I did.”
        you’re a little late to pretty much all of these statements (again, sorry about your memory and reading comprehension), lol dumd@ss

      • shoobiedoobin - Jul 18, 2014 at 6:45 PM

        You’d be a psychology students wet dream you know that? You take everything you’re insecure about and project it onto people who argue with you. I say you’re running and you can’t even bring yourself to use a different word-you got mad and thought what hurt you must hurt me (again, textbook) and used to same term to describe me “running for the hills”. Gold, kiddo, pure gold.

        “Answer the question child. If Jarnkrok couldn’t have been irresponsible defensively because of Trotz, why we have we had floaters during Babs’ tenure?”

        You asserted that because of Trotz system that Jarnkrok also played D. I didn’t see him do it. You guessed. I went off of evidence.

        You’d make a great creationist LOL

      • shoobiedoobin - Jul 18, 2014 at 6:50 PM

        You still haven’t shown me those super cool stats that say Jarnkrok played defense, too.

        Still waiting.

      • rbbbaron - Jul 19, 2014 at 6:26 AM

        “You’d be a psychology students wet dream … [bla bla bla, thanks for wasting your own time writing something that you think will make you seem smarter but in fact is just taking up space on somebody’s server]… you can’t even bring yourself to use a different word”
        Lol, yeah, I’m all worked up over here because I can’t even bring myself to use a different word.

        “you got mad and thought what hurt you must hurt me (again, textbook) and used to same term to describe me “running for the hills”. Gold, kiddo, pure gold.”
        Lol, yeah I’m hurting over here. You got me! You know the anger was just flowing through my veins and I didn’t have any control of myself– man, I just really wish I could go back in time and use a different word…oh the misery!
        So you used the term “run”. Bravo. Get that $#it copyrighted.
        F*** you are STUPID.

        ““Answer the question child. If Jarnkrok couldn’t have been irresponsible defensively because of Trotz, why we have we had floaters during Babs’ tenure?”
        You asserted that because of Trotz system that Jarnkrok also played D.”
        I asserted that your narrative was BS, that the coaches didn’t tell him to go wild out there. Your timely response for that was that even if they didn’t (oh, did my reductio ad absurdum have an effect? Naw, lol), then Jarnkrok did anyways. And your support for that was that I should go back and watch the games—as if you yourself did, right? We all know this is BS, typical of a compulsive BSer. But if you point me to the videos of where I can watch his play in nashville, I’ll gladly watch. And you should too. Until then, data on his play will have to suffice. And there’s nothing in the data that suggests he didn’t play D. More on that to come.

        “ I didn’t see him do it. You guessed. I went off of evidence.” [ummm, unintelligible]

        “You’d make a great creationist LOL”
        Oh, you’re an empiricist now are ya? Lol, you dumb@ass

        “You still haven’t shown me those super cool stats that say Jarnkrok played defense, too. Still waiting.”
        Still waiting…for something you never asked for? Yep, bona fide dumb@ss.

        But I’ll give you credit, because I thought you’d never ask! I’ll link you up with the data in a bit, but first a little concept checking: for a guy who doesn’t play D, what kind of numbers would you expect to observe? And be specific ;-)

    • shoobiedoobin - Jul 18, 2014 at 1:12 PM

      Hell, Mike Babcock preaches team D more than anyone. Our team has been about that for a couple of decades now.

      Why do we have Franzen floating around?

      • rbbbaron - Jul 18, 2014 at 1:51 PM

        And you were saying something about reaching a little further? lol

      • shoobiedoobin - Jul 18, 2014 at 2:04 PM

        Are you going to counter it, or run scared?

      • rbbbaron - Jul 18, 2014 at 4:32 PM

        Lol, judging by the fact that you can’t let it rest, I’d say you’re the one feeling pretty damn insecure. But I thought I’m the “kid” here? Lol

      • shoobiedoobin - Jul 18, 2014 at 4:54 PM

        Answer the question child. If Jarnkrok couldn’t have been irresponsible defensively because of Trotz, why we have we had floaters during Babs’ tenure?

      • rbbbaron - Jul 18, 2014 at 5:37 PM

        Listen, I’m done wasting time with you. Any poor bastard who stumbles upon this back-and-forth can see that you’re desperate to save face after saying some pretty dumb@ss $#it.

      • shoobiedoobin - Jul 18, 2014 at 5:58 PM

        LOL stick a fork in him, he’s done folks

        Simple question and he runs away

      • rbbbaron - Jul 18, 2014 at 6:26 PM

        Alright you mature adult who can’t resist getting in the last word because he’s so right (about Legwand and Jarnkrok, who were the original subjects until you went wild with red herring), if you really are that masochistic and want to keep going:

        “Hell, Mike Babcock preaches team D more than anyone. Our team has been about that for a couple of decades now. Why do we have Franzen floating around?”
        What is this related to? Please explain without propping up strawman argumentation. You’ve already tried twice to make it seem that I wrote ‘it can’t possibly happen’, but could you give me the direct quotation that you’re referring to?
        Once you’ve got that in order, then I can answer this bedeviling, piercing question of your, lol

      • shoobiedoobin - Jul 18, 2014 at 6:41 PM

        HAHAHAHA

        Man, all I have to do is piss you off to keep you coming back. That’s genuinely hilarious. It’s like I can snap my fingers and have you back here.

        “Wow Barry (Trotz), I’ve never seen you like this before.”

        I told you it didn’t matter who gave the orders, you kept going..

        “Wait now, is this the same commenter who tried asserting that Barry Trotz told Jarnkrok to “screw defense, don’t bother being a responsible center” and just go offensively wild out there? ”

        I told you again, that’s how he played, who told him is irrelevant. You asked why they didn’t reel him in, I asked you how we’d know when neither of us are there with Trotz, you backed away from an answer and ran.

        Not that I think you’ll adhere to this line of logic at all. You like to look for facts when they support you and abandon them when they don’t. Same with speculation-it’s accurate when it’s YOU doing it but when someone else does, it’s wrong. Typical teenager.

      • rbbbaron - Jul 19, 2014 at 6:30 AM

        “I told you it didn’t matter who gave the orders, you kept going..”
        Yes, you said that whether he was taking orders or not, he didn’t play D. The problem is you said that AFTER I pointed out how ridiculous your narrative was.

        “Wait now, is this the same commenter who tried asserting that Barry Trotz told Jarnkrok to “screw defense, don’t bother being a responsible center” and just go offensively wild out there?”
        “I told you again, that’s how he played, who told him is irrelevant. You asked why they didn’t reel him in, I asked you how we’d know when neither of us are there with Trotz, you backed away from an answer and ran.”
        Again, you said this ex post (AFTER THE FACT). That you changed your story doesn’t change the fact that you did assert that Barry & Co. to him to go wild out there. Sorry, but this $#it is in writing and it’s dated. Maybe you can appeal to the website administrators to have that bit removed? Lol

        And yeah, I ran alright. Still running man…I’m scared. Imagine whatever you want, whatever makes you feel good about yourself. As if you’ve answered half the questions that I’ve prompted you with. Don’t worry, I didn’t run, but occasionaly I do get pressed for time given other obligations in life. How about yourself? What mature, productive adult life allows you to spend so much time writing on this website? Please tell us about yourself 

        “Not that I think you’ll adhere to this line of logic at all. You like to look for facts when they support you and abandon them when they don’t. Same with speculation-it’s accurate when it’s YOU doing it but when someone else does, it’s wrong. Typical teenager.”
        Again, like you’re someone to talk. Glad to hear you’re an objective observer who has escaped any kind of biases, confirmation or otherwise. Good thing you didn’t, say, talk out of your @ss about Legwand and Jarnkrok, among others.

        I’ve got to hand it to ya tho, it takes a special kind of ignorance to not realize that you’re eating $#it here.

  3. lakeshoreleafsfan - Jul 17, 2014 at 3:52 PM

    What kills me is Mike Babcock can be upfront and straight forward with his players and be critical and that’s okay. He said one day last season that Jimmy Howard’s “not playing because he wasn’t any good” and now the comments that are stated in the article. But Randy Carlyle says one time (months ago) that James Reimer was “okay, just okay” and STILL to this day, people are bent out of shape over that comment, and still wanting to hang Carlyle at the stake

    I already knew this, but some people are idiots

    • shoobiedoobin - Jul 17, 2014 at 4:16 PM

      Well two things.

      1) Carlyle is not a good coach. He’s an angry camp counselor who stumbled upon easy success and when it got tough, he broke down and became a dick. He doesn’t coach so much as he just acts like a stubborn, angry old fart. He can’t line match, he can’t adjust his strategies and he’s in general pretty mediocre to bad by NHL standards. Babcock is good at every facet of his job and he’s earned the right to say what he says.

      2) Babcock when he criticizes, also helps. He works with his players and teaches. He’s a psychologist, he knows how to work with both the team and individuals. He criticizes with the end result being improvement and sometimes a subtle way to motivate a guy. It’s never mean spirited. Carlyle is mean spirited in nature and at times doesn’t seem to care if his player improves. Everyone knows the difference when they have to deal with those people. It’s what separates guys like Bowman from schmucks like Tortorella.

      • lakeshoreleafsfan - Jul 17, 2014 at 5:15 PM

        1) Randy Carlyle isn’t a good coach. But he’s good enough to have won a Stanley Cup; the same amount of Cups that Mike Babcock has as NHL coach
        2) So, the coach comes up with the game plan, preaches to the players the game plan, tells the players what to do, how to do it, and when, and when the players go out of their way to NOT listen to the coach (because he might have hurt their feelings by not kissing their butts) and purposely lose games in hopes of maybe, hopefully getting the coach fired (which backfired) that’s Randy Carlyle’s fault? The coach is not on the ice – so therefore, it is upto the players to make that game plan work when they’re on the ice. And if players are not playing to their ability, on purpose, that’s Randy Carlyle’s fault?

      • shoobiedoobin - Jul 17, 2014 at 6:02 PM

        It’s his fault when they win but not when they lose?

        I summed that whole thing up in one sentence. Go me.

      • elrock7 - Jul 17, 2014 at 9:04 PM

        enjoy Babcocks last season in Mowtown. Just like many former citizens of Detroit, players and coaches no longer consider it a top destination.

      • shoobiedoobin - Jul 18, 2014 at 12:11 PM

        Funny, Alfredsson and Weiss seemed to. One season doesn’t erase a team little fella.

      • rbbbaron - Jul 18, 2014 at 12:53 PM

        Yeah, Weiss had a lot of competing offers. I think he even took a kind of hometown discount to come to Detroit, lol

      • shoobiedoobin - Jul 18, 2014 at 12:54 PM

        You think we were the only one going for Weiss?

        Dude, reach a little further. You’ll say ANYTHING just to argue with someone.

        Go pay for a hug or something, I almost feel bad.

      • rbbbaron - Jul 18, 2014 at 1:50 PM

        “You think we were the only one going for Weiss?”
        You really can’t help yourself. Please re-read what I wrote and explain what you consider to be a “competing offer”
        Everyone knew that Holland had it up @ss for Weiss and congrats to Weiss’ agent for playing Holland for a fool.

      • shoobiedoobin - Jul 18, 2014 at 2:04 PM

        I’ll do my best rbbbaron impression

        Where are the facts to support that?

      • rbbbaron - Jul 18, 2014 at 4:38 PM

        I think you’re the one in need of research. In case your selective memory has dropped the swirling rumors in the run up to July last year, I’ll give you a tip of where you can start your research: Google or a similar search engine

      • rbbbaron - Jul 18, 2014 at 4:38 PM

        I think you’re the one in need of research practice. In case your selective memory has dropped the swirling rumors in the run up to July last year, I’ll give you a tip of where you can start your research: Google or a similar search engine

      • shoobiedoobin - Jul 18, 2014 at 4:59 PM

        ^I’m not your mom kid, you claim something, you go find your own evidence. I doubt a top 10 free agent is going to only get one offer. I read at that time he was given many offers but chose us early and didn’t lead anyone on. I’m sure you’ll argue that somehow.

    • Hard to BeLeaf - Jul 18, 2014 at 12:58 AM

      The think that annoyed me the most about that Reimer thing is that Carlyle didn’t even say it originally. He was just parroting what the reporter asked. The entire thing was set up. Sad thing is it worked.

      Reporter asked “What did you think of Reimer’s game tonight?”
      Carlyle answered “He was ok.”
      Reporter: “Just ok?”
      Carlyle “yeah, just ok”

      Then the reporter runs to Reimer and asks “What do you think about Carlyle saying you were ‘Just OK’ tonight?!!”
      Reimer replies with “Oh, he said that?!” with an annoyed look on his face…. and ever since that, Reimer and Carlyle have butt heads and it gone blown up into a unnecessary controversy. Sometimes I wish Toronto could just lock the media out of the locker room… or at least limit the number who can go in.

  4. justanotherphillyfan - Jul 17, 2014 at 3:55 PM

    Remember when he almost signed a contract last year in Philly but on the last minute he went back to Detroit.

    Thank you..

    Looks like Babcock want out of Detroit btw.

    • rbbbaron - Jul 17, 2014 at 4:00 PM

      Out of Detroit? Or just to have Holland go fly a kite somewhere far, far away.

    • lakeshoreleafsfan - Jul 17, 2014 at 4:15 PM

      justanotherphillyfan : I was going to say that too but I didn’t. But that’s the vibe I got after reading the article too; I think Babcock wants out of Detroit

  5. pleasefiredan - Jul 17, 2014 at 3:58 PM

    It’s the internet. What more do you expect? Fleury had I think the most wins this past season and the only thing that kept the playoff games close when the defense and scoring went out the window. Yet everyone calls for his head. Some people don’t have a clue.

  6. hauger88 - Jul 17, 2014 at 4:04 PM

    Pleasefiredan…agreed. If the Pens didn’t have Crosby and Mallon n lost a stiff round it wouldn’t be as bad. But the expectations are so high with those two in their roster that it raises the expectations of everyone else. People expect them to win every year of at least make the Finals. This is why fleury is looked down upon so much. His mistakes are the same every goalie makes

  7. georgejarkko - Jul 17, 2014 at 4:12 PM

    The Wings kinda owe Cleary, don’t they? Didn’t he do them a salary cap-related favor last summer?

  8. timmylaz99 - Jul 17, 2014 at 4:52 PM

    If Cleary really wanted to help the Wings, he’d retire!

    • rbbbaron - Jul 17, 2014 at 5:01 PM

      No sense blaming Cleary for wanting to play. It’s the idiot handing out the contracts that’s culpable.

      • shoobiedoobin - Jul 17, 2014 at 6:34 PM

        Why, because YOU don’t like him?

        Babcock wanted Cleary on the team. In order for this to happen Ken Holland had to promise him he’d take care of him beyond one season.

        Ken Holland was ready to let Cleary walk until Babcock made a fuss. That’s the fact that’s being left out because attacking Holland is the sexy thing to do at the moment. And kids who dive head first into fads, like you, are playing pretend expert so often you lose sight of reality.

        If you’re going to blame Holland blame him for appeasing the head coach, who nobody blames for or holds accountable for anything.

        I can practically foresee your reply before you write it too, that’s what’s sad.

      • dtownbeatdown - Jul 17, 2014 at 7:04 PM

        Shoobiedoobin… full of yourself much? You say everyone is playing expert? Little hypocritical don’t you think?

        So you know for a fact Babcock told Holland I need Cleary? Please tell me what Holland has done in the past 5 seasons? Wings fans have the right to be frustrated, just like you have the right to your opinion. Regardless if it reaps that of a douchebag.

      • shoobiedoobin - Jul 17, 2014 at 7:16 PM

        ^That was what was reported, that Babcock wanted Cleary.

        It’s not “reaps”, by the way. Try again.

      • rbbbaron - Jul 18, 2014 at 12:16 AM

        Shoobie, I also understand that you’re desperate to try and discredit me after I pointed out how ridiculous and divorced from reality your earlier arguments are. Fragile egos lead people to do funny things. The problem is most of your argumentation towards me is of the strawman/red herring variety (wikipedia is there if you need it). But if that’s the only way you can feel better about things, then don’t let that stop you, lol.

        As to what you said (concretely– not what I’m going to make it seem that you said in order to easily refute, which is usually how you operate) regarding Cleary– the way you characterize the situation is that it was Babcock who is responsible for bringing Cleary back, not Holland. I don’t contend that Babcock wanted Cleary back…last off-season. But to play it off as if it was ONLY Babcock who wanted Cleary back, that Holland had no choice but to obey and make promises (hence your “If you’re going to blame Holland blame him for appeasing the head coach”), is also contrary to what was written in press.
        If someone were to just take what you say here at face value, they’d probably have a hard time trying to make sense of how Holland initially offered Cleary more money and term last year. So what’s your narrative there? Somehow that that’s just more proof that Holland was sent out to get Cleary at Babcock’s orders? In the context of what else happened, is it then that Babcock doesn’t understand salary cap constraints? Maybe you can give us some insight here, as you seem to have privileged knowledge on this episode, lol.

      • dtownbeatdown - Jul 18, 2014 at 1:28 PM

        The report I read is Holland promised him another year, either as a player or in office. Reap=gather… I gathered that you are a douchebag.

  9. dtownbeatdown - Jul 17, 2014 at 6:44 PM

    Cleary when he is healthy can contribute on the boards. Unlike some of the softer players we have. But when it comes to offense… the guy has a terrible shot. I don’t think I’ve seen a player miss more empty nets in my life.

    As for people saying Babcock wants out? Could be true, this is the 3rd year in a row Holland has come up short on getting the guys Babcock wants. There are also many players that do not want to play for him due to favoritism. I am okay if he leaves because Blashill is ready. Sometimes a new start is good for an organization.

    This team is going to be good, not great. But the talent we have coming up in the next 2 years and the guys we brought up last year are going to make this a very exciting team. Maybe I am the only one that sees that… or maybe I am complete moron.

  10. einherjer00 - Jul 17, 2014 at 7:07 PM

    People need to quit whining about this. They say Holland promised to take care of Cleary after he turned down the Philly deal, the Wings have more cap space than they will spend this year, and Cleary won’t make the team if he’s not one of the best 14 forwards (excluding Mantha who is top 6 or GR), so what’s the big deal?

    • shoobiedoobin - Jul 17, 2014 at 7:18 PM

      There is no big deal but overreaction is exactly what message boards produce. All the little pretend experts clench their assholes every time the front office does something they wouldn’t, or doesn’t do something they would. If fans ran the team we’d be dead last or close enough to have enough draft lottery picks that we’d be confident we’d win. And it’d be the only time we’d win.

  11. iammrbinky - Jul 17, 2014 at 8:30 PM

    Keep dreaming your loser teams would ever land Babcock. They won’t because he’ll be in the Red Wings organization until he hangs up the skates.

    • elrock7 - Jul 17, 2014 at 9:09 PM

      Yet it seems he doesn’t want an extension…..hmmm, not often you see any coach, in any sport, be in this situation.

  12. isphet71 - Jul 17, 2014 at 10:10 PM

    Man I hope Cleary comes back and kicks butt. I would love it for three reasons.

    1 – It would make the Red Wings better.

    2 – Cleary is a good guy and is as deserving of redemption as anyone in the NHL.

    3 – It would shut up the whiners that are too ignorant to understand that a healthy Cleary is worth that gamble of a contract.

  13. aarondul - Jul 18, 2014 at 12:47 AM

    What pure garbage cleary is these days. Or really any day. Dan Heatly signed for about a mil. We get Dan who has been worthless for years back. Two teams wanted to get him last year. That is saying a lot about his worth.

    • rbbbaron - Jul 18, 2014 at 4:32 AM

      Oof, I don’t know that Heatley is any better these days. But yeah there were some other, more interesting signings on the cheap so far this off-season.

  14. adamal17 - Jul 18, 2014 at 1:13 AM

    I don’t think Cleary will be bad for the Wings; I just would have rather had someone different either be signed in free agency or give Anderson a fair chance. As long as there aren’t a large number of injuries like last year the wings will end up better than 8th in the east. But with the past three years of injury history with Cleary I just don’t see him playing more than 50 games or so until his knee or shoulder gives out; at which point I’d personally like to see a kid get the spot or have had the wings target another FA winger. I don’t disagree with Babs’ comments either…however I’m sure he would have liked to have had some younger legs to push…

Featured video

Next steps for the Oilers after Eakins

Sign up for Fantasy hockey

Top 10 NHL Player Searches
  1. S. Crosby (4408)
  2. D. Krejci (2965)
  3. C. Crawford (2479)
  4. B. Bishop (2478)
  5. C. Kunitz (2302)
  1. J. Toews (2095)
  2. O. Palat (2002)
  3. C. Perry (1938)
  4. B. Elliott (1756)
  5. T. Oshie (1572)