View Single Post
12-10-2009, 06:02 AM
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 7,944
vCash: 500
1. Again. Do you think that Babych would have been hired for the Canucks if he did not have past connections with the club? In your original post you seemed to suggest this was a non-factor. That's the question asked? If you don't want to answer fine -but going on about how many games Babych and his involvement in minor hockey doesn't deal with that

In other words is this an example of cronyism or not???

As to Babych's qualifications - I don't see you providing any specific examples of how Babych is qualified. Playing in the NHL does not mean you are expert in player development nor even a good coach. There is a vast difference b/w playing and being an expert at development. (and this was the job he was hired for) Just because you played does not make you a person who can teach or instruct others in development. Indeed many of the best instructors haven't played a game at the NHL level. Just because a person has driven a car for years doesn't mean they know how to repair a car or communicate to others how to do it. It's like saying a driving instructor just has to be a person who has driven for years. (If you have ever had a parent instructing you how to drive you should know the folly of this idea)

I doubt you know anything at all about Babych's qualifications in the area of player development other than looking up the number of games played and learning from other posters that he had some involvement with minor hockey. You want to prove me wrong then give us some specific information about his qualifications. Maybe you could explain what his involvement in minor hockey exactly was or is.

As a far as what his job entails it has been clearly stated - he is to an assistant to Gagner in the area of player development. He will, according to his own words, monitor and advise prospects. In other words it clearly involves player development. What I'm asking is what specifically about Babych indicates that he is professionally involved in this area. There are people who spend years working in this area and in courses to develop an expertise and a teaching ability to communicate this knowledge to others.

2. So you think Smyl has found a niche as college scout. Based on what??

Walsky has been a bust and seems to be heading for the ECHL if he doesn't improve. (has 1 goal in 25 games) Walsky is 25 and had to show upper level talent quickly to be considered any kind of prospect. At the same time a prospect like Sexton (right out of college) is scoring in the NHL. Did Smyl miss him?? And Oberg has looked bad. After a decent pre-season he has floundered. Right now there has to be serious questions about his ability to physically handle players in his own zone. He has been recently benched for ineffective play. Before you start congratulating Smyl for his job as college scout maybe you should first try to stay abreast of how the people he has brought in are actually doing or at least wait until we have seen how these prospect work out. At the moment it looks like the Canucks may just have wasted contract space. (especially with Walsky). To date Smyl has no proven record as college scout and you saying he has found a niche as college scout is baseless.

3. So you bet every organization hires ex-players. So what you are saying is that every organization indulges in cronyism. My bet is that good organization make sure the key jobs are done by people who have expertise in the area they are required to have it in. Sure they hire ex-players for PR and such but you look at good organizations and you will see they make sure the key positions are covered off.

And in a way, you are admitting that Babych hiring is cronyism. If teams make hiring ex-players a priority then they are indulging in a form of cronyism. So you are really contradicting yourself. On one hand you say that Babych was hired because of his solid credentials (like playing lots of games, involved in minor league hockey) but then you suggest that it should be excused because other teams do the same thing. So what is it - Babych hired because of his expertise in player development or because it is just another example of cronyism (like everyone does it so what's the problem approach) ??

As far as being the best man for the job, I would pick someone with a proven history of player development. Same as I would do for hiring a scout. What is his record? As far as I know Babych has no track record in this area. If you know something more then let's have it. Otherwise you are talking through your hat.

My priority would not be that the player used to play for the team.

In the end, the particular hiring of Babych is probably nothing to get excited about. As lardlad says it is harmless enough. What I am arguing against is the cronyism of the Canucks. I believe this been highly destructive to the organization. If you don't think so then you are welcome to your opinion. However, if you look alone at the drafting by this team with a scouting staff made up of many ex-players then I think you have pause for thought.

I believe that any long time follower of the team has to admit that cronyism (and I think the Babych hiring is an example of this) has hurt this team. That's what I am arguing against.

orcatown is offline   Reply With Quote