Watch CBS News

Friedman: Capuano Better Pan Out Because Islanders Are Ignoring Better Options

By Daniel Friedman
» More Columns

Over his 12-year career as an NHL head coach, Mike Babcock has changed the way we view the dynamics of coaching.

He's the poster boy for what's been a dramatic shift away from the short-tempered taskmasters of yesteryear. He's resourceful, generally calm and collected – though he can still play the bad cop role when the situation requires it.

And, oh yeah, he's won one Stanley Cup and been to the Final two other times.

He has now changed NHL coaching once again and, this time, from an economic standpoint.

By accepting a $50 million contract from the Toronto Maple Leafs (and reportedly turning down the same amount from the Buffalo Sabres), Babcock has left us to scratch our heads and wonder how much a head coach is really worth.

My first thought when hearing the news was that it was quite a ridiculous price to pay and, given that we haven't seen NHL coaches get paid to this extent before, it certainly appears to be ill-advised on the surface.

The more I thought about it, the more I realized it was anything but.

It's only a matter of time before NHL head coach salaries start to rise, and perhaps this is the first domino that sets the process in motion. Maybe $50 million seems like a lot because it's just too foreign to conceptualize.

Why even push that domino over? Because if that's what it takes to get the best coach in the game and you're determined to hire him, you have to do it – especially if you're Toronto or Buffalo, two teams that aren't necessarily built to win now, but have fan bases that demand more.

If you're the New York Islanders, and coaching salaries are actually on the rise, at a certain point the "he costs too much" argument has to go out the window. Once this happens, every good coach will "cost too much" compared to what we're presently used to.

There have been countless excuses made by those within the Islanders' social media sphere regarding head coach Jack Capuano and why the team is acting responsibly by keeping him aboard.

Most of these have been illogical statements, though there have actually been some that make sense, even if I disagree with them. The ones that don't are quite dismissive of reality, among other things.

We already touched on the "he costs too much" argument, but I'd like to go into that in a bit more detail.

I don't see any issue with paying a coach like Babcock $50 million (or hiring another veteran coach at a different price point) for a couple of reasons. First, that number doesn't count against the salary cap, whereas, if you overpay a player, his contract does. Second, I would argue that in Babcock's case, you might very well be getting more bang for your buck than in similar offers made by the Isles to players in recent years.

What I mean by this is, for $50 million, you're getting a man who is arguably better at his job than anyone else in the sport. The Islanders were prepared to offer that same dollar total to Thomas Vanek who, while very good, is by no means the best at his position.

That is not to suggest that I wouldn't have signed Vanek to that contract, but you can make the case that Babcock would be the better buy if you could only choose one of the two.

And, like I said, it didn't necessarily have to be Babcock. There are other options out there that would cost less, but, ultimately, if you want a great coach you either have to find a diamond in the rough, which is less likely and much tougher to do, or you have to be willing to pay the price for one.

Even if you feel that he's being overpaid, I'd say it's better to overpay a coach than a player. At least it doesn't count against the salary cap and you don't have to worry about his contract hindering you from making any necessary changes in the future, should that type of situation arise.

Besides, the Islanders have demonstrated that they're willing to spend money, so I don't think that was ultimately the deciding factor here.

Another prevalent argument is that Capuano should be kept aboard because the Islanders were good this season. Sometimes, the fact that it was their best campaign in over a decade is also brought up to reinforce this theory.

I have multiple issues with this, and before we go into them, let's just understand that what previous versions of the Islanders had done before the current core came along is completely irrelevant to the discussion. Those teams had different rosters, coaches and, in many cases, played in what was a very different NHL from a stylistic perspective.

With that out of the way, I'd like to point out the absolute hypocrisy in using the Isles' good season as the basis for defending Capuano. The same people who are doing this have been very quick to criticize the Leafs' decision to hire Babcock, citing the fact that his teams were good.

I'm confused – wasn't that the reason you gave for keeping Capuano? Now, you're using it against Babcock? That's awfully inconsistent. You can't defend Capuano because the team was good and, at the same time, discount Babcock because he had good teams. That's utter hypocrisy.

What's more, it's an idiotic thing to suggest. Was Scotty Bowman an overrated coach? How about Al Arbour, who had an army of future Hall of Famers for the majority of his career (though certainly not at the beginning, when he did less with more)? I guess they just had it easy, right?

Additionally, the notion that a good season automatically implies that a team has the right coach behind the bench is absurd.

I've got news for you: There have been good coaches with bad teams, and vice versa. There's more to it, and to be honest, I think people who employ this type of logic are doing others a disservice by trying to oversimplify what is in actuality a very complex relationship that relies on a multitude of factors.

Don't just tell me if his team played well. Tell me how he's directly contributed. Tell me if he's making the right decisions. And if you're going to bring up the fact it was a good season, don't conveniently leave out the serious regression during the second half.

There's more to it, there (almost) always is. If hockey were that simple, a lot of general managers and decision makers would either be out of work or easily replaceable.

My favorite excuses have to be the attempts people make at belittling a coach's impact. "Let me know when he scores 40 goals or puts up a .930 save percentage," they exclaim ever so boldly.

I'm not sure what's being suggested – that the coach doesn't play and therefore doesn't do anything, or that the team is lacking in certain areas and therefore needn't bother hiring a good coach. In either case, this logic is severely flawed.

Nor is it always fair to say that because the team isn't performing in certain areas, the coach is automatically innocent. Capuano might not be the one turning pucks over, but that doesn't necessarily mean he's the right guy for the job.

Again, it's an easy answer to give – a simple explanation for something that requires a more complex one.

I can appreciate that the players like him, but at the end of the day, that shouldn't be a Get Out of Jail Free card. The Blackhawks loved Denis Savard, so much so that Patrick Kane cried when he was fired. But it was a necessary move, and you certainly can't deny what Joel Quenneville's done for that team.

The bottom line is that the Islanders voluntarily took themselves out of the game before it ever started.

They didn't even try, and don't tell me they went behind Capuano's back and spoke to prospective hires. They wouldn't do that after going out of their way to announce that he'd be back next season.

People need to stop making excuses. The Isles passed on Barry Trotz and a slew of other veteran coaches last year. What will be the excuse if Ken Hitchcock becomes available? What's the excuse for not trying to get Todd McLellan? Are you going to tell me that he'd rather coach in Edmonton? Somehow, I doubt that.

If you have a chance to upgrade, you should take it. Even in the case of Babcock, which was admittedly a long shot but should've at least been attempted.

Perhaps you don't think he was worth $50 million, but surely he was worth a phone call.

Follow Daniel Friedman on Twitter at @DFriedmanOnNYI

View CBS News In
CBS News App Open
Chrome Safari Continue
Be the first to know
Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.