Hitchcock is 63, too old to twist, but that’s exactly what the Blues have asked him to do while pursuing Babcock, that author of one NHL championship who will command more than three times Hitchcock’s take. Blues general manager Doug Armstrong, Hitchcock and Babcock are reportedly friends. Armstrong has allegedly kept Hitch aware of what’s occurred with Babcock. And to the best of our knowledge, Hitchcock has yet to tell Armstrong to go ice fishing in June.

Yet the whole thing seems awkward, clumsy, bordering on classless.

Are the Blues out of line to show interest in one coach while employing another?

Strauss seems to forget that it's Hitch who preferred not to sign a long term agreement with the Blues, and instead go "year-to-year".....thus leaving them "twisting"

Turk Sanderson wrote:Strauss seems to forget that it's Hitch who preferred not to sign a long term agreement with the Blues, and instead go "year-to-year".....thus leaving them "twisting"

IF Hitch had shown more accountability in his handling of the roster, had developed a better game plan to fit the players he has/had, and not gone 10 & 18 in the post season with 0 second round wins with a very talented and cap team, he wouldn't be in this situation either.

I guess Strauss needs to put on his big boy pants and not worry about Hitch's feelings and more about the results.

bradleygt89 wrote:

Turk Sanderson wrote:Strauss seems to forget that it's Hitch who preferred not to sign a long term agreement with the Blues, and instead go "year-to-year".....thus leaving them "twisting"

IF Hitch had shown more accountability in his handling of the roster, had developed a better game plan to fit the players he has/had, and not gone 10 & 18 in the post season with 0 second round wins with a very talented and cap team, he wouldn't be in this situation either.

I guess Strauss needs to put on his big boy pants and not worry about Hitch's feelings and more about the results.

I don't necessarily agree with Strauss that the Blues have mishandled the situation. It is indeed a little odd, but who knows what's been said behind closed doors? Perhaps Hitch wants to retire but is willing to come on board for another year IF the Blues can't find what they consider to be an adequate replacement.

I do, however, agree with Strauss's view that Hitchcock has done nothing to deserve disrespectful treatment, even if he's shown the door. Not entirely sure what Strauss's pants selection has to do with it. Is there something unmanly about his position?

insideout wrote:

bradleygt89 wrote:

Turk Sanderson wrote:Strauss seems to forget that it's Hitch who preferred not to sign a long term agreement with the Blues, and instead go "year-to-year".....thus leaving them "twisting"

IF Hitch had shown more accountability in his handling of the roster, had developed a better game plan to fit the players he has/had, and not gone 10 & 18 in the post season with 0 second round wins with a very talented and cap team, he wouldn't be in this situation either.

I guess Strauss needs to put on his big boy pants and not worry about Hitch's feelings and more about the results.

I don't necessarily agree with Strauss that the Blues have mishandled the situation. It is indeed a little odd, but who knows what's been said behind closed doors? Perhaps Hitch wants to retire but is willing to come on board for another year IF the Blues can't find what they consider to be an adequate replacement.

I do, however, agree with Strauss's view that Hitchcock has done nothing to deserve disrespectful treatment, even if he's shown the door. Not entirely sure what Strauss's pants selection has to do with it. Is there something unmanly about his position?

lol, the 'big boy pants' is a favorite saying of Hitch's, that he can take the heat and is experienced enough to handle it. My feeling is that Strauss is just looking for a headline is making a bigger deal out of something that is most likely not. So he should just put his own 'big boy pants' on and understand that he is making a story out of nothing...IMO.

I think the Blues not showing up in the playoffs was pretty classless. Strauss should start there.

I'm curious as to why Babcock is so highly regarded exactly? Is it his leading the most talented team in the World in Canada to Championships? His NHL success is behind many others yet he seems to be regarded as the best in the business.

This isn't taking a shot at him, I'm really just curious why he status is where it is?

wizard pork sword wrote:I'm curious as to why Babcock is so highly regarded exactly? Is it his leading the most talented team in the World in Canada to Championships? His NHL success is behind many others yet he seems to be regarded as the best in the business.

This isn't taking a shot at him, I'm really just curious why he status is where it is?

I think it is 2 things that make him more desired than say, Hitchcock:

1) his age

2) his character/demeaner

While as the following article points out ( http://pucksandpitchforks.com/2015/05/1 ... candidate/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) they have very similar playoff results over the last 4 seasons with their respective teams, I think Babcock would have given us that next level of respected coaches. I know it has been reported that Hitch and Babcock are very close, and both share a lot of similar philosophies.

I would also point out that IMO at least, the Blues have had a more talented group overall than the Wings in the last 3 years, at least since Lidström retired.

I honestly don't know what kind of coach this team needs, because IMO, the team we have isn't going to win regardless of coaching. As I've said, we need a change in core, coaching, and culture. Only then will we see the Blues win in the post-season.

insideout wrote:

bradleygt89 wrote:

Turk Sanderson wrote:Strauss seems to forget that it's Hitch who preferred not to sign a long term agreement with the Blues, and instead go "year-to-year".....thus leaving them "twisting"

IF Hitch had shown more accountability in his handling of the roster, had developed a better game plan to fit the players he has/had, and not gone 10 & 18 in the post season with 0 second round wins with a very talented and cap team, he wouldn't be in this situation either.

I guess Strauss needs to put on his big boy pants and not worry about Hitch's feelings and more about the results.

I don't necessarily agree with Strauss that the Blues have mishandled the situation. It is indeed a little odd, but who knows what's been said behind closed doors? Perhaps Hitch wants to retire but is willing to come on board for another year IF the Blues can't find what they consider to be an adequate replacement.

I do, however, agree with Strauss's view that Hitchcock has done nothing to deserve disrespectful treatment, even if he's shown the door. Not entirely sure what Strauss's pants selection has to do with it. Is there something unmanly about his position?

I don't see the disrespect factor...especially if the organ-eye-zation wants to set themselves up with a coach who will give them a long term commitment, as opposed to a guy who only wants to go year-to-year.

Not that I agree with what this guy Strauss says, but I think the Blues should have been more decisive in what direction they were going to go within days of being eliminated.

Sitting around and waiting with your thumb up your ass doesn't solve anything.

Armstrong and Hitchcock are meeting right now. Nothing should be assumed but I would think that points to them working things out. #stlblues @jprutherford 3m

BluesSK wrote:Not that I agree with what this guy Strauss says, but I think the Blues should have been more decisive in what direction they were going to go within days of being eliminated.

Sitting around and waiting with your thumb up your ass doesn't solve anything.

Hitch was the one who wanted time to sit back and reflect on things before deciding if he wanted to coach any more. Do we know if he has decided, one way or the other. In the mean-time is Army supposed to do nothing? The Blues have to explore their options, in case Hitch says he's done.

BluesSK wrote:Not that I agree with what this guy Strauss says, but I think the Blues should have been more decisive in what direction they were going to go within days of being eliminated.

Sitting around and waiting with your thumb up your ass doesn't solve anything.

FWIW, per JR and others, HItch has been going about his business (player interviews and evaluations, etc.) so that is why many are assuming he wants to be back.

Basically, if Hitch is going to be gone, it is because either DA fires him or doesn't renew his contract after June. Considering that once the Babcock domino falls later today that other vacancies will be shored up soon, I have a feeling we will see Hitch again behind the bench next season.

I do hope that several of those standing beside him and sitting in front of him are new faces.

Turk Sanderson wrote:

BluesSK wrote:Not that I agree with what this guy Strauss says, but I think the Blues should have been more decisive in what direction they were going to go within days of being eliminated.

Sitting around and waiting with your thumb up your ass doesn't solve anything.

Hitch was the one who wanted time to sit back and reflect on things before deciding if he wanted to coach any more. Do we know if he has decided, one way or the other. In the mean-time is Army supposed to do nothing? The Blues have to explore their options, in case Hitch says he's done.

Well, that's kind of what I was getting at. Armstrong has to make the call to keep him or cut him loose. That's his job.

Sounding like Babs is headed to Toronto if twitter feed is to be believed....

I think it was a mistake myself. I also think it gives the players the upper hand to go all out next year and try to get Hitch fired for sure. Definitely has to be new players coming in now....that's a given

I don't think its a classless way of handling things at all.

Armstrong and Hitch clearly respect each other. They both respect Babcock. All these guys go way back and have solid working relationships through their time with Team Canada. Hitch knows that he's not going to coach much longer even if he does come back. If he's at all rationally thinking about his future and the future of the team, then he'll know that if the Blues have an opportunity to bring in a guy like Babcock as a more longterm commitment then it's in their best interest to do so. If Babcock comes on board then it's no hard feelings, thanks for the work Hitch, how about a management position? If Babcock goes elsewhere (which he now has) then Hitch remains. Hitch has zero reason to be insulted by this process and I doubt he has any ill will about how the Blues have handled it. If it's a no-name coach without any NHL experience it's a different story. But it's Babcock. He's arguably the most universally respected hockey coach in the world. Kicking the tires was a no brainer, and Hitch certainly understands that.

I believe (and have absolutely nothing to back up this belief) that knowing the history between Hitch and Armstrong that they have been in communication throughout this whole process. Hell, we all knew that Army talked to Babcock and I would guess that Hitch knew about it before we did.

Here is where my speculation begins (and again, this is only speculation on my part-no facts or links to back this up). I believe that Army went to Hitch and said we are going to talk to Babcock and see where that goes. If he goes elsewhere, which is most likely, we'll get a deal done with you (Hitch). As the Blues GM, I feel that Army had to explore the Babcock option if he felt it would make the Blues better because that's his job at the GM.

Hitch does shoulder some of the responsibility for this because he is the one that wanted to go year to year and with Babcock getting permission to talk to other teams, he had to know that Army would at least kick the tires.

It took me a while to get used to Strauss on 920 AM, but I did begin to understand him and his unusual delivery. This, however seems to be something to get clicks on the website. I guess that's what any reporters (or in his case, columnist) job is these days; increase internet traffic because no one buys a newspaper anymore.

Of course Hitch was well aware of the situation and was more than likely ok with it...maybe a little hit to his ego but i'm not concerned about that. I'm more concerned about the locker room and the inmates running the asylum

What if we get babcock as HC then re-sign (assuming he would) hitch as brad shaw's replacement?

Two cocks for double penetration of the defense :S

wizard pork sword wrote:Hitchcock is 63, too old to twist, but that’s exactly what the Blues have asked him to do while pursuing Babcock, that author of one NHL championship who will command more than three times Hitchcock’s take. Blues general manager Doug Armstrong, Hitchcock and Babcock are reportedly friends. Armstrong has allegedly kept Hitch aware of what’s occurred with Babcock. And to the best of our knowledge, Hitchcock has yet to tell Armstrong to go ice fishing in June.

Yet the whole thing seems awkward, clumsy, bordering on classless.

Are the Blues out of line to show interest in one coach while employing another?

Disagree completely. It's definitely a little awkward and an odd situation, but the relationship is not the typical GM/Coach relationship either. You'd also be hard pressed to find a veteran coach who isn't a FOH. By all accounts he's a likeable guy and he's involved in the International game. Remember that Hitch also took his time to evaluate if he wanted to coach here or coach at all. I think the Blues are handling it with as much class as possible. Nowhere does it appear clumsy to me. Sounds like they laid out a plan and have stuck to that thus far.

I still go back to the roster. It doesn't matter who is coaching. You're not going anywhere with TJ Oshie playing top 6 minutes in the playoffs. You're just not.

stlblues1226 wrote: Hitch does shoulder some of the responsibility for this because he is the one that wanted to go year to year and with Babcock getting permission to talk to other teams, he had to know that Army would at least kick the tires.

THIS. Excellent point that many either over look or don't care about. Hitchcock hasn't done much to show that he is interested in coaching this team for the long haul, so he can't be surprised that the Blues would at least have a conversation with Babcock, considering Babcock was looking for a long-term deal and the Blues, to an extent, do need a long-term answer.

stlblues1226 wrote: It took me a while to get used to Strauss on 920 AM, but I did begin to understand him and his unusual delivery.

So glad I'm not on the P-D website so I can't get punished for this, but whether you can stand him or not, Strauss is just an asshole of a guy. His tone clearly fits his personality, regardless of what others in his own industry might say. For example, Tim McKernan can smoke his pole all he wants and apologize for Strauss's personality left and right, and it still doesn't make him any less of an asshole. I hold him and Miklasz in similar regards, although Bernie at least doesn't usually come across as incredibly negative. I do enjoy Gordo, JR, Rick Hummel and DG, so at least the sports department is not completely bereft of good writers. Just my $0.02. I'm just not surprised you were initially turned off by Strauss.

NHLTIM wrote:Of course Hitch was well aware of the situation and was more than likely ok with it...maybe a little hit to his ego but i'm not concerned about that. I'm more concerned about the locker room and the inmates running the asylum

One thing that doesn't get discussed a whole lot about the situation in the locker room is that any crap that has built up in there the last four years has done so on Hitch's watch. You can change some familiar faces on the roster, but I just don't see how you take the steps this team needs to take without changing the coach.

I don't think there's any way at the point that Hitch isn't back.

You would think if they were going in a different direction, the decision would have been made now and the replacement process started UNLESS they simply plan to promote Muller.

And let me add, I think the players would get off to a terrible start and Hitch would not make it 20 games into the season.

Maybe our offseason plan needs to be to bring back Hitch and trade Oshie, Berglund, Backes and Bouwmeester for as many 2016 1st round picks as we can get from teams likely to miss the playoffs and hope we hit the lottery in next summer's draft so we can pick Auston Matthews.