Mike Babcock Resigns as Blue Jackets Coach Amid Investigation Involving Players’ Photos

[Phil]

53 minutes ago, The Dude said:

And I'm pretty confident 60+ year old  Mike Babcock wouldn't either. 

 

What does this prove?  

 

 

You see that double rainbow in there?  Blumpkin on a pumpkin? You think that 2" grooved cap shows signs that the antifreeze loop at Gabes may be effecting the couplings as they all show signs of leakage and odd discoloration?  Do you think Horse chestnut can help hemorrhoids?  That Oglethorpe tee is bad ass, but not as bad ass as those K Swiss sneakers on that clearance table.  Man I hope I win that Gas monkey TRX.

 

Ughhh. I'm SO UNCOMFORTABLE!!

 

Siddious should be fired. He asked to see my pictures!!

 

Once again, your cynicism, which appears to border on some kind of social nihilism, is failing to allow you to recognize and accept that others do not share your world view. That others might actually have something to hide for good reason. Because they fear persecution — the kind of persecution Babcock has already acted on in the past, pitting the player he targets against his own teammates for Babcock's own personal gain.

 

Just because you have nothing you feel uncomfortable about doesn't mean no one else would, or should. You don't speak for them, and your life experiences almost certainly do not line up. It's absurd that you insist they do.

[Phil]

23 minutes ago, Keirik said:

Don’t disagree with anything you are saying really. I have heard all the stories and I’m sure they are all true. And I guest that he doesn’t deserve the benefit of the doubt at all, but as you said, 4 years removed and this first event to me wasn’t as bad as its being portrayed. Plus there is a fuck ton of other speculation and connections we are making unverified. 
 

I kind of think of this kind of like giving that horrible ex that would disappear and cheat on you a second chance because she promises she missed you and is different now. 
 

    The first time she disappears for half a day being MIA you know you’d flip out, accuse her of cheating again, and dump her in seconds.  That doesn’t prove she actually cheated again but it sure proves that you never should have given her that chance because you’d never get over what she was. 

 

Here's how I'd approach it:

 

Your ex was extremely abusive to you, brought you to tears regularly with just heinous, heartless shit they would say. Berating you, belittling you, constantly making you question your self-worth as a human being. Fast-forward four years and they're saying they've changed. Things are different. They deserve a second chance. But one of the first things they do is repeat behavior that reminds you of all the reasons you ended it with them in the first place. Are you really going to wait around for something worse to happen so you have a stronger leg to stand on, or are you going to pull the fucking chute and call it a mistake for even getting back with them in the first place?

 

That's how I see this whole Babcock thing. "He's being fired for his past!" Yeah, he probably is. Because people immediately recognized the signs that he hasn't changed and worse shit was very likely coming.

[fletch]

Every organization and corporation has trained professionals to do background checks and security checks.  Or they hire a third party to do professional background checks and security checks with discretion and integrity.

 

The Columbus Blue Jackets have highly trained professionals to know what's going on off the ice.  Babcock could have chosen to have conversations with the people within the organization who would know who's out until 4 in the morning, or whatever he would want to know.  

 

There's a big difference between having a security guy that a player has known for 5 years follow up to get more details about a sketchy situation to get the player's perspective, and having a new head coach flip through a player's phone with no pretense.

 

I sure as hell wouldn't give my boss my phone.  I don't have any photos to hide, but it's outside my boss's responsibilities.  But if corporate security asked, it's their job, I give them my phone.

[The Dude]

5 hours ago, siddious said:

See the difference is you had the option to delete/hide stuff before you posted. You also didn’t show me your messages (don’t post them I don’t actually want to see them). 
 

i still don’t get why you think it would be acceptable for a supervisor to make this request. 
 

i don’t know your age but I’m going to guess older than me (36)? Maybe it’s a generational thing but to people my age and younger this is akin to reading our diary. 
 

Edit: also hope those hemeroids cleared up 

I didn't delete anything. That's just a normal 3-4 days of pictures. I didn't post my texts because it was late and I had to get up early.  Plus, you didn't answer my question about what this proves.

 

You were asking for my stuff just to try to prove some kind of point.  Which is fine. I'm still waiting to hear why you wanted this stuff. Babcock stated his reason for looking through pictures. If that reason is true, I don't see any problem with it.  And like I said,  if there's this known history of him doing this (as per Bissonnettes "source"), why wouldn't  these players prepare? Why wouldn't each player relay to each other that this was going on and to prepare their phones in advance?  I get the point in thinking they shouldn't have to. But if you're just going to hand it over anyway and have stuff you reaaallly don't want him to see... Prepare for the meeting.  

 

Diary? I never understood the point of a diary. Eventually someone is going to read it. So, there's no forever secrets to them. Do....

 

 

Do you have a diary? Really?

 

The hemorrhoids are bad. I need more fiber and to not do my BSBH posting  on the toilet. Probably more water too. I'm 46 and I eat like shit. It's pretty normal to blow out an ass gasket, when you eat and drink the way I do. 

 

 

[The Dude]

5 hours ago, jsrangers said:

I'm pretty sure he says there was an investigation including the NHL & NHLPA and those results made it clear there was no path forward with Babcock, he also says they (he) got it wrong hiring him and those outside the org who questioned it from the get go.....

 

 

Oh OK, I literally didn't understand what you were saying. Typos and kinda jumbled. 

 

I read between the lines with what JD said. To me it reads like I said before.

 

"Kids these days... what are you going to do? They are the future of the team,  so I have to appease them, and not the known asshole coach,  who can't overcome his history of being an asshole, because everything he does will be under a microscope. So that's an oversight on our part and we should have known that the inmates run the asylum in every organization.  This was doomed before launch and I guess I am folding under pressure because my damn job is on the line again. "

[The Dude]

5 hours ago, siddious said:

“Mind fucks” is being blurred with straight up being a piece of shit here though. 
 

 Chiclets made a great comparison … torts is known for yelling and being hard on guys but there’s not a single guy out there who doesn’t consider him a good person off the ice. 
 

if you haven’t heard the stories then google babcock and Franzen, or Babcock and marner. It’s just straight up unnecessary. 
 

and yea you’re right it’s a lot easier to look past something like this when you win. It’s also unfair to based current events on past history but alas that’s how the world works. Karma finally caught up to him I guess. 
 

 

I guess the Rangers team and Derek Boogards family don't count when it comes to the thing about Torts? He skipped out on Boogards funeral.  A bunch of people think he too is a piece if shit..  That can be Googled. 

 

These guys sure are good at making up facts. They talk about the good old boys club. They have their own little gang going on too. 

[Pete]

6 hours ago, Phil said:

Nothing good, I'd imagine. Nothing in Babcock's history suggests he'd look the other way with that sort of thing, at least. I'd venture a guess that that player would become a target for him.

Well, you use target as if Babs is some type of predator but honestly what coach should look past that? I'd want an undermining player off my team.

 

So when we're talking about the player who went to Babs house for lunch and didn't get lunch (Oh, the horror!), let's say that happened.

 

Babs took the phone, sees texts between that player and others talking about what an asshole Babs is.

 

Taking the phone? Wrong.

 

The players behavior? Also wrong. 

 

We don't have all the facts. 

 

Look at fucking Ottawa where players where caught on tape shitting all over the coaching staff. What happened? Nothing. That's unacceptable. But yea the coach lost his job and isn't in the NHL anymore.

 

That might make coaches paranoid, don't you think? 

 

I'm not defending Babs. I didn't think he should be hired. I'm just telling you that there's many sides to this story that aren't being considered, and that's wrong. 

[Pete]

I just listened to the Chiclets podcast. It just doesn't align. It sounds like a player-centric podcast with an agenda. They literally say "we are looking out for the players and we always will." But you know what, you're not looking out for all the players. They all have different POVs And you can't possibly claim to be representing all of them. 

 

If you're not going to come out and actually say what was going on, if you're just going to say worse shit happen but it didn't come out and we're not going to talk about it, that's instantly suspect to me.

 

Also Jaarmo thanked Babcock for his professionalism all the way out? None of that aligns with a narrative. It absolutely sounds like there was some things blown out of proportion, Babcock knew he had to go, and there's a lot that's not being divulged because they don't want these kinds of debates happening. 

 

I have no doubt that the guy is a piece of shit. But I also have no doubt that there's a lot of coddling going on as well.

Edited September 20, 2023 by Pete

[RangersIn7]

11 hours ago, The Dude said:

Odd. I feel like intent is everything. Not sure how some of you are saying it's irrelevant.  

 

It's everything. 

I should clarify.

I was speaking about it in terms of response. Not the act itself.

 

What I mean is more along the lines of…Once the incident occurred and got out, and the shit storm which ensued happened, 

doesn’t matter what he says or the organization says, perception is going to be that there’s something there beyond what his professed intentions were. 
 

Cause here we are.

I don’t think there are to many people out there that feel he had nefarious intentions. Yet he’s gone.

 

People get caught up so much in the act, that the intent behind it almost does not matter.

Does that make sense?

 

I think intention matters of course.

But even with good intentions behind an action, if it results in a bad outcome, you’re still responsible for the action and any consequences. 

[The Dude]

5 hours ago, Phil said:

 

Once again, your cynicism, which appears to border on some kind of social nihilism, is failing to allow you to recognize and accept that others do not share your world view. That others might actually have something to hide for good reason. Because they fear persecution — the kind of persecution Babcock has already acted on in the past, pitting the player he targets against his own teammates for Babcock's own personal gain.

 

Just because you have nothing you feel uncomfortable about doesn't mean no one else would, or should. You don't speak for them, and your life experiences almost certainly do not line up. It's absurd that you insist they do.

 I have stated that there are different types of people and that I myself don't understand this need to hide anything. I'm not saying I'm better for it. I'm saying that's me and I'm pretty confident that I'm not alone in this thinking. 

 

What's absurd is to say that my life experiences couldn't possibly line up with people I don't speak for. Adversity can shape anybody in many different ways.  What I've overcome and dealt with in my life could ruin a different person. Or someone could handle it in a different way than I did and been way more better off than myself. I feel,  I'm nothing special and neither are most people. 

 

Everyone handles things differently.  Others DO share my world view.  Just not everybody.  And i totally understand that.

 

You make it sound like Im some bad person because things don't bother me the way things bother other people. To think otherwise is narcissistic or very closed minded. There isn't one "right" way to handle most anything.

 

I guess I no longer take much in life seriously enough to stand on a pedestal for anyone. I wouldn't call it nihilistic though. I have standards and values.  I'm not cutting off anyone's toes for a fake ransom  or anything.  

[The Dude]

9 hours ago, Phil said:

 

Progress of a kind!

 

I actually hope it does set a standard — a standard of the NHLPA taking this shit more seriously to begin with so players don't feel their only recourse is leaking to friends in the media. Remember, the PA was notified initially and agreed with the league and CBJ with the Jenner account, which tells me they very much did not do their jobs until they were made painfully aware that this was deeper than was being let on.

 

 

Nothing good, I'd imagine. Nothing in Babcock's history suggests he'd look the other way with that sort of thing, at least. I'd venture a guess that that player would become a target for him.

 

 

I probably shouldn't have said that intent doesn't matter. I'm happy to walk that back some. But it does and it doesn't. What I mean by that is, It matters, and is contextually relevant, but it's still mostly irrelevant in this case for two reasons:

 

1. He improperly rifled through his own players' personal devices in bad faith. Hard to buy an argument of "team-building" when Babcock's idea of building the team is exerting a power dynamic out of the gate. He has it. Players don't. At least in his mind. The only culture this will build is one of fear.

 

2. Even if Babcock's intent was team-building (and I don't buy for a fucking second that it was given everything that's come out), his actions alienated multiple players. So, this is not simply a case of caving to "the minority." We know of at least two players who were "very uncomfortable" with what happened, and the Chiclets accounts infer even more. It's a 20-ish-man roster. What percentage of it are you willing to go into the season with feeling this way? Any non-zero number would be diconcerting, to say the least.

 

 

A lot of assumptions here. Especially on intent. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt to end this back and forth. 

 

But the non zero number would be disconcerting?  If 2 players on a 29 man roster want a coach fired and the other 18 dont... You're firing the coach? 

 

Even better.  2 players possibly coherenced by a podcaster to exagerate their feelings after the meetings, as means to get revenge for poor treatment in the past, are the players whom you base the teams well being on? 

 

No man. No. 

[Cash or Czech]

2 hours ago, Pete said:

I just listened to the Chiclets podcast. It just doesn't align. It sounds like a player-centric podcast with an agenda. They literally say "we are looking out for the players and we always will." But you know what, you're not looking out for all the players. They all have different POVs And you can't possibly claim to be representing all of them. 

 

I'm curious how this divides the room too. Jenner, Gaudreau, and a few other veterans swept it under the rug initially in interviews with media and even NHL.com, which I posted here. They really tried to minimize the impact, which if it's there POV is fine to say how they really felt about it.

 

So where does that leave the captain of the team with the rising stars that are the future of the franchise?

Edited September 20, 2023 by Cash or Czech

[Pete]

What happens when a specific drill or training regimen becomes "uncomfortable"?

 

Dallas Eakins wouldn't let junk food in the locker room. What happens when being told what to eat makes a player "uncomfortable" or makes them feel like "their rights are violated"? 

 

What happens to a player who now feels "less than" because they were benched, but the rest of their line wasn't? 

 

You can try and brush this off, but if you can't see that this is the way we're headed, that's some willful ignorance. 

[BlairBettsBlocksEverything]

11 hours ago, The Dude said:

Again.  I don't get why political views or whatever need to be so private.

 

I get the banking stuff like Phil mentioned, but such things require passwords. As would health stuff. I mean are we thinking stupid Babcock knows how to crack passwords? 

 

As for what's out. It's very conflicting.  Babcock,  the GM, the president and 2 veteran players are on the record with their names as saying that it was about getting to know the players.

 

Yet, nameless voices from the shadows are saying it was this demented whack job that hasn't learned his lesson. Voices that have been in contact with the SC podcast hosts who revert to more nameless voices from the shadows as they admittedly really really hate the guy. 

because it was lol

 

maybe certain veterans were treated better in the conversations with Babs. he has a history of trying to fuck with younger, less experienced players, and it's already well documented and we don't need to rehash it again.

 

and it doesn't matter that you think nothing should be private. just because you're ready to send everyone on this forum all your pictures and text messages doesn't mean anyone else needs to be. it also doesn't mean there's anything incriminating on their phones. but it's private stuff. and nobody's boss has the right to just go through your shit that does't belong to the workplace. Like yeah, if you have a desk job and your company provides the computer, they can go through it. This is someone's private phone that they shouldn't be obligated to give up for anything.

 

as for the GM and president's statements. now what are they saying? they're talking about how they made a huge mistake in hiring him, and how it was more than what they originally said. Those initial statements were so clearly  about damage control. 

 

And again, if this were almost any other coach, there's 0 question they'd get way more leeway. But when you hire a guy who had been shunned from the league for years because of his very questionable character and his history of mental warfare tactics against his own players, and just general dickishness, he doesn't get to get the benefit of the doubt when this type of story comes up.

 

 

 

[Keirik]

28 minutes ago, Pete said:

What happens when a specific drill or training regimen becomes "uncomfortable"?

 

Dallas Eakins wouldn't let junk food in the locker room. What happens when being told what to eat makes a player "uncomfortable" or makes them feel like "their rights are violated"? 

 

What happens to a player who now feels "less than" because they were benched, but the rest of their line wasn't? 

 

You can try and brush this off, but if you can't see that this is the way we're headed, that's some willful ignorance. 

I was actually thinking that. “Bag skate? No coach, I played well yesterday. I’m not risking injury for this. “
 

“8 game healthy scratch? I think this coach just has it in for me.  Im uncomfortable, and he’s ruining my career.” 

[Phil]

1 hour ago, The Dude said:

 I have stated that there are different types of people and that I myself don't understand this need to hide anything. I'm not saying I'm better for it. I'm saying that's me and I'm pretty confident that I'm not alone in this thinking. 

 

What's absurd is to say that my life experiences couldn't possibly line up with people I don't speak for. Adversity can shape anybody in many different ways.  What I've overcome and dealt with in my life could ruin a different person. Or someone could handle it in a different way than I did and been way more better off than myself. I feel,  I'm nothing special and neither are most people. 

 

Everyone handles things differently.  Others DO share my world view.  Just not everybody.  And i totally understand that.

 

You make it sound like Im some bad person because things don't bother me the way things bother other people. To think otherwise is narcissistic or very closed minded. There isn't one "right" way to handle most anything.

 

I guess I no longer take much in life seriously enough to stand on a pedestal for anyone. I wouldn't call it nihilistic though. I have standards and values.  I'm not cutting off anyone's toes for a fake ransom  or anything.  

 

Of course you aren't alone. Lots of other people are also presumably straight, white, and male, married, etc. You basically check all the safest social boxes you possibly could and aren't a criminal, as far as we know, so yes, you have nothing to hide. Others do. What I'm reacting to here is your inference that "have something to hide," is equal to criminal, dangerous, and/or worthy of being exposed. I've already outlined numerous possibilities in which someone would justifiably not want anyone, let alone their boss, rifling through their personal device.

 

I'm not trying to paint you to be a bad person, I'm trying to highlight for you the fundamental flaws I see in your reasoning on this topic. Because, to me, you keep coming back to using yourself as a baseline, and while that works for you, it very obviously doesn't for others. Hell, you said it yourself — someone else could check all the same social boxes you do and still end up on the opposite end of the "who cares?" spectrum re: being comfortable with someone rifling through their personal information.

 

This is why I keep coming back to the central tenet of my larger point: it's no one else's business! There is not, and never was, a justifiable hockey reason to do this. It was a power dynamic, power play, performed by a man with a history of doing things exactly like this, that negatively affected his own players, just as it has in the past. He got what he deserved.

[Pete]

17 minutes ago, Cash or Czech said:

 

I'm curious how this divides the room too. Jenner, Gaudreau, and a few other veterans swept it under the rug initially in interviews with media and even NHL.com, which I posted here. They really tried to minimize the impact, which if it's there POV is fine to say how they really felt about it.

 

So where does that leave the captain of the team with the rising stars that are the future of the franchise?

I don't know, I don't want to defend Babcock because he did something that I don't really agree with, and depending on what you believe it could scale all the way from an invasion of privacy to mental warfare. I'm not really sure what I believe because every account I read/heard is biased. The guys on Chiclets were saying that he intentionally goes about the photo sharing in a different way with veteran players and management than he does with younger players, which frankly just sounds too devious to believe. 

[Phil]

1 hour ago, The Dude said:

A lot of assumptions here. Especially on intent. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt to end this back and forth. 

 

But the non zero number would be disconcerting?  If 2 players on a 29 man roster want a coach fired and the other 18 dont... You're firing the coach? 

 

Even better.  2 players possibly coherenced by a podcaster to exagerate their feelings after the meetings, as means to get revenge for poor treatment in the past, are the players whom you base the teams well being on? 

 

No man. No. 

 

1. It's nowhere near a 29-man roster. Teams cannot carry more than 23 (excluding players who are injured).

 

2. Yes, if two players on my, say, 20-man roster were "very uncomfortable" with my coach, and after an investigation was performed, it was found that that coach was rifling through players' personal devices, I would fire him. If just two players up and decide, on a whim, they want to fire the coach, no, I'm not just firing him, but the context matters. I also don't believe for a second that the number is as low as two. We essentially know of at least two who had very negative interactions with Babcock. My guess is it's closer to five. On a 20-man roster, that's a quarter of the team having serious problems with the coach. We don't even have to go back very far at all to know what happens when the coach loses anything close to this level of team support.

 

3. "Possibly coerced by a podcaster to exaggerate their feelings..." uh huh — and I'm the one with assumptions? You're effectively viewing this entire thing in the most negative light possible on the players and assuming the absolute worst, most nefarious intentions on their part, but Babcock — a guy with a 20-year history of alienating and bullying his own players — skates on the flimsiest "exculpatory" evidence to you?

 

You're right. We should just end this back-and-forth.

[Pete]

13 minutes ago, BlairBettsBlocksEverything said:

as for the GM and president's statements. now what are they saying? they're talking about how they made a huge mistake in hiring him, and how it was more than what they originally said. Those initial statements were so clearly  about damage control. 

Or maybe they think it's being blown out of proportion and it was a mistake to hire him because everything related to him gets blown out of proportion?

 

I can just as easily say that the statements coming out now are about damage control and making the players feel comfortable, along with trying to salvage their own jobs. 

[Phil]

2 minutes ago, Pete said:

I don't know, I don't want to defend Babcock because he did something that I don't really agree with, and depending on what you believe it could scale all the way from an invasion of privacy to mental warfare. I'm not really sure what I believe because every account I read/heard is biased. The guys on Chiclets were saying that he intentionally goes about the photo sharing in a different way with veteran players and management than he does with younger players, which frankly just sounds too devious to believe. 

 

Does it, though? Put that into the context of his entire history and all the other accounts from other players — even veteran players, who are normally "safe" with him. It strikes me as far more likely that this was just a continuation of the same invasion of privacy and/or mental warfare he's been reknowned for. Chelios and other players have all said that he's extremely smart and knows what he's doing when he does these things.

[Phil]

43 minutes ago, Pete said:

What happens when a specific drill or training regimen becomes "uncomfortable"?

 

Dallas Eakins wouldn't let junk food in the locker room. What happens when being told what to eat makes a player "uncomfortable" or makes them feel like "their rights are violated"? 

 

What happens to a player who now feels "less than" because they were benched, but the rest of their line wasn't? 

 

You can try and brush this off, but if you can't see that this is the way we're headed, that's some willful ignorance. 

 

That depends on the severity of how badly it's affecting the team. Enough of the Rangers were fed up with Torts that they mutiny'd him. Justifiably? Arguable. I adore the guy, but I also recognize that whatever the tactic, if it's grating enough for long enough, you'll eventually lose the room, or enough of it to potentially force a firing. Even if, from the outside, it doesn't look justified to an outsider.

[Pete]

13 minutes ago, Keirik said:

I was actually thinking that. “Bag skate? No coach, I played well yesterday. I’m not risking injury for this. “
 

“8 game healthy scratch? I think this coach just has it in for me.  Im uncomfortable, and he’s ruining my career.” 

The second paragraph is already happening. How many players demand trades? Look at the case of Nils where it turns out he's actually not that good, but he was claiming he never got a fair shot?

 

But I'm expected to believe that these younger players felt so trapped by Babcock that they couldn't go to the GM or the NHLPA and explain in detail what was going on?

 

It doesn't add up. 

[Pete]

2 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

Does it, though? Put that into the context of his entire history and all the other accounts from other players — even veteran players, who are normally "safe" with him. It strikes me as far more likely that this was just a continuation of the same invasion of privacy and/or mental warfare he's been reknowned for. Chelios and other players have all said that he's extremely smart and knows what he's doing when he does these things.

I don't know what to believe, but I know that I'm not going to fully adopt one position over another. There's too much that doesn't add up.

 

You hear an honest account on the Chiclets podcast, what I hear is a completely biased player POV based on hearsay from a lot of players who don't like Babs.

 

What I think probably happened is that Babs was maybe 20 points to the right of cultural norms when he was fired from Toronto. There's a chance he crept 15 points back towards what cultural norms were when he was fired from TO. However, cultural norms have now shifted 20 points to the left, so he's still behind. 

[Pete]

5 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

That depends on the severity of how badly it's affecting the team. Enough of the Rangers were fed up with Torts that they mutiny'd him. Justifiably? Arguable. I adore the guy, but I also recognize that whatever the tactic, if it's grating enough for long enough, you'll eventually lose the room, or enough of it to potentially force a firing. Even if, from the outside, it doesn't look justified to an outsider.

But don't you understand how three or four players feeling uncomfortable should not override the other 20 who don't feel uncomfortable? 

[Phil]

3 hours ago, Pete said:

Well, you use target as if Babs is some type of predator but honestly what coach should look past that? I'd want an undermining player off my team.

 

So when we're talking about the player who went to Babs house for lunch and didn't get lunch (Oh, the horror!), let's say that happened.

 

Babs took the phone, sees texts between that player and others talking about what an asshole Babs is.

 

Taking the phone? Wrong.

 

The players behavior? Also wrong. 

 

We don't have all the facts. 

 

Look at fucking Ottawa where players where caught on tape shitting all over the coaching staff. What happened? Nothing. That's unacceptable. But yea the coach lost his job and isn't in the NHL anymore.

 

That might make coaches paranoid, don't you think? 

 

I'm not defending Babs. I didn't think he should be hired. I'm just telling you that there's many sides to this story that aren't being considered, and that's wrong. 

 

I get all this. I don't even really disagree in the overall. What I'll say is this:

 

When you're the coach, your job is simple: to lead and get your team inspired to play winning hockey. You will not make friends with everyone, and you are all but guaranteed to have a player or two hate you, dislike you, or probably want you fired. They'll very likely shit talk you in the group chat. In texts. It comes with the territory. You simply need to shake it off and keep at your job of getting them to buy in and win. Until you can't, at which point, like basically every coach in history, you'll be replaced.

 

At no point, no matter how much shit-talking may or may not be happening, is it OK to do the things Babcock has been credibly accused of doing in the past, and that includes this most recent affair.