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

[Phil]

Just now, Pete said:

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

 

Yes, if the discomfort is mundane. I'm not certain it is in this case, or any other case in his past. Babcock's rap sheet paints him as a methodical, calculated, psychological predator. When you read each account from these players, I find it much harder to believe that they've all conspired in grand conspiracy to systematically undercut him in the media in order to turn the league, fans, etc. against him than to believe that these accounts are probably mostly true, albeit biased, and that Babcock is a social and professional dinosaur who doesn't belong coaching today's game, because today's players don't put up with this shit anymore — thankfully.

[Pete]

3 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

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.

Nobody said it was okay. But you're pointing at one specific incident where a guy didn't get lunch which I don't think is a very big deal, but you don't know what went down at that house. If he wound up reading text messages crapping all over him, would you blame him for kicking the player out? 

[Pete]

2 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

Yes, if the discomfort is mundane. I'm not certain it is in this case, or any other case in his past. Babcock's rap sheet paints him as a methodical, calculated, psychological predator. When you read each account from these players, I find it much harder to believe that they've all conspired in grand conspiracy to systematically undercut him in the media in order to turn the league, fans, etc. against him than to believe that these accounts are probably mostly true, albeit biased, and that Babcock is a social and professional dinosaur who doesn't belong coaching today's game, because today's players don't put up with this shit anymore — thankfully.

I Don't know, the podcast seemed very defensive. Almost like they were protesting too much over the idea that they were just trying to get this guy fired.

 

When we talk about discomfort being mundane, I guess what some of us are saying here is that some of the young players today are a little too coddled and what they find uncomfortable can't always be catered to just because they feel uncomfortable. What happens when the mundane makes a young player uncomfortable? Does every coach have to lose their job for that?

Edited September 20, 2023 by Pete

[Keirik]

1 minute ago, Phil said:

 

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.

In all fairness, aren’t at least half of hockey players North American white farm boys while the other half white European farm boys? 

[Keirik]

14 minutes ago, Pete said:

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. 

Kravtsov too. 

[Phil]

2 minutes ago, Pete said:

Nobody said it was okay. But you're pointing at one specific incident where a guy didn't get lunch which I don't think is a very big deal, but you don't know what went down at that house. If he wound up reading text messages crapping all over him, would you blame him for kicking the player out? 

 

Him not getting lunch wasn't the issue there. It was to highlight the guile of Babcock, who's been accused of doing this exact type of thing in the past to drive wedges between himself and players or players and players. Chelios and others have also accused him of doing the same through the media, where he puts on a very friendly face, but for a very specific reason: to gain advantage where he can.

 

In other words, inviting a player over for lunch to get to know them is totally cool, but when the guy arrives, gets told "gimme your phone," has his shit rifled through, and then gets told "cool, you can leave now," without even getting lunch, it's obvious to me it was never about getting to know them. It was about power.

 

1 minute ago, Pete said:

I Don't know, the podcast seemed very defensive. Almost like they were protesting too much over the idea that they were just trying to get this guy fired.

 

When we talk about discomfort being mundane, I guess what some of us are saying here is that some of the young players today are a little too coddled and what they find uncomfortable can't always be catered to just because they feel uncomfortable. What happens when the mundane makes a young player uncomfortable? Does every coach have to lose their job for that?

 

It did seem defensive. They kept saying they didn't expect it to blow up, and I believe them. They've been shitting on Babcock for years. They probably said what they said assuming this would go over the same way every other account has. The guys who believe them nod along, approvingly, and the guys who don't dismiss it. It exploded into a full-scale scandal, and they've no doubt been inundated since. I think that's largely behind their plea to CBJ media to "drop this," and let the players play.

 

I get what you are saying, and I don't completely disagree. I think Torts was often a victim of this from his own players, for example, and I routinely backed him over them. I don't do the same with Babcock, becuase he's not mundane. He's not just mean. He's callous. His behavior has caused more than one player to question the value of their own lives. I very much doubt the same can be said of Torts, for example.

 

So, no, not every coach should have to lose their job over the more mundane discomforts, but yes, if enough of the team is truly uncomfortable, he probably does. Fair or not. A coach cannot do his job if a large percentage of his players do not trust him, or do not want to play for him.

[Keirik]

Just thought I would share this about Torts because he’s been brought up several times even in Spitting Chix. Figured it sort of relates to Babcock in some ways and Torts single handedly ended Avery’s career in my opinion. 

 

Quote

Avery savages the current Columbus Blue Jackets coach and 2017 Jack Adams Award winner, who coached Avery with the New York Rangers from 2008-12.

On respect for John Tortorella:

“Tortorella has a reputation as a hard-ass, but not if you know him as a player. We used to laugh at him all the time. There was always someone in the dressing room who wanted to take their skate and decapitate him or take their stick and whack him over the head with it. Marion Gaborik despised him with every bone in his body. Even Hank Lundqvist, an even-keeled Swede who was usually in his own world, thought Tortorella was a terrible manager of pro athletes. And he can’t skate and stickhandle a puck at the same time, and he doesn’t realize we don’t take him seriously because of that.”
 

Avery writes on a conflict he had with Tortorella about investing in a second New York bar (“Tiny’s”). The coach claimed that a slumping Henrik Lundqvist was distracted by being an investor in the venture, a claim that Avery … well, didn’t agree with, especially when Tortorella suggested that Lundqvist pull out of the investment:

“I’ve never walked out of a meeting with my head coach, but if I didn’t leave the room I was going to end up in Rikers for choking this little shithead within an inch of his miserable life. If he really believed that Henrik was playing poorly because of Tiny’s, then he knew nothing about his star player. Lundqvist was not working at Tiny’s, he was investing in it. Players have slumps. Anyone who knows how to coach professional athletes would know how to deal with that.”

“I told [Rangers GM] Glen Sather about it, but he had nothing to say, really. He kept a poker face and wasn’t going to play his hand, but all he had to do was watch a game – he didn’t have to live through playing for a coach who responded to something he didn’t like on the ice by kicking water bottles or throwing shit on the bench or tugging on a player’s jersey and screaming at him and ripping him a new asshole.”

 

https://sports.yahoo.com/sean-avery-savages-john-tortorella-new-book-164531904.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall

[Phil]

6 minutes ago, Keirik said:

In all fairness, aren’t at least half of hockey players North American white farm boys while the other half white European farm boys? 

 

Probably, but my guess is those demos are changing more rapidly than we're aware of. If you just look at the rising number of people in the U.S. alone who identify as on various spectrums, sexually, politically, etc. odds are it's not the straight white male dominant league we're used to.

 

Like... what are the odds there isn't a single gay player in the league at this point?

[Phil]

30 minutes ago, Pete said:

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. 

 

They could have. They didn't. I think that speaks volumes about the NHLPA, for one, who are seen as a joke of a player's union outside (and possibly inside) the league.

 

I can't say one way or another in this case why they only went to Biz, but I can venture a guess, which is that they were more comfortable talking to another player, or ex-player, and especially one they know not to be publicly on Babcock's side.

 

I don't think the younger players or Chiclets ever intended for this to sack his career the way it did. It exploded on them after the fact, after the PA stepped in a second time to really dig in and find out what was happening.

[Keirik]

5 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

Probably, but my guess is those demos are changing more rapidly than we're aware of. If you just look at the rising number of people in the U.S. alone who identify as on various spectrums, sexually, politically, etc. odds are it's not the straight white male dominant league we're used to.

 

Like... what are the odds there isn't a single gay player in the league at this point?

Agreed, but just trying to remember, we are talking about the mindset of an aging dinosaur that probably enjoys his offseasons in moos jaw, or lock jaw, or red deer, or moose deer or red moose lockjaw. Some place like that. The idea some hockey player might be non binary is the furthest thing in his mind I’d bet. 

[Phil]

1 minute ago, Keirik said:

Agreed, but just trying to remember, we are talking about the mindset of an aging dinosaur that probably enjoys his offseasons in moos jaw, or lock jaw, or red deer, or moose deer or red moose lockjaw. Some place like that. The idea some hockey player might be non binary is the furthest thing in his mind I’d bet. 

 

Exactly. It's why I kept coming back to the "what if one of his players is gay?" question to highlight how dangerous the act of taking and going through is players' phones could be.

[Pete]

25 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

Him not getting lunch wasn't the issue there. It was to highlight the guile of Babcock, who's been accused of doing this exact type of thing in the past to drive wedges between himself and players or players and players. Chelios and others have also accused him of doing the same through the media, where he puts on a very friendly face, but for a very specific reason: to gain advantage where he can.

 

In other words, inviting a player over for lunch to get to know them is totally cool, but when the guy arrives, gets told "gimme your phone," has his shit rifled through, and then gets told "cool, you can leave now," without even getting lunch, it's obvious to me it was never about getting to know them. It was about power.

 

 

It did seem defensive. They kept saying they didn't expect it to blow up, and I believe them. They've been shitting on Babcock for years. They probably said what they said assuming this would go over the same way every other account has. The guys who believe them nod along, approvingly, and the guys who don't dismiss it. It exploded into a full-scale scandal, and they've no doubt been inundated since. I think that's largely behind their plea to CBJ media to "drop this," and let the players play.

 

I get what you are saying, and I don't completely disagree. I think Torts was often a victim of this from his own players, for example, and I routinely backed him over them. I don't do the same with Babcock, becuase he's not mundane. He's not just mean. He's callous. His behavior has caused more than one player to question the value of their own lives. I very much doubt the same can be said of Torts, for example.

 

So, no, not every coach should have to lose their job over the more mundane discomforts, but yes, if enough of the team is truly uncomfortable, he probably does. Fair or not. A coach cannot do his job if a large percentage of his players do not trust him, or do not want to play for him.

Yea, I hear you. Babcock is not the hill I'm trying to die on here.

 

I just don't like some of the language being used without details. Players were "uncomfortable". OK, and? Other things were "worse", well if you don't think looking at a camera roll is that bad, what "worse"? Don't dance around the issue. You want to be in the mix, don't try and tap out when it gets hairy (talking about Chiclets here).

 

You want to protect the players? Well, too bad, your actions have unintended consequences and people want to know exactly what happened. You don't need to name names.

[Phil]

1 minute ago, Pete said:

Yea, I hear you. Babcock is not the hill I'm trying to die on here.

 

I just don't like some of the language being used without details. Players were "uncomfortable". OK, and? Other things were "worse", well if you don't think looking at a camera roll is that bad, what "worse"? Don't dance around the issue. You want to be in the mix, don't try and tap out when it gets hairy (talking about Chiclets here).

 

You want to protect the players? Well, too bad, your actions have unintended consequences and people want to know exactly what happened. You don't need to name names.

 

I actually agree with you. I hate the vaguery. Especially when a guy gets de facto fired over it. We're missing so much critical detail to "sell" this to the larger public, likely because no one wants to put their name on it and have it follow them around. I understand that fear, but I also hate that the general public are being given crumbs and asked to just accept it. This feels like one of those situations that would have been better handled internally, completely away from the public eye, where we're left wondering what happened, but accepting the team just moving on, or on full display. If this was a "mistake," and I believe it was, we require more than just players were "uncomfortable."

 

It completly explains why this thread has the legs it does, frankly. I totally understand yours and others' skepticism re: the players or the larger "narrative."

[Pete]

9 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

I actually agree with you. I hate the vaguery. Especially when a guy gets de facto fired over it. We're missing so much critical detail to "sell" this to the larger public, likely because no one wants to put their name on it and have it follow them around. I understand that fear, but I also hate that the general public are being given crumbs and asked to just accept it. This feels like one of those situations that would have been better handled internally, completely away from the public eye, where we're left wondering what happened, but accepting the team just moving on, or on full display. If this was a "mistake," and I believe it was, we require more than just players were "uncomfortable."

 

It completly explains why this thread has the legs it does, frankly. I totally understand yours and others' skepticism re: the players or the larger "narrative."

Yea, we're totally aligned. Like I said, Babs ain't the hill to die on, but you can see why some people are like "Come the fuck on...uncomfortable?"

Also I think the other point is that what makes a 19-year-old "uncomfortable" likely doesn't make a 29-year-old feel the same way. And it doesn't matter if you're born in 1923 or 2023. That's why I roll my eyes at the Simpsons meme. Does old mean "out of touch" or does it just mean "I've seen this before, and there's actually nothing to see here"? And the idea that whatever the "children" say needs to be taken at face value is laughable.

 

Edited September 20, 2023 by Pete

[The Dude]

10 hours ago, RangersIn7 said:

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. 

I get what you're saying here. But I also don't agree with your final thought. 

 

The exact intention should be considered. No matter how how we got here. It's out if his control if people and players conspired to get him canceled. If he has to watch his back on every single positive thing he tries to do, he's absolutely fucked. 

 

Maybe he deserves that due to his past. Maybe he shouldn't have been hired in the first place. It still doesn't change the possible fact that ex players,  pod casters and new players conspired to put the final nail in this guys coffin. And I'm not ok with that. 

 

I should take what they say a bit more seriously, due to the mans past. But they too are assholes and are obviously and openly very hateful towards Babcock. It ALL doesn't jive. 

 

 

[The Dude]

9 hours ago, BlairBettsBlocksEverything said:

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.

 

 

 

Seems like players and fans are upset at how he treated the vets... Modano being an all time great  was sat for a milestone game. Again,  more construed facts here. He was awful to a lot of people. Not just young players. 

 

I never said everyone has to be like me with my willingness to tell all. I'm pretty sure I was just explaining why I myself, don't get the public outcry for some players being uncomfortable and upset about being asked to do what was asked of them. 

 

I don't have to understand it. I DO have to explain my basiis for why I'm saying what I'm saying though. 

 

GMs and presidents comments thank Babcock for his professionalism. They now understand that hiring him was a big mistake,  because anything and everything will trigger responses like what unfolded.

 

Its ALL damage control as they are trying to not look stupid for hiring someone that basically nobody in the game (and out of it) likes. Torts is next. Maybe Laviolette soon after. Columbus just looks dumb for both hiring him and then instantly firing him (yeah he "stepped down "). How did they think this was going to go? If you bring in a guy like that, it's because you want to change the culture and mindset of the room. You bring in this guy, because you WANT an asshole.  Cancel culture scared them. They saved their jobs for now. 

 

I agree with your last point. 

[The Dude]

9 hours ago, Phil said:

 

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.

Obviously was a typo as I used the number 18 as the majority of the example. 

 

I just disagree that 2 out of 20 should be able to alter who the coach of the team is. 

 

We hear the number 2 for those against,  and only 2 plus the GM and president as people who didn't get offended... Why can't the numbers go the other way? 

 

I can understand your point on your last part there. His history is taken into account. Those who outright hate Babcock and their intentions as well as how they broke the story, should also be taken into consideration. 

 

Whole thing is a disaster.  I don't like a majority of the mouthpieces against Babcock. Hypocritical jerk offs. Yet, I also really don't like Babcock. I'd like for all of them to kinda just go away. 

[The Dude]

9 hours ago, Keirik said:

Just thought I would share this about Torts because he’s been brought up several times even in Spitting Chix. Figured it sort of relates to Babcock in some ways and Torts single handedly ended Avery’s career in my opinion. 

 

https://sports.yahoo.com/sean-avery-savages-john-tortorella-new-book-164531904.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall

Like I said earlier. How Torts handled the Boogard death was also kind of shitty. Lots of players hate him for that. But the boys a Chicklets will have you believe everyone adores him. 

 

Shame on Bissonnette for saying such a thing, after being a featured player in the Ice Guardians documentary,  which I  believe had a tidbit on Boogard and his family.

 

They have their own little version of their good old boys club. A younger and more spiteful collection of generations with a bigger listening audience. 

 

After an obvious made up "fact" about Torts. Why are they taken seriously as if they have merit?

 

 

[RangersIn7]

1 hour ago, The Dude said:

I get what you're saying here. But I also don't agree with your final thought. 

 

The exact intention should be considered. No matter how how we got here. It's out if his control if people and players conspired to get him canceled. If he has to watch his back on every single positive thing he tries to do, he's absolutely fucked. 

 

Maybe he deserves that due to his past. Maybe he shouldn't have been hired in the first place. It still doesn't change the possible fact that ex players,  pod casters and new players conspired to put the final nail in this guys coffin. And I'm not ok with that. 

 

I should take what they say a bit more seriously, due to the mans past. But they too are assholes and are obviously and openly very hateful towards Babcock. It ALL doesn't jive. 

 

 

I completely agree that regardless of what he did, and his intentions, he definitely got torpedoed in a sense!and his organization didn’t stick up for him.

And all of it doesn’t jive for me either.

 

But you said it… he had to watch his back on everything. 
They just shouldn’t have hired him

[siddious]

 

at it again 

[Valriera]

God that’s awesome

[Sharpshooter]

I love hockey fans.