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

[Phil]

4 minutes ago, Keirik said:

Do we actually know this is true or we speculating ? Do we know if there are cameras specifically around the facility in offices where he conducts interviews and do we know if he went to a place without cameras?

  

   I'm just asking because it seems like speculation and coaches routinely meet with players in many different places for a variety of reasons, no? 

 

Do I know that there are cameras in CBJ facilities? There have to be. It's an arena. So would their practice rink be. I can't confirm that. I don't work there, but I'd be floored if there was zero surveillance on CBJ facilities grounds.

 

But yes, we do know for a fact that he went through a players' phone for "several minutes" while "away from team facilities" in an incident described as "beyond the scope of what was initially understood to have occurred," per Friedman.

[Pete]

4 minutes ago, RangersIn7 said:

Ding ding ding.

 

And that’s the thing.

 

Im no fan of Babcock. I think he’s a good coach who has clearly had success. But I’ve always felt him overrated. And that’s before his tactics came to light 5 years ago, particularly as to how it relates to young players. 
 

What he did, very stupid.

Malicious or evil. No.

 

It’s not to me an egregious crime. Just poorly conceived and potentially dangerous, given his history. Again, really stupid considering everything.
 

Before this happened, it’s very likely there were guys in that room that had reservations about playing for him, at the least.

Any incident that occurred was going to cause backlash like this. 
They were already uncomfortable with him. 

Then he does this and it’s like giving Dillinger the bullets. 

Bingo. Spot on post.

[jsm7302]

6 minutes ago, RangersIn7 said:

Ding ding ding.

 

And that’s the thing.

 

Im no fan of Babcock. I think he’s a good coach who has clearly had success. But I’ve always felt him overrated. And that’s before his tactics came to light 5 years ago, particularly as to how it relates to young players. 
 

What he did, very stupid.

Malicious or evil. No.

 

It’s not to me an egregious crime. Just poorly conceived and potentially dangerous, given his history. Again, really stupid considering everything.
 

Before this happened, it’s very likely there were guys in that room that had reservations about playing for him, at the least.

Any incident that occurred was going to cause backlash like this. 
They were already uncomfortable with him. 

Then he does this and it’s like giving Dillinger the bullets. 

I don't think it's fair to say it isn't malicious or evil when he has been known to use personal conversations as locker room talk and has been known to throw guys under the bus. Really stupid - definitely.

[Phil]

22 minutes ago, Pete said:

I don't even know what the fuck you're talking about, what facts? You're comparing 2 things that aren't comparable. Just let it go.

 

Like I said, you it won't make a lick of difference because you're going to reject any comparison. The scenario I laid out, I think, is perfectly acceptable as a hypothetical comparison. I don't blame you for not wanting to engage in it. Especially after you just ripped me for apparently coming to conclusions without facts.

 

Quote

Well, that's exactly what happened so there's nothing to dispute. Daly confirmed on 32 Thoughts that Chiclets broke the story then the NHLPA got involved afterward.

 

Oh, I'm not disputing that players used Bissonette as a mouthpiece. I'm disputing your characterization of them that you're perfectly comforatable judging them in despite "not having all the facts." It was to highlight the duality of your position in this thread. We're either not prejudging things (that would include CBJ players who "whined" and are "pussies") or we are. Pick a lane.

 

Quote

You just can't admit that multiple things are wrong here...Whatever Babcock did was poor behavior (and by the way, we still don't know exactly what he did or why — What motive do you think he had to go through someone's phone? Why was the behavior different with the vets vs the kids?)...a rush to judgment is poor behavior, not going to the PA is poor behavior.

 

But yea, because Gen Z had feels, the world must stop and coddle them.

 

Of course I can. What we know — that he went through a players' phone for "several minutes" away from team facilities, and that multiple CBJ players were "very uncomfortable" with whatever it was, exactly, he was asking them to share — is/are the violations. I don't care what his motive was, or what he was actually looking for. Intent is irrelevant. Using the example you refuse to engage with from earlier, if your boss is accused of sexual harassment, what do you think he's going to say his intent was? To extort someone? Of course not. "I was just joking around," is likely the universal response. It doesn't change or invalidate how his or her would-be victims felt in that moment.

 

The act of going through his players' personal devices in the manner he did is the problem. Whether he did so because he was trying to sniff out compromising photos to use against the players or to see cute pics of their dogs, as two points of example, is irrelevant. The act of going through their personal devices, or attempting to, is why he got in trouble. Because of how it made more than one player feel about him as coach.

 

Why was the behavior different with vets versus kids? We don't know. They were separate incidents. This wasn't a all-team incident. It was multiple incidents spread out over time. My working theory is that the interactions with Jenner were as characterized. Jenner felt no invasion. Gaudreau, apparently, didn't either. Others did. That doesn't invalidate how they feel, no matter how badly you want to label an entire generation.

[Phil]

7 minutes ago, jsm7302 said:

I don't think it's fair to say it isn't malicious or evil when he has been known to use personal conversations as locker room talk and has been known to throw guys under the bus. Really stupid - definitely.

 

Right. We don't actually know what his motivations are/were. We know what he claims, which is that he wanted to get to know his players better. We also know, or can lean on previous issues in Anaheim, Detroit, and Toronto, in which he was accused of using these types of methods to psychologically exert power over young and at-risk players. It's conjecture to put the two together, but we don't know for certain one way or the other. That's why I keep reminding everyone that it doesn't actually matter — what matters is that the NHLPA investigation found that more than one other player were "very uncomfortable," with his behavior and that one of the incidents in question involved him going through a players' personal device for "several" minutes away from team facilities. The end result is the same: all three parties — Babcock, CBJ, NHLPA — recognized that he cannot continue on as coach as a direct result of these incidents.

[RangersIn7]

6 minutes ago, jsm7302 said:

I don't think it's fair to say it isn't malicious or evil when he has been known to use personal conversations as locker room talk and has been known to throw guys under the bus. Really stupid - definitely.

That’s fair to say I guess, but we don’t actually know and may never know.

On the surface, it doesn’t outright look that way, but his history as you said means there’s potential there for it to be interpreted as such.

 

 

I think it made some guys feel uncomfortable. Which is what I would expect.

 

20+ players in the room. 
Some guys are not going to like it cause it’s weird and unorthodox or what have you.

Some guys aren’t going to care.

Some guys will be in between.

But the fact that it could produce such a reaction is why you don’t do it.

 

[RangersIn7]

To be perfectly honest, what he actually did in specifics is immaterial. His actual intentions are immaterial as well. 

 

He had to know that he’d be under scrutiny and that players would be coming in from the outset with at least some apprehension about him.

So he couldn’t do anything in terms of tactics that were questionable or that might make anyone feel uncomfortable in the least.

 

 

And then he did. 
That’s as far as you need to go. 
Cause that’s the ballgame. 
 

Also, if he did in fact possess someone’s device and go through it privately, that’s really messed up. 

Edited September 19, 2023 by RangersIn7

[Keirik]

36 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

Do I know that there are cameras in CBJ facilities? There have to be. It's an arena. So would their practice rink be. I can't confirm that. I don't work there, but I'd be floored if there was zero surveillance on CBJ facilities grounds.

 

But yes, we do know for a fact that he went through a players' phone for "several minutes" while "away from team facilities" in an incident described as "beyond the scope of what was initially understood to have occurred," per Friedman.

No, that's not what in asking and Im sure you lnow that already.  I'm asking if we know that there are cameras in his office specifically or wherever he conducts interviews because you are referring to it as if it's fact and claiming there was some intent to conduct actions intentionally away from cameras. Im asking how you know the camera layout of where he does interviews and where he did this away from the arena.

 

I'm sure there are security cameras in nearly ALL facilities. That's a big difference between that and cameras in his office recording every word everyone is saying.

   Hell, if there was a camera staring right at the table in his office where he conducts interviews, he would be criticized as intentionally recording everyone to use later.

 

Do we know that he met with people in cameraless places? Don't link me to an article where he met someone away from the arena. Link me to your proof of cameras because you're making this claim. Again, coaches meet players all over the place during the off-season. 

[Phil]

19 minutes ago, Keirik said:

No, that's not what in asking and Im sure you lnow that already.  I'm asking if we know that there are cameras in his office specifically or wherever he conducts interviews because you are referring to it as if it's fact and claiming there was some intent to conduct actions intentionally away from cameras. Im asking how you know the camera layout of where he does interviews and where he did this away from the arena.

 

I'm sure there are security cameras in nearly ALL facilities. That's a big difference between that and cameras in his office recording every word everyone is saying.

   Hell, if there was a camera staring right at the table in his office where he conducts interviews, he would be criticized as intentionally recording everyone to use later.

 

Do we know that he met with people in cameraless places? Don't link me to an article where he met someone away from the arena. Link me to your proof of cameras because you're making this claim. Again, coaches meet players all over the place during the off-season. 

 

No, I don't know that there are cameras in his office specifically, and I don't know what the surveillance situation is like at any CBJ facility. I'm presuming that most, if not all, have some level of surveillance for basic security purposes. Reading back, I'll happily walk back the tone of my comment. I overstepped what I should have said, which is this:

 

If Babcock wanted to bond with everyone on his team, the way to do it is to ask everyone on the team to come to camp with photos they can share with him and the team so that the team can get to know each other better. Not to go through personal devices himself, which clearly resulted in more than one player feeling "very uncomfortable" with his doing so.

 

I wasn't attempting to claim that he intentionally went through the players' phone off CBJ facilities because he knew there was no surveillance. I was saying that doing so away from team facilities makes optics look even worse. But the way I wrote it, I realize it's not very clear that that's what I'm trying to illustrate.

[Keirik]

4 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

No, I don't know that there are cameras in his office specifically, and I don't know what the surveillance situation is like at any CBJ facility. I'm presuming that most, if not all, have some level of surveillance for basic security purposes. Reading back, I'll happily walk back the tone of my comment. I overstepped what I should have said, which is this:

 

If Babcock wanted to bond with everyone on his team, the way to do it is to ask everyone on the team to come to camp with photos they can share with him and the team so that the team can get to know each other better. Not to go through personal devices himself, which clearly resulted in more than one player feeling "very uncomfortable" with his doing so.

 

I wasn't attempting to claim that he intentionally went through the players' phone off CBJ facilities because he knew there was no surveillance. I was saying that doing so away from team facilities makes optics look even worse. But the way I wrote it, I realize it's not very clear that that's what I'm trying to illustrate.

If I came across hostile it's only because my daughter is teething and crying in my face lol 

 

 

I just think we have to be careful with speculating on top of everything

 

I'll be happy to just let this die along with his career lol 

[RangersIn7]

47 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

Right. We don't actually know what his motivations are/were. We know what he claims, which is that he wanted to get to know his players better. We also know, or can lean on previous issues in Anaheim, Detroit, and Toronto, in which he was accused of using these types of methods to psychologically exert power over young and at-risk players. It's conjecture to put the two together, but we don't know for certain one way or the other. That's why I keep reminding everyone that it doesn't actually matter — what matters is that the NHLPA investigation found that more than one other player were "very uncomfortable," with his behavior and that one of the incidents in question involved him going through a players' personal device for "several" minutes away from team facilities. The end result is the same: all three parties — Babcock, CBJ, NHLPA — recognized that he cannot continue on as coach as a direct result of these incidents.

What exactly is the context of “going through a players phone away from team facilities for several minutes”

???

 

Let me preface that with its all an act of stupidity and it doesn’t need to go farther than he shouldn’t have asked to begin with and they never should have hired him and this action was bound to come up bad 

 

Did he take the guys phone from him and go through it privately and in some covert manner?

Or did he meet with the guy off team property and flip through it, after the guy opened it and handed it to him and that guy was sitting across the table from him?

Cause that to me seems the likely scenario.

 

Im asking out of curiosity and because I can’t actually see a scenario where he got a guys phone, got the passkey, then took it away and went through it.

That doesn’t make sense.

 

 

 

[Phil]

6 minutes ago, Keirik said:

If I came across hostile it's only because my daughter is teething and crying in my face lol 

 

 

I just think we have to be careful with speculating on top of everything

 

I'll be happy to just let this die along with his career lol 

 

Yup, agreed. That's why I was happy to walk that back and rephrase. And I completely agree re: speculation. Or, if we're going to, clearly differentiate between what is fact/known, and what is our opinion on it.

 

5 minutes ago, RangersIn7 said:

What exactly is the context of “going through a players phone away from team facilities for several minutes”

???

 

Let me preface that with its all an act of stupidity and it doesn’t need to go farther than he shouldn’t have asked to begin with and they never should have hired him and this action was bound to come up bad 

 

Did he take the guys phone from him and go through it privately and in some covert manner?

Or did he meet with the guy off team property and flip through it, after the guy opened it and handed it to him and that guy was sitting across the table from him?

Cause that to me seems the likely scenario.

 

Im asking out of curiosity and because I can’t actually see a scenario where he got a guys phone, got the passkey, then took it away and went through it.

That doesn’t make sense.

 

We have no idea, but I agree with your assessment of likelihood that it's probably the latter rather than the former. I think it was incredibly improper of him to even ask his players to let him go through their personal devices, but I very much doubt the idea that he was nefariously securing passcodes and doing it without their consent/awareness. I think it's far more likely they reluctantly agreed, and then regretted it, watching him just flip through shit for "several minutes," while they sat there, awkwardly.

 

 

[Pete]

1 hour ago, Phil said:

 

Like I said, you it won't make a lick of difference because you're going to reject any comparison. The scenario I laid out, I think, is perfectly acceptable as a hypothetical comparison. I don't blame you for not wanting to engage in it. Especially after you just ripped me for apparently coming to conclusions without facts.

No it isn't, and that's why I disagree. Sexual harassment and "let me see your phone" are not the same.

Quote

Oh, I'm not disputing that players used Bissonette as a mouthpiece. I'm disputing your characterization of them that you're perfectly comforatable judging them in despite "not having all the facts." It was to highlight the duality of your position in this thread. We're either not prejudging things (that would include CBJ players who "whined" and are "pussies") or we are. Pick a lane.

I have all the facts LOL. They were confirmed.

Quote

 

Of course I can. What we know — that he went through a players' phone for "several minutes" away from team facilities, and that multiple CBJ players were "very uncomfortable" with whatever it was, exactly, he was asking them to share — is/are the violations. I don't care what his motive was, or what he was actually looking for. Intent is irrelevant. Using the example you refuse to engage with from earlier, if your boss is accused of sexual harassment, what do you think he's going to say his intent was? To extort someone? Of course not. "I was just joking around," is likely the universal response. It doesn't change or invalidate how his or her would-be victims felt in that moment.

Intent is not irrelevant.

Quote

 

The act of going through his players' personal devices in the manner he did is the problem. Whether he did so because he was trying to sniff out compromising photos to use against the players or to see cute pics of their dogs, as two points of example, is irrelevant. The act of going through their personal devices, or attempting to, is why he got in trouble. Because of how it made more than one player feel about him as coach.

 

Why was the behavior different with vets versus kids? We don't know. They were separate incidents. This wasn't a all-team incident. It was multiple incidents spread out over time. My working theory is that the interactions with Jenner were as characterized. Jenner felt no invasion. Gaudreau, apparently, didn't either. Others did.

I agree. But there's a way to go about it, and whining to Biz isn't the way.

 

Quote

That doesn't invalidate how they feel, no matter how badly you want to label an entire generation.

Yet said generation, including yourself, has no problem labeling older generations.

 

This phenomenon is very US-centric, by the way. In other cultures, elders are respected and sought after for their wisdom and guidance.

 

Put it this way, if it makes you feel better...The shit kids whine about at 20 is different than 27. That's why Jenner and Gaudreau probably had no issue.

[Albatrosss]

what if Bobcock instead of being an asshole to players like he was in the past wanted to be closer, friendlier with them and this was his way of trying to be a friend, by sharing family pics? If that's the case, Pete is 100% correct.  Some whiney little bitch ran to mommy (podcast in this case) to complain.  I lean towards this scenario 

[jsm7302]

42 minutes ago, Pete said:

No it isn't, and that's why I disagree. Sexual harassment and "let me see your phone" are not the same.

I have all the facts LOL. They were confirmed.

Intent is not irrelevant.

I agree. But there's a way to go about it, and whining to Biz isn't the way.

 

Yet said generation, including yourself, has no problem labeling older generations.

 

This phenomenon is very US-centric, by the way. In other cultures, elders are respected and sought after for their wisdom and guidance.

 

Put it this way, if it makes you feel better...The shit kids whine about at 20 is different than 27. That's why Jenner and Gaudreau probably had no issue.

This is worth it's own topic. This country to the world is like Burlington, VT is to the US. Wierd.

[jsm7302]

Just now, CCCP said:

what if Bobcock instead of being an asshole to players like he was in the past wanted to be closer, friendlier with them and this was his way of trying to be a friend, by sharing family pics? If that's the case, Pete is 100% correct.  Some whiney little bitch ran to mommy (podcast in this case) to complain.  I lean towards this scenario 

What makes you lean that way? It isn't his history. I'm not sure how you can come to that conclusion.

[Albatrosss]

2 hours ago, Phil said:

The act of going through his players' personal devices in the manner he did is the problem. Whether he did so because he was trying to sniff out compromising photos to use against the players or to see cute pics of their dogs, as two points of example, is irrelevant. The act of going through their personal devices, or attempting to, is why he got in trouble. Because of how it made more than one player feel about him as coach.

 

Why was the behavior different with vets versus kids? We don't know. They were separate incidents. This wasn't a all-team incident. It was multiple incidents spread out over time. My working theory is that the interactions with Jenner were as characterized. Jenner felt no invasion. Gaudreau, apparently, didn't either. Others did. That doesn't invalidate how they feel, no matter how badly you want to label an entire generation.

maybe because the vets are mature and use their head more than whiney kids who run to their mommy whenever something they dont like occurs?

 

This is our current society in a nutshell, and of course the "problem" gets fired and cancelled.  It is easier to get rid of "the problem" than to deal with it.  Very Stalinist

[Albatrosss]

13 minutes ago, jsm7302 said:

What makes you lean that way? It isn't his history. I'm not sure how you can come to that conclusion.

he obviously had permission from the players to look at their phone.  Unless you think he forced them to share, then it's different.  I just dont see how you can force someone to unlock their phone unless you threaten them in some way.

[Phil]

 

[jsm7302]

45 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

[RangersIn7]

1 hour ago, Phil said:

 

Yup, agreed. That's why I was happy to walk that back and rephrase. And I completely agree re: speculation. Or, if we're going to, clearly differentiate between what is fact/known, and what is our opinion on it.

 

 

We have no idea, but I agree with your assessment of likelihood that it's probably the latter rather than the former. I think it was incredibly improper of him to even ask his players to let him go through their personal devices, but I very much doubt the idea that he was nefariously securing passcodes and doing it without their consent/awareness. I think it's far more likely they reluctantly agreed, and then regretted it, watching him just flip through shit for "several minutes," while they sat there, awkwardly.

 

 

Yeah

And that’s what I think happened.

 

Listen, frame it all properly.

 

Its an organizational failure.

 

I am not a Babcock fan.

Before all of this, and clearly indeed after, he SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN HIRED!

 

 

He is a good coach with a very successful career, but he’s employed very harsh and at times downright inappropriate tactics in terms of dealing with his team and players.

He got fired for it in Toronto 5 years ago. And he’s now 60. 
He should not have been brought back.

Not because he’s a horrible human, or some extreme deviant or psychologically dangerous person, which I don’t think he is.

He’s just a guy who employs methods and a mindset that can’t work now.

 

Again, obvious 5 years ago.

 

And much more came to light since.

 

And he hasn’t actually coached anyone in a meaningful way in 5 years. 

Ok.

5 years pass.

He says he’s changed. There’s maybe something to support that claim.

They hired him.

It was a risk.

While I’m sure they did their due diligence, they clearly ignored it and downplayed some issues.

There’s gonna be apprehension from players.

He’s gonna be under scrutiny.

 

Now… going in…if you seriously bring him back…,

Everyone in authority in that organization, mostly the ownership group, JD as Team President, Jarmo as GM, Babcock himself as HC, plus his assistants, numerous other team officials at the management level and above, and even the veteran players on the team, have all got to know he needs to be very measured and careful in his approach to his players. 
 

If a guy needs to be watched that closely, you can’t hire him. Period.

Not as a HC.

If he were looking for an assistant job, under the right HC, and they wanted to do that… that’s at least something to consider.

 

He does this thing.

Its a thing that is questionable and potentially explosive cause if even one player is uncomfortable, it’s a big deal.

And his players are walking in with reservations or apprehension or reluctance or even downright hostile feelings or almost unwillingness to play for him.

 

And he employs a poorly conceived approach in a bad way. And executes it poorly to boot.

Not because he’s evil.

But because he’s passé and out of touch.

Which he proved 5 years ago and that was ignored with not too much to say it had changed.

 

 

[Keirik]

For anyone that wants to hear Spittin Chicklets most recent take on it. Looks like it starts around 13 minutes

 

 

[RangersIn7]

To sum up… he’s done very questionable things in the past when handling players.

And his players knew it coming in.

He got an idea to I think try to know his players. And it was a bad one. Cause someone was bound to feel weird about it and maybe say something. For whatever reason, it didn’t get stopped as it should have.

Then he put it in play poorly. Failed to execute it properly or under proper and appropriate conditions.

And some guys felt uncomfortable.

And that’s your ballgame.

Cause you hired a questionable guy who hasn’t reformed enough and you weren’t watching him like you needed to be.

 

And why the fuck did you hire him if he needed to be watched that closely?

 

And that’s all it took.

 

[RangersIn7]

10 minutes ago, Keirik said:

For anyone that wants to hear Spittin Chicklets most recent take on it. Looks like it starts around 13 minutes

 

 

How do you feel about their podcast, out of curiosity?

 

I’ve only listened to no more than 15-20 episodes.

They’re kind of in the middle for me at best.

From what I’ve heard, just my opinion, it’s really commercialized and spun and they are totally chasing clicks. Which I get, but that approach sacrifices things
 

 

Edited September 19, 2023 by RangersIn7

[BlairBettsBlocksEverything]

22 minutes ago, RangersIn7 said:

How do you feel about their podcast, out of curiosity?

 

I’ve only listened to no more than 15-20 episodes.

They’re kind of in the middle for me at best.

 

 

i wouldn't listen to them for good hockey analysis. But the interviews with former players are usually really good. Current player interviews are pretty boring but when former players don't have the image to protect or anything, it can get pretty funny with some old stories 

 

edit: listening to the episode now and their take is spot on here

Edited September 19, 2023 by BlairBettsBlocksEverything