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

[Albatrosss]

1 hour ago, Phil said:

 

  Forget everything i said about this douche

[The Dude]

11 hours ago, Phil said:

 

Wrong. That's extortion. The invasion of privacy occurs the moment he starts rooting through your personal device.

 

If he wanted to do this with everyone on the 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 everyone can get to know each other better. Not to go through your personal device himself, and especially not away from team facilities (where there's no cameras recording to document any potential wrong-doing).

 

Lastly, it doesn't matter what he was looking for, or why. It doesn't matter if he genuinely wanted to only see photos of his players' families. What he did was invade the privacy of his players to the point that multiple players felt "very uncomfortable" about it. If this were anyone else, you're right, this is probably just apologized over and moved on from, but it's not anyone else — it was a guy with a two decades long rap sheet filled with incidents similar to this, who has earned his reputation as someone who rubs players the wrong way. Ergo benefit of doubt evaporates, ergo firing is justified. And he should have known this better than anyone. He, more than anyone, should have recognized that his record would work against him no matter how slight the transgression. He, more than anyone, needed to be squeaky clean, and he wasn't.

I'm an open kinda guy.  It's very hard for me to understand so much privacy. Especially with cell phones.

Makes you wonder what people have to hide. 

 

I'll never understand people who freak out when someone is looking through their phone. In my experience it's mostly women who get bent about it.  Guys only do when it's another guy (because posting "I like farts"  or ridiculous things on your friends Facebook- as them.. happens) , or if they are a piece of shit...

 

I guess the invasion of privacy aspect is an opinion based on how private of a person you are. Which is where I disconnect from what your saying. Asking to see someone's phone isn't a huge deal to me, unless the person is obviously trying to be malicious. 

 

I dunno. An old school mean jerk like Babcock wanting to ask about family and stuff doesn't seem like typical bully stuff to me. Sounds like a guy trying to bond, because that's what he, the GM and 2 or more (we haven't heard from everyone) veteran players said it was. 

 

Can you please write out the screen play for how you see this going down?  I'm interested in seeing it in your exact perception.  

 

 

Edited September 20, 2023 by The Dude

[The Dude]

5 hours ago, phillyb said:

For what it’s worth, it definitely reads like there are posters who are indeed still waiting for more “facts,” as if these reporters are gonna out their sources and we’re going to get exact details about who’s phone, what pics, etc. 

You're right. It's always best to assume that a minority of a group has the real story.  Let's not bother gathering all the facts. It's better that way. 

[Phil]

15 minutes ago, The Dude said:

I'm an open kinda guy.  It's very hard for me to understand so much privacy. Especially with cell phones.

Makes you wonder what people have to hide. 

 

I'll never understand people who freak out when someone is looking through their phone. In my experience it's mostly women who get bent about it.  Guys only do when it's another guy (because posting "I like farts"  or ridiculous things happen) , or if they are a piece of shit...

 

I guess the invasion of privacy aspect is an opinion based on how private of a person you are. Which is where I disconnect from what your saying. Asking to see someone's phone isn't a huge deal to me, unless the person is obviously trying to be malicious.

 

I'd venture a guess that for a lot of folks, there isn't anything more private than their cell phone. And not for the nefarious reasons you might think. There are all sorts of reasons why someone wouldn't want you going through their phone, which might contain things like their health information, medications they're taking, dating profiles they're registered (and whether they even want you knowing they're dating online), their purchase history, and more. Not to mention, as I referenced earlier, things key to their identity, like their sexual orientation.

 

Odds are, it's hard for you to understand so much privacy because you aren't thinking about these types of scenarios. You're assuming this is more black and white, where there are people who just don't care and "have nothing to hide," and then there are people who "have something to hide," which itself implies that what they're hiding is something that needs to be exposed.

 

Quote

I dunno. An old school mean jerk like Babcock wanting to ask about family and stuff doesn't seem like typical bully stuff to me. Sounds like a guy trying to bond, because that's what he, the GM and 2 or more (we haven't heard from everyone) veteran players said it was.

 

Not on its face, no, but we don't know what his motives were. The more we learn, though, the less I buy the "he was just asking about family and stuff" line. Again, this is the same guy who duped 19-year-old Mitch Marner into "ratting" on his own team to provide Babs with a list of players Mitch believed worked hardest and least hardest on the team — a list Babs then used against Marner, bringing him to tears. So, sorry, but I'm not buying the saintly Mike thing. Not for a second.

 

Quote

Can you please write out the screen play for how you see this going down?  I'm interested in seeing it in your exact perception. 

 

I have no idea. All I know is what's been reported by voices I trust, like Friedman, that suggests this wasn't a one-off, and that multiple players felt "very uncomfortable" with his behavior. I don't know why he did it, but I have my suspicions. See Marner story above.

[Keirik]

54 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.

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
 

 

I enjoy them but I’m not sure I trust every word. They do chase clicks. It’s barstool hockey. They do have a decent legitimacy among players though so there is that. 

[BlairBettsBlocksEverything]

10 minutes ago, The Dude said:

I'm an open kinda guy.  It's very hard for me to understand so much privacy. Especially with cell phones.

Makes you wonder what people have to hide. 

 

I'll never understand people who freak out when someone is looking through their phone. In my experience it's mostly women who get bent about it.  Guys only do when it's another guy (because posting "I like farts"  or ridiculous things happen) , or if they are a piece of shit...

 

I guess the invasion of privacy aspect is an opinion based on how private of a person you are. Which is where I disconnect from what your saying. Asking to see someone's phone isn't a huge deal to me, unless the person is obviously trying to be malicious. 

 

I dunno. An old school mean jerk like Babcock wanting to ask about family and stuff doesn't seem like typical bully stuff to me. Sounds like a guy trying to bond, because that's what he, the GM and 2 or more (we haven't heard from everyone) veteran players said it was. 

 

Can you please write out the screen play for how you see this going down?  I'm interested in seeing it in your exact perception.  

 

 

it doesn't matter what they 'have to hide'

 

what if its personal stuff? what if they sent something political to a friend and the coach doesn't agree with them and will base their opinion of the player on non-hockey related stuff? All the info that's already come out about it, it's become ovewhelmingly clear that this was not just a casual 'let me get to know your family' nor was it 'I'm trying to see if there's anything i need to know that you might have gotten into this summer'    if there was one player who may have done something illegal/wrong in the offseason, its not the coaches job to just pull him in and get your phone. That's a job for upper management/lawyers and only if they had some kind of suspicion that there was any wrongdoing they need to be aware of. And even then, its not their job unless it was something improper done on team time/property

 

 

[Phil]

7 minutes ago, Keirik said:

I enjoy them but I’m not sure I trust every word. They do chase clicks. It’s barstool hockey. They do have a decent legitimacy among players though so there is that. 

 

Yeah, I think this is exactly the right position to take re: Barstool anything, but especially Chiclets. Their gimmick/draw is their connection to players, and their ability to secure/pull off more candid/raw interviews with current and former players. The rest... take it with a grain of salt.

[Phil]

5 minutes ago, BlairBettsBlocksEverything said:

it doesn't matter what they 'have to hide'

 

what if its personal stuff? what if they sent something political to a friend and the coach doesn't agree with them and will base their opinion of the player on non-hockey related stuff? All the info that's already come out about it, it's become ovewhelmingly clear that this was not just a casual 'let me get to know your family' nor was it 'I'm trying to see if there's anything i need to know that you might have gotten into this summer'    if there was one player who may have done something illegal/wrong in the offseason, its not the coaches job to just pull him in and get your phone. That's a job for upper management/lawyers and only if they had some kind of suspicion that there was any wrongdoing they need to be aware of. And even then, its not their job unless it was something improper done on team time/property

 

Even then, it's the job of the police/law enforcement. No one belongs going through your personal devices unless there's a legal reason to do so, which — correct me if I'm wrong, officer @Keirik — requires a warrant/sign-off from a judge?

[Phil]

I'm listening to the Babcock story segment of the latest Chiclets, and this is actually really informative. Way too much to try and quote, but they go through the entire timeline and really explain everything in detail.

 

 

[Phil]

"Babcock's future didn't lie in my hands. It lied in the hands of the younger players in which he did even worse shit to that didn't come out and still has been under wraps, because they want to protect these guys." — Biz

[siddious]

28 minutes ago, Keirik said:

I enjoy them but I’m not sure I trust every word. They do chase clicks. It’s barstool hockey. They do have a decent legitimacy among players though so there is that. 

Their interviews are better than most. Some are misses (I hate when they interview young players none of them have personality or any stories to tell). They’re not insiders and they’re not hockey geniuses. It’s a fun podcast and you get some good stories. If you’re looking for anything else you’re gonna be disappointed. 
 

 

[Phil]

"Great job by the younger players stepping up in CBJ to really nail this in the butt before the season started. Who knows what would have been collateral damage as a result of this guy continuing his old habits. Think about how many players lives would have been made to be hell for a full season in CBJ because [Babcock] didn't align with what he saw on their phones or text messages." — Biz

[Keirik]

22 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

Even then, it's the job of the police/law enforcement. No one belongs going through your personal devices unless there's a legal reason to do so, which — correct me if I'm wrong, officer @Keirik — requires a warrant/sign-off from a judge?

Yeah. The only time the Police would have the right to force the issue is in a dire emergency situation but it would have to be really articulated that there is an immediate imminent threat to life. Think terrorism, suicide, etc. 

[Keirik]

6 minutes ago, Phil said:

"Great job by the younger players stepping up in CBJ to really nail this in the butt before the season started. Who knows what would have been collateral damage as a result of this guy continuing his old habits. Think about how many players lives would have been made to be hell for a full season in CBJ because [Babcock] didn't align with what he saw on their phones or text messages." — Biz

After listening to the segment that we both posted, I’m not sure you aren’t either Biz or Whit lol 

 

you guys share the exact position. 

[Keirik]

9 minutes ago, siddious said:

Their interviews are better than most. Some are misses (I hate when they interview young players none of them have personality or any stories to tell). They’re not insiders and they’re not hockey geniuses. It’s a fun podcast and you get some good stories. If you’re looking for anything else you’re gonna be disappointed. 
 

 

I tend to listen to them during acupuncture. Definitely entertaining. 

[siddious]

5 minutes ago, Keirik said:

I tend to listen to them during acupuncture. Definitely entertaining. 

Car rides for work usually for me makes it go by much quicker

[Phil]

15 minutes ago, Keirik said:

After listening to the segment that we both posted, I’m not sure you aren’t either Biz or Whit lol 

 

you guys share the exact position. 

 

[jsm7302]

Ill listen to the Chiclets pod omw to the office tomorrow however. This guy's sounds like a deranged individual.

[Pete]

1 hour ago, Phil said:

"Great job by the younger players stepping up in CBJ to really nail this in the butt before the season started. Who knows what would have been collateral damage as a result of this guy continuing his old habits. Think about how many players lives would have been made to be hell for a full season in CBJ because [Babcock] didn't align with what he saw on their phones or text messages." — Biz

Well there's also a lot of buzz coming out that players were not thrilled about having to play for him to begin with, so I guess that's why they didn't bother going through proper channels. 

[Phil]

38 minutes ago, Pete said:

Well there's also a lot of buzz coming out that players were not thrilled about having to play for him to begin with, so I guess that's why they didn't bother going through proper channels. 

 

Is it any wonder why? Twenty years of shit, just like this.

 

That, and this, from the latest 32 Thoughts:

 

Quote

Truth is, the Blue Jackets’ front office was already on notice. That’s why they hired Babcock, gambling his hockey mind could push them into the playoff race, solidifying job security.

 

I can't blame the players for this. They likely felt trapped, with no "proper" internal channel to go to.

[Pete]

1 minute ago, Phil said:

 

Is it any wonder why? Twenty years of shit, just like this.

 

That, and this, from the latest 32 Thoughts:

 

 

I can't blame the players for this. They likely felt trapped, with no "proper" internal channel to go to.

That's fine, I would still like to know exactly what happened that made everybody so "uncomfortable". 

[Phil]

1 minute ago, Pete said:

That's fine, I would still like to know exactly what happened that made everybody so "uncomfortable". 

 

Listen to Chiclets. They go into it. According to Biz and Whit, who've had players coming to them directly (this speaks volumes about the NHLPA by the way), Babcok essentially pulled another Marner and duped at least one player into coming to his house for "lunch," only to be told "give me your phone" (I'm paraphrasing), and that player was then told he could leave after Babcock was done (and was never served lunch).

[Keirik]

20 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

I will say this. After listening to them and Chelios speak, I'm willing to concede a bit that I'm more 75% leaning on the players side rather than previous 50/50. I do think that this sets a kind of slippery slope though that whenever a player deems he is being mistreated, bullied, etc.

 

I still 100% maintain that some players were just looking for anything though to get out of playing for this guy. The common idea is "well, do you blame them?" The answer is a bit muddy to me. 

[Pete]

13 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

Listen to Chiclets. They go into it. According to Biz and Whit, who've had players coming to them directly (this speaks volumes about the NHLPA by the way), Babcok essentially pulled another Marner and duped at least one player into coming to his house for "lunch," only to be told "give me your phone" (I'm paraphrasing), and that player was then told he could leave after Babcock was done (and was never served lunch).

Right, so where I'm going with this is let's say Babs has the phone and a text pops up "You at Jerkoff's house? How's it going?"

 

What happens then?

[Pete]

Very appropriate, start at 3:00 and listen until about 8:00.

 

 

This hits the nail on the head for those of us here who are arguing the point that as soon as somebody claims they are offended, what happens...? 

 

Edited September 19, 2023 by Pete