Babcock resigning as CBJ Head Coach *Mod note, post #687*

[SniperOnTheWing]

Hahaha, Chelios and Modano have no issue other than they got benched for 1 game each. Commodore thinks Babcock ended or wrecked his career, when he was nothing special and was playing worse before he even got to Detroit. Commodore has an unnatural axe to grind with Babcock over anything. Babcock could say hello to someone and Commodore would find an issue with that.

Franzen is the only one with any serious issue with Babcock. Was he a douche to Marner, sure, but that isn't that big of a deal as there are plenty of idiots in the game of hockey.

Modano wasn’t just one game. It was 42 games.

He needed 41 games played to hit the milestone that season, Babcock strung him along all season with frequent scratches and sure enough he only ended up at 40. A decent coach would have found that one extra game SOMEWHERE in the schedule to help him get there.

 

[tarheelhockey]

This blog post from 9/13 with player quotes summarizes pretty well.

Zach Werenski and Johnny Gaudreau Support Coach Mike Babcock In Light of Photo-Sharing Allegations

Defenseman Zach Werenski and forward Johnny Gaudreau supported Columbus Blue Jackets head coach Mike Babcock in light of photo-sharing allegations.

www.1stohiobattery.com

Ok thanks. I thought I had maybe missed something about them saying younger players were treated differently, but I’m not seeing it in those quotes.

On Mobile so it's kind of annoying but I'm just talking about Jenner's released statement and Gaudreau media questions. I don't think they're lying at all and I think that their interactions with Babcock have been positive/innocent (probably helped by their status on the team).

I believe it was Friedman who reported that young player(s) had to hand over their phone and Babcock went through them. Russo reported something similar (that young players walked into a meeting and had to hand their phone over on the spot).

That’s the thing though, the version of the story where Babcock is creeping through people’s phones is solely coming from anonymous media leaks. Friedman and Russo are saying the same thing that the Chiclets guys said. Actual players on the team are saying publicly that it didn’t play out that way at all. The only way to square that circle is to say that certain players were treated differently, but what’s the actual evidence for that other than media echoing each other?

Again don’t get me wrong — maybe it actually did play out as reported. But there’s a big difference between reporters echoing each other without presenting any new information, and an official investigation confirming those reports. The latter is what’s needed before we can just assume the reporters have it right, unless they’re willing to quote sources. Especially given the very wide range of possibilities and versions we’re hearing, there’s just not enough actual evidence to draw a sound conclusion that contradicts the players’ version of events.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

Ok thanks. I thought I had maybe missed something about them saying younger players were treated differently, but I’m not seeing it in those quotes.



That’s the thing though, the version of the story where Babcock is creeping through people’s phones is solely coming from anonymous media leaks. Friedman and Russo are saying the same thing that the Chiclets guys said. Actual players on the team are saying publicly that it didn’t play out that way at all. The only way to square that circle is to say that certain players were treated differently, but what’s the actual evidence for that other than media echoing each other?

Again don’t get me wrong — maybe it actually did play out as reported. But there’s a big difference between reporters echoing each other without presenting any new information, and an official investigation confirming those reports. The latter is what’s needed before we can just assume the reporters have it right, unless they’re willing to quote sources. Especially given the very wide range of possibilities and versions we’re hearing, there’s just not enough actual evidence to draw a sound conclusion that contradicts the players’ version of events.

I'm not sure I understand. You expect Friedman/Russo/SC to name the players?

As far as the official report provided to the NHL, not sure if that will ever be released.

With that said, I don't think it's hard to read between the lines when there were reports of CBJ 'digesting' the information/findings and Jarmo telling The Athletic that it's a learning experience about finding 'safe' ways to share pictures. We might not know every exact detail but I'd be hard-pressed to think that Babcock didn't cross the line with younger players (especially given his history!).

Also @tarheelhockey as an added note, Gaudreau/Jenner spoke strictly about their own singular interactions, they didn't speak on behalf of other players. That's an important detail.

 

[Caroline Says ll]

I have some questions for anyone who feels Babcock was wronged in this situation, or if his firing/resignation was unnecessary.

Why do you think he wanted people's phones?

Do you think a rookie or youth might have more difficulty saying no?

Does Babcock's previous history with players not make you suspicious?

 

[Cas]

I guess some people wouldn't have a problem if their immediate supervisor told them they needed to have a snooper installed on their home router that the supervisor can monitor.

After all, you've got nothing to hide, do you?

 

[Monk]

Also @tarheelhockey as an added note, Gaudreau/Jenner spoke strictly about their own singular interactions, they didn't speak on behalf of other players. That's an important detail.

No, some players did. These are the problematic quotes in that regard (in my opinion):

"There were no boundaries crossed at all with anyone," Werenski said.

and

"But everyone seemed like they had no problem with the way Babs went about getting to know his players," Gaudreau said. "And if someone did have a problem, I'm sure that we would have heard about it, but no one really said anything."

EDIT to say: also just in my opinion, this doesn't really matter that much. What matters is what the players are directly saying to each other, and we'll never know. I think most players understand that media talking is just canned BS anyhow.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

No, some players did. These are the problematic quotes in that regard:

"There were no boundaries crossed at all with anyone," Werenski said.

and

"But everyone seemed like they had no problem with the way Babs went about getting to know his players," Gaudreau said. "And if someone did have a problem, I'm sure that we would have heard about it, but no one really said anything."

Oof. What a bad look.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I'm not sure I understand. You expect Friedman/Russo/SC to name the players?

Or even make a clear, substantial statement of what actually happened. All we’re getting from them is these extremely vague “trust me, some people were uncomfortable” type statements which are not materially different than the Chiclets leak. It’s not clear what happened, whether it happened to A player or many playerS, etc.

Players don’t necessarily need to be named in order for the report to be grounded in clear information. We’re not getting that from anyone yet.

As far as the official report provided to the NHL, not sure if that will ever be released.

Not sure how that works. My guess is it will be confidential and then we’ll hear about the contents via leak.

With that said, I don't think it's hard to read between the lines when there were reports of CBJ 'digesting' the information/findings and Jarmo telling The Athletic that it's a learning experience about finding 'safe' ways to share pictures. We might not know every exact detail but I'd be hard-pressed to think that Babcock didn't cross the line with younger players (especially given his history!).

I don’t think it’s hard to believe he crossed a line, but I also don’t think it’s hard to believe that it was something less serious than what’s being portrayed by the likes of Biz and Commie. The rest of the reporters have contributed next to nothing to help clarify matters. The only actual first-person evidence we have so far is player statements that directly contradict the report. That doesn’t make the report a lie, but as outsiders it leaves us in a position where we can’t judge it either way with any kind of sound confidence.

 

[Naych_PHX]

"If you done nothing wrong then what is there to fear?"

Mon Mothma: "Well, I'm fearing your definition of wrong."

 

[Mike C]

I have some questions for anyone who feels Babcock was wronged in this situation, or if his firing/resignation was unnecessary.

Why do you think he wanted people's phones?

Do you think a rookie or youth might have more difficulty saying no?

Does Babcock's previous history with players not make you suspicious?

doesn't matter why. the fact that a person in a position of authority asked for an employee's private property with confidential data on it is the wrong here

 

[Monk]

Or even make a clear, substantial statement of what actually happened. All we’re getting from them is these extremely vague “trust me, some people were uncomfortable” type statements which are not materially different than the Chiclets leak. It’s not clear what happened, whether it happened to A player or many playerS, etc.

Players don’t necessarily need to be named in order for the report to be grounded in clear information. We’re not getting that from anyone yet.



Not sure how that works. My guess is it will be confidential and then we’ll hear about the contents via leak.



I don’t think it’s hard to believe he crossed a line, but I also don’t think it’s hard to believe that it was something less serious than what’s being portrayed by the likes of Biz and Commie. The rest of the reporters have contributed next to nothing to help clarify matters. The only actual first-person evidence we have so far is player statements that directly contradict the report. That doesn’t make the report a lie, but as outsiders it leaves us in a position where we can’t judge it either way with any kind of sound confidence.

I agree with your take. As usual, the truth is surely somewhere in the middle of the "everything is on fire" and "everything is fine" takes.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

Or even make a clear, substantial statement of what actually happened. All we’re getting from them is these extremely vague “trust me, some people were uncomfortable” type statements which are not materially different than the Chiclets leak. It’s not clear what happened, whether it happened to A player or many playerS, etc.

Players don’t necessarily need to be named in order for the report to be grounded in clear information. We’re not getting that from anyone yet.



Not sure how that works. My guess is it will be confidential and then we’ll hear about the contents via leak.



I don’t think it’s hard to believe he crossed a line, but I also don’t think it’s hard to believe that it was something less serious than what’s being portrayed by the likes of Biz and Commie. The rest of the reporters have contributed next to nothing to help clarify matters. The only actual first-person evidence we have so far is player statements that directly contradict the report. That doesn’t make the report a lie, but as outsiders it leaves us in a position where we can’t judge it either way with any kind of sound confidence.

I guess that's fair enough but then what do you make of that Jarmo quote about finding safe ways to share pictures? To me, that sounds like a pretty clear admission of a f***-up on Babcock's part.

Same with Friedman (post-firing) detailing that Babcock went through a player's phone for several minutes outside team facilities (info we did not have pre-firing/report).

Too much smoke to think this was an isolated nothingburger that sunk Babcock because of perception.

 

[TheLegend]

Statement from ownership....

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

doesn't matter why. the fact that a person in a position of authority asked for an employee's private property with confidential data on it is the wrong here

For argument's sake, if Babcock had uncovered pictures of a sexual assault in the event of checking a player's phone, do you think these photos should be admissible as evidence?

 

[Cas]

For argument's sake, if Babcock had uncovered pictures of a sexual assault in the event of checking a player's phone, do you think these photos should be admissible as evidence?

How is that in any way relevant?

 

[Strangle]

This is an absolutely insane story

 

[BondraTime]

Modano wasn’t just one game. It was 42 games.

He needed 41 games played to hit the milestone that season, Babcock strung him along all season with frequent scratches and sure enough he only ended up at 40. A decent coach would have found that one extra game SOMEWHERE in the schedule to help him get there.

Modano lacerated his wrist in November and was out until the end of February.

Babcock is a tithead, and Modano should have been played every game once they were in, but he missed 3 months due to a freak injury, not Babcok.

 

[Waterbuf]

Statement from ownership....

So..."we should probably fire JD and Jarmo but we're waiting because the timing is awkward, but we're publicly acknowledging all this because its obvious that everybody is talking about it, dont worry we'll fire them when we're eliminated from playoff contention in February"

 

[DingerMcSlapshot]

Imho. No way Babs steps down....unless his Lawyers tell him to. Or he has been fired. Babs may even get Sued by some players. Maybe even the NHLPA or the State. What a Clown.

 

[Mike C]

For argument's sake, if Babcock had uncovered pictures of a sexual assault in the event of checking a player's phone, do you think these photos should be admissible as evidence?

if anyone is stupid enough to film any type of assault then sure they get what's coming to them

if babcock's m.o. is to uncover crimes, he should join the police force

there is all kinds of stuff on my phone that is nobody's business to see, such as other people's phone numbers, pictures of my kid, what i get at starbucks and what news items i scroll

the players have some culpability here is that they could have just politely said "hey mike, just run the power play and i'm not comfortable handing over my phone to a guy i just met"

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

How is that in any way relevant?

Because (1) I suspect many arguing for player privacy in this thread would have no regard for it at all in that scenario (2) people here act like Babcock's actions were illegal when that's obviously not the case. It's just a workplace dispute. One the players chose not to resolve in an upfront manner but instead by leaking it to the media.

 

[TheTotalPackage]

This is an absolutely insane story

The guy is given a second chance, and he completely effs it up with some weirdo shit. The guy is both a coaching wizard and mentally imbalanced.

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

if anyone is stupid enough to film any type of assault then sure they get what's coming to them

if babcock's m.o. is to uncover crimes, he should join the police force

there is all kinds of stuff on my phone that is nobody's business to see, such as other people's phone numbers, pictures of my kid, what i get at starbucks and what news items i scroll

the players have some culpability here is that they could have just politely said "hey mike, just run the power play and i'm not comfortable handing over my phone to a guy i just met"

That is exactly what I suggested they should do. "Can you show me your phone?" "Nope, sorry that's my personal phone and I'd rather not." According to most folks here it's impossible to expect any employee ever to say No to any request from a supervisor ever however. The only solution is to comply and then later on gossip about it.

 

[thirdJR]

Well known POS with a recorded history of abusing his players is being investigated for, once again, being a POS and abusing his players. Reports indicate the investigation isn't looking good for Babcock and he "resigns."

"This could mean anything!"

Why avoid the most obvious explanation to give plausible deniably to a man who has done nothing to deserve the benefit of the doubt?

Because the "obvious explanation" is usually done under the guise of cancel culture and the degenerate state of media.

I have some questions for anyone who feels Babcock was wronged in this situation, or if his firing/resignation was unnecessary.

I just don't put a lot of trust in guys like Bissonnette and Commodore. To me they are vultures who have been capitalizing/monetizing on the toxic aspects of the social media complex. Maybe if someone like Lidstrom or Scott Niedermayer came out with this info I'd be more convinced, but I can't ignore the fact that in a lot of these episodes of an "old school guy" getting destroyed by a former player, the millennial entitlement factor has to be part of the equation.

 

[GrumpyKoala]

The ownership group.

Get your shit together guys, we want result and no drama.
We actually have no f***ing clue about the NHL bizness , but we own this ship
so f*** off and go make us some money without any bad press. On 3, go,

Cut mic, ... f***ing morons





edit: It appear they swear a lot,
I am just a modern journalist blogger influencer,
so I am just doing my job of reporting... something