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

[Baby Punisher]

After watching Jarko, and JD's press conference it's very obvious that this was a good old boys hire. TBH JD and Jarko need to go to. They knew what Babcock was when they hired him and did it anyway. The bottom line is this, you can not trust anyone with cock in their name.

 

[BelovedIsles]

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.

That may have been the case with some of the players. Even so, the request is inappropriate, and does not create a culture that’s conducive to success.

 

[eramosat]

if they want, they already said they'll keep advocating for players so... if they get another scoop, why not?

the real question is why you have a bigger problem with them and their role in this than you seem to Babcock and it happening at all.

because they have zero history of such dedicated advocacy. in fact...they usually thumb their noses, so to speak, at infractions of NHLPA guidelines

...but they didn't. They simply stated what they were told and it was investigated as it should be. If babcock was a normal person he would be coaching right now.

yeah...the NHLPA, or whomever, investigated a serious case of phone photo reveal abuse, a previously unknown abuse. and the presence and attention of a popular hockey podcast meant nothing extra.

P.S. wow, no response for 10+ minutes...

 

[theVladiator]

As for Babcock. he's gonna get millions to sit at home so... maybe he's the smart one.

But, then again, he may have thought to himself, "I'm gonna be me and if the players don't like it, they can fire me and pay me my millions".

Babcock traded some embarrassment for millions. It is what it is. I'd happily let you drag my name through the mud if you're willing to write me a 9 figure cheque so...

Between you and the Jackets owner, I am not sure who cares more about Babs millions.

For the rest of us, I think it's kind of irrelevant whether he did or did not get paid by the Jackets. If he did, it is more of a question of incompetence of their lawyer team than any sort of moral victory for Babcock.

 

[Chips]

yeah...the NHLPA, or whomever, investigated a serious case of phone photo reveal abuse, a previously unknown abuse. and the presence and attention of a popular hockey podcast meant nothing extra.

P.S. wow, no response for 10+ minutes...

The NHLPA wouldn’t have investigated if not for the media attention. NHL/Hockey tradition is to bury shit for years because otherwise it’s “distracting,” and not actually solve problems.

Biz found out because players felt more comfortable talking to him than management, shined a light on it and got the ball rolling. Doubled down and tripled down after people started calling him a liar and after the PA almost just accepted the initial team PR release


Media attention shining a light after discover is pretty much when the league actually acts on something.


Babcock x2, Bill Peters, the Kyle Beach situation, hazing issues etc

 

[JS19]

because they have zero history of such dedicated advocacy. in fact...they usually thumb their noses, so to speak, at infractions of NHLPA guidelines

So because someone doesn't have a history of advocacy, it means they should never advocate at all?

Do you realize how unreasonable you sound?

 

[Enga Olly]

LOL. How would you like me to post with "conviction"?

Should I bold it?

Every boss I've known has had their "favourites" and those favourites have been treated with favouritism - some slight, some heavy. It's human nature. As an adult, you get over it.


My "favourites" comment had nothing to do with the phones.

My guess : The phone thing is being blown out of proportions / exaggerated. I'll take him at his word that he was just trying to be friendly. I somehow doubt he actually took their phones and went thru them.

telling us all "that's life" oh wise one - so cocksure
and it appears you can't tell the difference between having favourites and playing favourites. Not all sub-ordinates are created equal. Some have earned to be a favourite. Basic respect to all and no game playing.
Babcock and managers and executives like him play games and play favorites ad that is unacceptable not "life"

 

[BelovedIsles]

How do you hire this guy?

Haha ‘phone thing,’ thank you for the entertainment.

 

[eramosat]

So because someone doesn't have a history of advocacy, it means they should never advocate at all?

Do you realize how unreasonable you sound?

jeez. you make me have to say it.
just because someone doesn't have a history of advocacy doesn't mean they should never advocate at all. Do you realize how unreasonable you sound...

 

[ORRFForever]

telling us all "that's life" oh wise one - so cocksure
and it appears you can't tell the difference between having favourites and playing favourites. Not all sub-ordinates are created equal. Some have earned to be a favourite. Basic respect to all and no game playing.
Babcock and managers and executives like him play games and play favorites ad that is unacceptable not "life"

Is that what your sociology professor told you?

Between you and the Jackets owner, I am not sure who cares more about Babs millions.

For the rest of us, I think it's kind of irrelevant whether he did or did not get paid by the Jackets. If he did, it is more of a question of incompetence of their lawyer team than any sort of moral victory for Babcock.

Um... okay.

 

[Hockeyholic]

Deserves to be unemployed again. No question.

I wonder how this will affect his chances as a future HHOF coach.

 

[BelovedIsles]

After 64 pages I can’t fathom that I’m still reading: ‘there’s nothing wrong with asking for family photos.’ Have you not read the reports that have been released, this goes well beyond casually asking for family photos.

 

[SmoggyTwinkles]

Being a head coach does not give you the right to invade the privacy of your players.

Or your boss.

I just read that Jarmo or whatever his name is was also asked by Babcock to give over his phone.

wtf?

 

[BertCorbeau]

Or your boss.

I just read that Jarmo or whatever his name is was also asked by Babcock to give over his phone.

wtf?

"Babs we'll offer you this head coaching job for X years @ $ amount.. what do you say?"

".. I'll accept as long as I can see the photos on your phone"

"Ummm... okay.."

 

[Turin]

First...Babcock was hired to be their Head Coach...it's kind of a position of authority, which might include difficult or uncomfortable situations...do you agree?

Second...there is no other type of justice being invoked than social justice in this situation. Babcock stands accused of "inappropriately asking to see pictures on a phone that he should not have asked to see". There is no type of law, or rule, or boundary he has crossed, except accepted societal rules.

So yeah. It's entirely social justice that Spittin' Chiclets is putting their power behind now. And it cannot last without fuel. And who's next, or why...we'll wait and see. Or maybe someone will have a poll to decide.

If my boss wanted my phone I would tell them to piss off and report them to HR immediately. And Babcock is not even the players boss in a real world sense of the term. Babcock stands accused of being a shitty person to deal with, which is 90% of his job - dealing with people. Therefor after investigation he was fired because he sucks at his job. This isn't somebody getting fired for having milquetoast political opinions in private which is what cancel culture actually originally referred to, you're just watering it down and making the term meaningless.

There's 32 NHL HC jobs in the world and Mike Babcock has proved over the last decade that he is not even close to being qualified to be one of those guys, this was simply the final straw. Now his poor cancelled ass gets to retire to a villa in Saskatchewan with generational wealth for having Lidstrom, Zetterberg, Datsyuk, Franzen, Rafalski and Holmstrom on the same team at the same time.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

If my boss wanted my phone I would tell them to piss off and report them to HR immediately.

Make sure you're not working at a place that allows your boss and/or HR to go through your phone or your personal belongings, and if you refuse you can be fired on the spot.

Yes, those places really do exist.

 

[SeanMoneyHands]

Didn’t Mike make 10M a year when he was the Leafs coach? And how would CBJ have been able to afford him?

 

[ORRFForever]

"Babs we'll offer you this head coaching job for X years @ $ amount.. what do you say?"

".. I'll accept as long as I can see the photos on your phone"

"Ummm... okay.."

You offer me $6M+/yr and you can look up my colon for all I care...

Mike Babcock's new contract in Columbus will be long-term.

Mike Babcock is setting himself up for another long term payday after earning a small fortune from the Maple Leafs.

www.hockeyfeed.com

 

[BelovedIsles]

more like:
CBJ: "Resign or you'll be fired"
Babcock: "I may be an asshole, but I haven't violated my contract or the CBA so you can't fire me without paying me out entirely"
CBJ: "We can certainly try, and we'll be happy to make this very ugly and expensive to drag out. How about we come to an agreement for your resignation and a waiver. What's a good number?"
Babs: "Get your checkbook and a pen"

Babs: ‘You know, while we’re here, let me just get one more peek at those phones.’

 

[catnip]

Let's keep in mind that, supposedly, the whole phone thing was just one of the main concerns. I don't know how anyone can in good faith say things have been blown out of proportion. Good management and great leaders don't leave a trail of serious concerns in their wake.

 

[JS19]

jeez. you make me have to say it.
just because someone doesn't have a history of advocacy doesn't mean they should never advocate at all. Do you realize how unreasonable you sound...

So then why do you even bring up the lack of history in advocacy, as if it's a gotcha against Bissonette and the Spittin' Chiclets podcast? You agreeing with my statement only makes your further points look even more ridiculous.

Did it ever occur to you that:
1) Having a player go to Paul + podcast means there was a failure of leadership in the first place? If they couldn't keep it in-house and deal with it with Jenner + management, that it meant the person had zero leverage and this would've just quietly got swept under the rug? Instead of focusing on this issue, you direct your ire towards someone who reported on the news. Literally, shooting the messenger instead of the one committing the infraction in the first place.

2) That the right to privacy is a fundamental and constitutional right? For someone who's willing to die on this hill that this is only a "societal" matter and "social justice" issue, you've completely forgotten that there are legal implications to infringing on someone's right to privacy. Why do you think any terms of service + contract + document outlines the respect of someone's right to privacy?

You're letting your defense of Babcock and this absolutely f***ing stupid "cancel culture"/"SJW" thing (Newsflash: you clearly don't know what these concepts mean beyond just uttering them as buzzwords) completely cloud you from understanding logic.

 

[SmoggyTwinkles]

This whole thing is really eye opening to me.

I always assumed that most people held their personal privacy in very high regard.

You know, freedom and rights and all that.

You aren't looking at my phone if you're in a position of authority unless you have a warrant.

Like, you want my Windows password? My banking login info to see what I'm buying?

Those things are off limit and a person in an employed management role should not be suggesting to anyone that it's normal for them to request that type of access to your private stuff.

Simple as that.

 

[Harvey Birdman]

This whole thing is really eye opening to me.

I always assumed that most people held their personal privacy in very high regard.

You know, freedom and rights and all that.

You aren't looking at my phone if you're in a position of authority unless you have a warrant.

Like, you want my Windows password? My banking login info to see what I'm buying?

Those things are off limit and a person in an employed management role should not be suggesting to anyone that it's normal for them to request that type of access to your private stuff.

Simple as that.

I’m not even that old. I’m 38 and it’s shocking to me how little those younger than me care about privacy. It’s utterly shocking at times.

 

[Mike C]

Or your boss.

I just read that Jarmo or whatever his name is was also asked by Babcock to give over his phone.

wtf?

those Johnny Trademark negotiations must have been a pip last season

"hey JT, your wife is VERY attractive. I like pretty women too....mind if I show you my phone? Just want to make you feel like Columbus is your home"

This whole thing is really eye opening to me.

I always assumed that most people held their personal privacy in very high regard.

You know, freedom and rights and all that.

You aren't looking at my phone if you're in a position of authority unless you have a warrant.

Like, you want my Windows password? My banking login info to see what I'm buying?

Those things are off limit and a person in an employed management role should not be suggesting to anyone that it's normal for them to request that type of access to your private stuff.

Simple as that.

End of story!!!

 

[mattihp]

This whole thing is really eye opening to me.

I always assumed that most people held their personal privacy in very high regard.

You know, freedom and rights and all that.

You aren't looking at my phone if you're in a position of authority unless you have a warrant.

Like, you want my Windows password? My banking login info to see what I'm buying?

Those things are off limit and a person in an employed management role should not be suggesting to anyone that it's normal for them to request that type of access to your private stuff.

Simple as that.

They do hold their OWN personal privacy in very high regard, but don't expect others to do too.

It's like that lady who said that things the annoying orange said was just locker room talk but her husband and her sons did not talk like that, or anyone she knew for that matter. And that she wouldn't accept her sons talking like that..