Confirmed with Link: CBJ hire Don Waddell as President of Hockey Operations and General Manager. JD to serve as Senior Advisor

[CBJx614]

https://x.com/i/web/status/1837160737266901314

 

[tunnelvision]

I guess this is a too complicated and foreign concept for most fans, but it's possible to think simultaneously that:

- nepotism is wrong
- nepotism seems to exist within the org
- Nash seems to be a beneficiary of it and has achieved his current role at least partially for wrong reasons
- Nash might be good at what he does and will be given a chance to show it

 

[Viqsi]

I guess this is a too complicated and foreign concept for most fans, but it's possible to think simultaneously that:

- nepotism is wrong
- nepotism seems to exist within the org
- Nash seems to be a beneficiary of it and has achieved his current role at least partially for wrong reasons
- Nash might be good at what he does and will be given a chance to show it

Advocacy for #3 precludes advocacy for #4.

 

[tunnelvision]

Advocacy for #3 precludes advocacy for #4.

Please explain how

 

[Viqsi]

Please explain

The definition of nepotism inherently implies lack of fitness for the job. That's why it is considered bad. Trying to say both is effectively trying to say "he's not fit for the job, but he might be fit for the job". It's self-contradictory.

 

[tunnelvision]

The definition of nepotism inherently implies lack of fitness for the job.

According to which definition?

Nepotism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Nepotism is the act of granting an advantage, privilege, or position to relatives or friends in an occupation or field.

It seems to me that nepotism for you means: "The act of granting an advantage, privilege, or position to relatives or friends in an occupation or field" while knowing they're not fit for the job.

How I understand it: "The act of granting an advantage, privilege, or position to relatives or friends in an occupation or field" with or without knowing how fit they are for the job.

 

[majormajor]

I guess this is a too complicated and foreign concept for most fans, but it's possible to think simultaneously that:

- nepotism is wrong
- nepotism seems to exist within the org
- Nash seems to be a beneficiary of it and has achieved his current role at least partially for wrong reasons
- Nash might be good at what he does and will be given a chance to show it

I'm not very confident in Nash as an exec but I'm not sure this is nepotism, even by your definition which allows that he might be good at his job.

He's spent more time working his way up from the bottom than the former player GMs that I'm familiar with. Guys like Sakic and Yzerman went straight to the top group of execs - meanwhile we had Nash getting coffees and helping B prospects for a couple years and he's still not at the top. I couldn't tell you how Briere, Conroy, or Guerin started in FOs. I know Staios is literally the owners friend.

Should we just have a rule against hiring former star players? That would have kept the Avs from hiring Sakic.

 

[tunnelvision]

Should we just have a rule against hiring former star players? That would have kept the Avs from hiring Sakic.

Nowhere in my posts have I suggested anything like that even implicitly.

Probably all of those guys you used as examples have had some sort of personal relationship with the people that had decided to hire them, and that pre-existing relationship has had an impact on the hire, which is wrong or at least very questionable.

It's possible that every front office member of every NHL team have been initially hired/promoted partially for wrong nepotism-like reasons, and therefore one might think it's useless trying to point out that "Jackets are doing it wrong!" because everyone's doing it. That's a valid point, but what I would disagree with is the assumption that there is always an equal amount of "right" and "wrong" reasons behind every single FO and team staff hire in NHL history.

I believe most hires have been done mostly for the right reasons (which is still partially, not completely), and I also believe that the ratio of right and wrong reasons for a hire do vary depending on the team and the hired person.

 

[koteka]

Advocacy for #3 precludes advocacy for #4.

I 100% agree with #3 and have no choice but to accept #4.

All I want is to compete for a Cup. We have never come close to doing that. To me hiring and promoting ex Jackets is part of the same failing pattern we have been in for several years. Maybe Nash is the right guy for the job. That would be fantastic.

I think a signal is being sent that Nash is the heir apparent. I believe this is not good. If a really good up-and-coming junior executive is deciding between two potential jobs - one with an aging exec with no heir apparent and the Blue Jackets - I think he takes the other job (all other things equal) because we have this guy in the organization who is all but guaranteed the first look for any promotion.

Anyway, good luck high ranking hockey executive Rick Nash. I hope you don’t disappoint me like unbelievably skilled hockey player Rick Nash ultimately did.

 

[thebus88]

Some people just need a villain.

Oh, the irony.

 

[thebus88]

Coaches and FO are two different beasts. The average NHL coaching tenure is like 2-3 years.

I’m not great at math, but, even at 2.5 years per coach we’re looking at 10 years.

So taking Torts out of the equation, since you're just throwing him in there to inflate that number, we're not that far out of the norm. Vincent was an emergency hire who didn't get extended, so I wouldn't really count him either. That leaves Larsen and Babcock.

Again, along with the Laine/Merzlikins and the group of vets situation, we have the extremely UNIQUE situation of our coach “retiring”, only to come back a year later to coach a different team. Still don’t understand why this isn’t talked about more. Was his “voice” shared by the players in the “cut out the cancer” meeting??

To say the CBJ coaching situation of recent years is anywhere near “the norm”, is ridiculous. To use WHATEVER happened with Tortorella, to attempt to normalize things even more, is possibly the only thing more ridiculous.

Babcock was a case where he might have actually been the most qualified person for the job, with the most experience and the resume to back it up....and how did that work out?

We still have essentially zero idea about what ACTUALLY happened with Babcock. He looked at people’s phones, big f***ing whoop. Reality is that whatever he saw IN the phone(s) in probably worse than his actions of looking at said phones. Literally did the shit he was probably asked and tasked to do. Then everyone joined the groupthink crowd and called for his head. Should have kept him around.

This team would be BEST off with Torts as its GM, and Babcock as coach. If you ACTUALLY wanted to win a Stanley Cup.

 

[thebus88]

All I want is to compete for a Cup. We have never come close to doing that.

What do you consider a team that can beat ANY of the teams on ANY night, that you would consider “competing for the cup”??

Because that’s what the CBJ team was for about 4 years, about 4 years ago.

 

[koteka]

What do you consider a team that can beat ANY of the teams on ANY night, that you would consider “competing for the cup”??

Because that’s what the CBJ team was for about 4 years, about 4 years ago.

When we can have a few seasons where we get to the 2nd or 3rd round of the playoffs and teams are afraid to play us in the playoffs, then I will think we are serious Cup competitors. At our best, teams like Pittsburgh, Boston, and Washington didn’t fear us in the playoffs.

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

We still have essentially zero idea about what ACTUALLY happened with Babcock. He looked at people’s phones, big f***ing whoop. Reality is that whatever he saw IN the phone(s) in probably worse than his actions of looking at said phones. Literally did the shit he was probably asked and tasked to do. Then everyone joined the groupthink crowd and called for his head.

It seems that you know exactly what happened.

 

[JacketFanInFL]

There’s no reason this needed to happen

Genuinely do not get the hype for Nash in the front office. Trade request aside when he was a player, what parts of the organization have measurably gotten better under his direction?

And didn’t he support Babcock?

 

[stevo61]

Using supporting Babcock as a negative is so far beyond stupid. Doesn't anyone form their own opinion of a person based on their own experience? Or I guess the new day thing is just follow the crowd and throw your own experiences out the door.

Also using his on ice play to predict the quality he would provide a FO is... I don't even know anymore

 

[NotTooWideArena]

I'm inclined to agree none of us have enough concrete data to evaluate Nash's qualifications for the new role. So I'll take a wait-and-see attitude. (It's not like ownership is holding its breath waiting for my take on the move.)

Was it nepotism? I prefer "favoritism" because I reserve "nepotism" for blood relations or something not publicly known. But that's just me obsessing about semantics.

We might be wise to acknowledge the possibility that the organization did a real search for candidates and landed on Nash objectively. Skepticism, however justified, is not the same as proof.

 

[CBJx614]

I'm inclined to agree none of us have enough concrete data to evaluate Nash's qualifications for the new role. So I'll take a wait-and-see attitude. (It's not like ownership is holding its breath waiting for my take on the move.)

Was it nepotism? I prefer "favoritism" because I reserve "nepotism" for blood relations or something not publicly known. But that's just me obsessing about semantics.

We might be wise to acknowledge the possibility that the organization did a real search for candidates and landed on Nash objectively. Skepticism, however justified, is not the same as proof.

This is where I'm at. There's definitely a factor of "look he's one of us" as the face of CBJ for so long. But it's not like it's unwarranted. Was it nepotism or favoritism that landed him the role of GM for team Canada and assistant the year before that? Or was it maybe that people around him think he has a good mind for putting together a good team?

Obviously team Canada didn't live up to their expectations, but what do you do when the best players decline or are unable to play because they are/were in the playoffs?

 

[Iron Balls McGinty]

I don't care what title you give him, as long as there's someone above him (Abdou) that will stop him from doing dumb stuff.

I get it, Sakic/Yzerman ... why not us? Cause those guys are hall of famers! First thing Nash should do when the owners crown him king of moneymakers, is taken that jersey down!

So you have such a negative opinion about Rick Nash that you want a guy who is clearly much younger with much less hockey experience telling him what to do? The guy is not even 30 yet and has only worked in hockey for 3 years.

I think the clearly bring different skillset and roles to the table here.

 

[GoJackets1]

I still really don’t understand why people get their panties in such a bunch over what Nash does. Who cares? Lots of folks seem certain that he’s terrible in whatever role he’s in. How would any of us know?

He’s clearly highly thought of both inside and out of the organization.

Quoting myself for posterity

 

[CannonFire1]

I'm neither for Nash nor against Nash when it comes to his front office advancement. I simply don't have enough information to judge. But companies all over the world do this sort of thing every day as part of their business continuity plans. They identify talent and then attempt to develop those individuals through some combination of mentoring, formal education, and stretch assignments. That also often includes allowing people the leeway to make mistakes and learn from them. Viewed in that context I don't understand the anti-Nash sentiment.

 

[Viqsi]

I'm neither for Nash nor against Nash when it comes to his front office advancement. I simply don't have enough information to judge. But companies all over the world do this sort of thing every day as part of their business continuity plans. They identify talent and then attempt to develop those individuals through some combination of mentoring, formal education, and stretch assignments. That also often includes allowing people the leeway to make mistakes and learn from them. Viewed in that context I don't understand the anti-Nash sentiment.

He's a name people recognize from this franchise's past, therefore Bad and Forever Ineffably Tainted With Horrible Failure.

There really isn't any reasoning to it beyond that.

 

[Viqsi]

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5783565/2024/09/22/rick-nash-blue-jackets-gm/

Item No. 1: Nash’s new title​

Ever since Don Waddell was hired as president and general manager in late May, Rick Nash’s status within the Blue Jackets’ front office has only elevated. The news this week that Nash now has a different title — director of hockey operations — makes it clear where all of this is going, too.

It’s hard to say how long Waddell, who turned 66 last month, will want to continue in the GM’s chair, but it’s obvious who will get the chair next.

“Rick is going to be involved in every decision we make for this hockey team,” Waddell said. ” It started with the coaching search (for Dean Evason); he was a big part of that. He’s a true professional. He’s a quiet guy, but when you ask him a question, he gives you his honest thoughts and he gives you a very thoughtful answer.

“I knew him as a player, but I didn’t know him as a person. But throughout my time here, I’ve gotten to know him as a person, and I wouldn’t be a very smart guy running this team if I didn’t surround myself with people like Rick Nash.”

Nash joined the Blue Jackets in 2019, shortly after he retired prematurely due to a series of concussions late in his career. He was hired by former GM Jarmo Kekalainen as his special assistant, but two years later he began a three-year run as director of player development.

It was clear after last season that Nash had hoped to be considered for the GMs job when Kekalainen was fired, but the organization — specifically Mike Priest, who led the search — made it clear that they were looking for someone with previous NHL experience as a GM.

Waddell is the Blue Jackets’ fourth GM. None of the previous hires — Doug MacLean, Scott Howson and Kekalainen — had been NHL GMs before taking the job.

The goal, over the next two or three seasons, is to put Nash as close to the job as possible under Waddell, who acknowledged this week that Nash as the club’s future GM has been discussed internally.

“We’ve talked about it, just in general,” Waddell said. “Rick has three young kids at home, and he’s been away his whole career. I said to him, ‘Make sure you take care of your family. Let’s do that first, because that’s the most important thing.’

“Everything I touch, I’m going to give you that opportunity to learn. It’s a great opportunity for both of us. For me, it’s an extra resource, and hopefully I can teach him some things from experience through the years.”

Nash will continue to oversee the club’s player development program, which is vitally important for any small-market franchise. But he’ll have his hands, eyes and opinions in every aspect of the organization — contract negotiations, trade offers, scouting, etc.

“Don’s been great,” Nash said. “I have to say, Jarmo was great with me, too. He brought me in and opened doors to me.

“Don coming in has just meant a different way of doing things, and I’m going to be a sponge and try to learn as much as I can from him..”

 

[koteka]

He's a name people recognize from this franchise's past, therefore Bad and Forever Ineffably Tainted With Horrible Failure.

There really isn't any reasoning to it beyond that.

We seem to hire an unusually large number of ex Jackets. Meanwhile a lot of sports coaching/management legends are hired from other teams than the team they played for. Part of that is you don’t want to hire your own guy and then have to fire him which creates bad blood. Part of that is you want new ideas.

Universities tend not to hire their own graduates as professors because they don’t want academic inbreeding. Even good universities do this.

If we look at that rather successful football team down the road as a model, the successful football coaches are not former OSU football players and the guy who just concluded a rather successful run as Athletic Director was from Notre Dame. Sure there are a couple of ex players working in media or assistant coaching, but if they ever want a head coaching or high level administrative gig, they will need to go elsewhere and prove themselves.

 

[Viqsi]

We seem to hire an unusually large number of ex Jackets.

By comparison to the rest of the league we're about average to above-average.