Oilers interested in hiring Mike Babcock

[banks]

I find it so ridiculous that the NHL is going to investigate Babcock now that the Oilers might hire him.

Why weren't they investigating when something happened, then?? If he did something worthy of an investigation, why is it only happening when he might get hired elsewhere instead of happening when the thing was first known?

 

[Romang67]

NHLPA colluding with Oilers fans to save the Oilers from themselves.

 

[1point21Gigawatts]

I find it so ridiculous that the NHL is going to investigate Babcock now that the Oilers might hire him.

Why weren't they investigating when something happened, then?? If he did something worthy of an investigation, why is it only happening when he might get hired elsewhere instead of happening when the thing was first known?

I am speculating here but i have wondered if Babcock voluntarily resigned from CBJ as a means to keep the investigation from moving forward. I can absolutely believe someone told Babcock, "If you resign quietly, the investigation ends here. If you try and stay on, then we will have to investigate and make our findings public. Your choice, Mikey." Maybe Babcock thought he could try again? Maybe he is calling the NHLPA's bluff? Either way, i think the NHLPA has the receipts to back them up and the NHL is moving forward at their behest. Babcock is about to FAFO, once again.

 

[pcruz]

I find it so ridiculous that the NHL is going to investigate Babcock now that the Oilers might hire him.

Why weren't they investigating when something happened, then?? If he did something worthy of an investigation, why is it only happening when he might get hired elsewhere instead of happening when the thing was first known?

How is it so?
What would they gain from investigating him before now?

Think about it.

If the intent of the investigation is to determine whether some breach of rules has occurred, and whether some sort of punishment is required, then it is necessary for the person to still be eligible to be sanctioned.

While not affiliated with the NHL anymore, by virtue of not being employed by the league or one of its members, if the NHL determined that he should have been fined, or suspended, or fired, how would they go about implementing said punishment?

I would think that train of thought to be basic and logical.

 

[AquiliniHurtsMySoul]

Sounds like there’s a lot of people, who don’t get a voice (Commador mentions the roles in the organization those people are employed) are the ones who suffer the worst of Babcock’s abuse.

That's how abusers move through life - they treat everyone above them like gold so if shit hits the fan, they are covered. He would never treat anyone badly who meant more to the Oilers than himself (i.e. McDavid and Draisaitl) intentionally so they would defend him in the media or not back up their less fortunate teammates. Narcissistic bosses do this all the time, they can often appear incredibly charming and charismatic when they are around the right people. And then the mask slips when nobody important is around.

The abuse of arena staff (particularly the concession workers) is just scraping the bottom of the barrel. These people are working their asses off for next to no money trying to make ends meet and this f***ing cocknozzle takes it upon himself to be a kid with a magnifying glass on an ant hill. It says everything you need to know about a man based on how far he punches down in life. He's not an idiot, he's f***ing brilliant but he's also a conniving sociopathic prick.

 

[banks]

How is it so?
What would they gain from investigating him before now?

Think about it.

If the intent of the investigation is to determine whether some breach of rules has occurred, and whether some sort of punishment is required, then it is necessary for the person to still be eligible to be sanctioned.

While not affiliated with the NHL anymore, by virtue of not being employed by the league or one of its members, if the NHL determined that he should have been fined, or suspended, or fired, how would they go about implementing said punishment?

I would think that train of thought to be basic and logical.

What?

You can't get out of punishment just by quitting. Are you serious? Let's say the punishment would have been a fine and losing his job. Your ok that he dodged the fine because he quit first?

If a CEO embezzles money. Do you think he should instantly be off the hook if he resigns, and then gets no investigation?

Organizations can take action against someone for what happened while they were a member, even if no longer a member.

How's that for basic and logical?

 

[Hinterland]

I was thinking the same thing…

I get that McDavid and Draisaitl are desperate to win. Maybe they saw what happened with Torts and Vegas and thought this was the answer.

Still, apparently they missed the memo that Babs is the most genuinely hated coach by their fellow players and union members. That doesn’t exactly set the foundation for a good locker room and team cohesion.

Based on the contract he signed, Draisaitl is way more desperate to make money than to win.

 

[pcruz]

What?

You can't get out of punishment just by quitting. Are you serious? Let's say the punishment would have been a fine and losing his job. Your ok that he dodged the fine because he quit first?

If a CEO embezzles money. Do you think he should instantly be off the hook if he resigns, and then gets no investigation?

Organizations can take action against someone for what happened while they were a member, even if no longer a member.

Howa that for basic and logical?

That's exactly how it works.
If the CEO resigns, the company has no other action it can take against the person.

If the company feels that the person should face other punishment, then they make a referral to thw authorities and wait for that process to run its course.

However, criminal indictment and the resulting process is outside the power of the company, and they only become involved when asked to. At that point, it is the judicial system punishing the CEO, not the company.

...

 

[Bmessy]

Hire Babs, send a #BellLetsTalk tweet. It offsets itself

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

I now believe the Oilers are doing this during the Finals as a "f*** you" to the League for not intervening on the Vegas/Cassidy saga

 

[banks]

That's exactly how it works.
If the CEO resigns, the company has no other action it can take against the person.

If the company feels that the person should face other punishment, then they make a referral to thw authorities and wait for that process to run its course.

However, criminal indictment and the resulting process is outside the power of the company, and they only become involved when asked to. At that point, it is the judicial system punishing the CEO, not the company.

...

Where are you getting this from? A simple google or AI search shows the exact opposite.

top result:
"Apr 1, 2026 · Resigning during a workplace investigation does not end the investigation, and it rarely leaves the matter behind. Your employer can typically continue the inquiry without you."

Companies take action against former employees all the time. Especially when there was a breach of contract or conduct issues.

 

[WetcoastOrca]

The Canuck fan in me wants this to happen

I think pretty much every non Oiler fan wants to see it just for the chaos and laughs.

 

[snag]

Not a Babock fan (nor Bowman), but....

In the NHL we have had guys charged with actual crimes....some convicted....rapists, vehicular homicide, impaired driving, drug possession, kidnapping, assault, domestic battery, assaulting a police officer.

And let's not forget Joel Quenneville...or Bowman for that matter.

If they don't let him back I will be shocked.

Then again...maybe I wouldn't.

 

[pcruz]

Where are you getting this from? A simple google or AI search shows the exact opposite.

top result:
"Apr 1, 2026 · Resigning during a workplace investigation does not end the investigation, and it rarely leaves the matter behind. Your employer can typically continue the inquiry without you."

Companies take action against former employees all the time. Especially when there was a breach of contract or conduct issues.

And what, pray tell, comes of these investigations where the companies DO NOT WANT to referr to the authorities for criminal indictment.

Are they going to demote the CEO, fine them, suspend them, fire them?

 

[banks]

And what, pray tell, comes of these investigations where the companies DO NOT WANT to referr to the authorities for criminal indictment.

Are they going to demote the CEO, fine them, suspend them, fire them?

What?

Why would a company not want an embezzling CEO to face criminal charges? What are you even talking about at this point? If they don't want to, they don't press charges or investigate. Yes, they could demote, fire, or fine them. But there's nothing about resigning that stops any of this.

Even if someone resigns, a company can still after that "terminate after resignation" if there was misconduct. That can affect severance or benefits.

In this case with Babcock, the NHL could have investigated and decided if there was an issue. If not, they could have cleared his name, making him immediately eligible to be hired elsewhere. Otherwise they could have suspended him, making him ineligible to be hired elsewhere. They could have fined him. They could have implemented rules or regulations on employees to stop them from the same thing.

They could have done many things, none of which stop being relevant if he resigns.

This is getting off topic. I'm done defining the legal aspects at this point. The NHL should have done something when it happened if they think it's still serious enough now.

 

[pcruz]

What?

Why would a company not want an embezzling CEO to face criminal charges? What are you even talking about at this point? If they don't want to, they don't press charges or investigate. Yes, they could demote, fire, or fine them. But there's nothing about resigning that stops any of this.

Even if someone resigns, a company can still after that "terminate after resignation" if there was misconduct. That can affect severance or benefits.

In this case with Babcock, the NHL could have investigated and decided if there was an issue. If not, they could have cleared his name, making him immediately eligible to be hired elsewhere. Otherwise they could have suspended him, making him ineligible to be hired elsewhere. They could have fined him. They could have implemented rules or regulations on employees to stop them from the same thing.

They could have done many things, none of which stop being relevant if he resigns.

This is getting off topic. I'm done defining the legal aspects at this point. The NHL should have done something when it happened if they think it's still serious enough now.

The NHL has not referred Babs for any outside discipline.

They have not wanted to get outside entities involved.

For that reason, when Babs resigned, they were finished with any investigation....

 

[Fish on The Sand]

I am speculating here but i have wondered if Babcock voluntarily resigned from CBJ as a means to keep the investigation from moving forward. I can absolutely believe someone told Babcock, "If you resign quietly, the investigation ends here. If you try and stay on, then we will have to investigate and make our findings public. Your choice, Mikey." Maybe Babcock thought he could try again? Maybe he is calling the NHLPA's bluff? Either way, i think the NHLPA has the receipts to back them up and the NHL is moving forward at their behest. Babcock is about to FAFO, once again.

I have to think the Oilers already know what any kind of investigation will turn up, otherwise why go through all of this?

Ditto for Babcock. If he resigned to end the investigation then surely he knows what it will turn up and is willing to have that come out to coach again.

 

[snag]

The NHL has not referred Babs for any outside discipline.

They have not wanted to get outside entities involved.

For that reason, when Babs resigned, they were finished with any investigation....

Until an issue like this came up...oh wait....it has...

Bowman hired the year after this went down....
Quenneville hired the year after that...

You have a guy with talents that people will want. If he is persona non grata, then make it so. But for f***s suck....be consistent about it too. The NHL overall comes off as run by schmucks.

 

[FiveTacos]

The New York Times article on Babs is pretty brutal.
The really is no ambiguity. The guy is a massive scumbag to peo athletes, but also to building staff, cleaning crew, any anyone else around him.

To some degree I don't care how he treats players, once they're established. Even a solid 4th liner has some degree of clout, and they've all grown up having dealt with asshole coaches. There's even a certain expectation of it.

But yeah, treating staff like garbage is purely the realm of garbage people. There are hard ass coaches out there, but they can keep it to the guys under their purview because underneath it they're decent human beings.

And what, pray tell, comes of these investigations where the companies DO NOT WANT to referr to the authorities for criminal indictment.

Are they going to demote the CEO, fine them, suspend them, fire them?

If it's non criminal but he would have been fired, resigns to avert an investigation, then a few years later he comes back to try and work for another branch of your company? Absolutely he should and would be re investigated before he'd be taken back.

 

[pcruz]

I think I get where you're coming from.

You're asking the wrong question.

The answer you want, is "why did the NHL not want to look into the matter more deeply at the time".

It's not, "why are they looking into this now".


They sound the same, but the motive behind each of those statements is very different.

The latter is motivated by not wanting the guy to be rehired, or to put roadblocks up.

The former is motivated for protection of the league and its reputation for the stuff coaches somwtimes do that crosses the line.

 

[pcruz]

If it's non criminal but he would have been fired, resigns to avert an investigation, then a few years later he comes back to try and work for another branch of your company? Absolutely he should and would be re investigated before he'd be taken back.

Which is exactly what is happening here.


We know the NHL.
It is run by lawyers.
They operate on liability limitation at all times, to the detriment of all. Hell, the CTE arguments in court prove this.

They wanted Babs gone at the time, and offered him a clean break without investigating him.
They wanted it to avoid having to dig into his actions, which would have been damaging to the reputation of the league.

Babcock leaving of his own volition was a win for all parties involved, including Babs.

The PA is caught between a rock and a hard place here. They have a responsibility to defend the rights of the players.
They have a fiduciary responsibility to the health of the league, otherwise there is to PA as a result of there being no players should there be no league.


They punted the investigation at the time in deference to the league.

They can't continue that stance anymore, and have asked the league to dig in as should have been done 3 years ago....

 

[ElysiumAB]

I think I get where you're coming from.

You're asking the wrong question.

The answer you want, is "why did the NHL not want to look into the matter more deeply at the time".

It's not, "why are they looking into this now".


They sound the same, but the motive behind each of those statements is very different.

The latter is motivated by not wanting the guy to be rehired, or to put roadblocks up.

The former is motivated for protection of the league and its reputation for the stuff coaches somwtimes do that crosses the line.

I appreciate you. Lol

 

[pcruz]

I appreciate you. Lol

This is my day to day.

 

[Claypool]

Detroit had 104 points that year and Babcock sat Modano for exactly one game coming down the stretch knowing that would prevent him from getting 1500. When you consider what Babcock did to Spezza where he sat him first game in his hometown Toronto when Babs knew Spezza had bought tickets for his family and then played him the game after, it definitely seems like he just enjoys screwing with people.

So any player that reaches 1499 games, the coach should be forced to play him?

In 2019 Jeff Blashill didn’t play Dennis Cholowski in his hometown Vancouver after family already bought tickets, didn’t play him during the father’s trip, and didn’t play him on his bobblehead night. I guess he should be banned from coaching too?

 

[Royale With Cheese]

So any player that reaches 1499 games, the coach should be forced to play him?

In 2019 Jeff Blashill didn’t play Dennis Cholowski in his hometown Vancouver after family already bought tickets, didn’t play him during the father’s trip, and didn’t play him on his bobblehead night. I guess he should be banned from coaching too?

There is a difference between Mike Modano - a Stanley Cup champ, HHOF, and considered one of the greatest USA hockey players ever and Dennis Cholowski.

Sitting future hall of famer Modano at game 1,499 (after the DRW had clinched a playoff spot) was widely seen throughout the league, and from his own GM and DRW players, as a dick move.