Coaching and management changes around the league

[Zee]

Thought this tweet/info from Jack Han is also worth mentioning:

https://twitter.com/JhanHky/status/1701669871547765070

It says a lot about how garbage spittin chiclets is that they could find a story to bash Mike Babcock of all people where they end up looking like the toxic ones.

This would involve giving Babcock the benefit of the doubt, of which I'm not prepared to do.  Also, the chicklets report was based on a player from Columbus reaching out to Bissonette with the story, so at the very least not all players were on board with what Babcock was doing.

 

[bustaheims]

It's weird, but it definitely doesn't seem malicious. Feels like trying to create a controversy out of a pretty innocuous oddity. 

 

[Guilt Trip]

https://twitter.com/BizNasty2point0/status/1701718602972541296

 

[Frank E]

"A member of the team" sent me a text, so it must be true.

I certainly hope he's not depicting that it's true based on a text from one player.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

This would involve giving Babcock the benefit of the doubt, of which I'm not prepared to do.  Also, the chicklets report was based on a player from Columbus reaching out to Bissonette with the story, so at the very least not all players were on board with what Babcock was doing.

The thing is there's very obviously truth to this story, the chicklets crew is just spinning it in the worst possible way. Babcock asking players and crew that he's met for the first time for pictures of their family and where they went on vacation over the summer isn't weird at all. It seems like a pretty solid way to get to know people beyond what they are as hockey players. Multiple people have essentially confirmed that this is just something Babcock does to break the ice with people. It's basically adult show and tell, and while as an introvert that sounds like hell it's pretty standard team building stuff.

For whatever reason Biz and co. (they hate Babcock and they love attention, the former is valid the latter not really) have spun that into "Babcock forcefully grabs peoples phones off them to see if there's pictures of drugs or nudes or other illicit activities to confirm that they're good people and if they refuse they're off the team".

Like I get it, Babcock sucks. And people are entitled to their opinion that he shouldn't coach in the NHL. But like wait until he actually F's up before taking the pitchforks out again.

 

[dappleganger]

"A member of the team" sent me a text, so it must be true.

I certainly hope he's not depicting that it's true based on a text from one player.

That text doesn't seem like it's coming from a member of the Blue Jackets, "He's doing it to guys in Columbus now same shit he did to me - guys need to know that's coming" -- Seems to imply it happened to the texter previously. The whole thing seems bogus.

 

[Guilt Trip]

"A member of the team" sent me a text, so it must be true.

I certainly hope he's not depicting that it's true based on a text from one player.

That text doesn't seem like it's coming from a member of the Blue Jackets, "He's doing it to guys in Columbus now same shit he did to me - guys need to know that's coming" -- Seems to imply it happened to the texter previously. The whole thing seems bogus.

So Leafs or Wings player. The whole picture time thing is weird to me.

 

[Arn]

For Babcock, he probably does have to be extra careful. Things he thinks are innocuous may not come across that way based on his past.

But I also find the likes of guys like chiclets to also be representative of the more poisonous side of the sport too.

 

[dappleganger]

Poisonous you say...

Edit: The wording of that post sounds mildly like a sexual assault and with the recent Hockey Canada scandal, not a great look imo.


https://x.com/BizNasty2point0/status/1701633099371860220

 

[Bullfrog]

This would involve giving Babcock the benefit of the doubt, of which I'm not prepared to do.  Also, the chicklets report was based on a player from Columbus reaching out to Bissonette with the story, so at the very least not all players were on board with what Babcock was doing.

The thing is there's very obviously truth to this story, the chicklets crew is just spinning it in the worst possible way. Babcock asking players and crew that he's met for the first time for pictures of their family and where they went on vacation over the summer isn't weird at all. It seems like a pretty solid way to get to know people beyond what they are as hockey players. Multiple people have essentially confirmed that this is just something Babcock does to break the ice with people. It's basically adult show and tell, and while as an introvert that sounds like hell it's pretty standard team building stuff.

For whatever reason Biz and co. (they hate Babcock and they love attention, the former is valid the latter not really) have spun that into "Babcock forcefully grabs peoples phones off them to see if there's pictures of drugs or nudes or other illicit activities to confirm that they're good people and if they refuse they're off the team".

Like I get it, Babcock sucks. And people are entitled to their opinion that he shouldn't coach in the NHL. But like wait until he actually F's up before taking the pitchforks out again.

I'm with you on the last part, but the rest is a bit weird. I wouldn't call it solid. What if a player doesn't want to share his personal photos? Now he's in the awkward position of feeling pressured to do so because it's the coach.

It'd be pretty strange if an office manager requested to see photos of their employees.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

I'm with you on the last part, but the rest is a bit weird. I wouldn't call it solid. What if a player doesn't want to share his personal photos? Now he's in the awkward position of feeling pressured to do so because it's the coach.

It'd be pretty strange if an office manager requested to see photos of their employees.

Well this isn't exactly a typical office manager/employee relationship. Coaches are often lauded I feel like for trying to get to know their players on a more personal level. I mean I think both Dubas and Keefe have been praised for that exact sort of thing. I don't think anybody would have batted an eye if Keefe asked Tyler Bertuzzi about what he did over the summer in their first meeting and then asked a picture of a cool waterfall or something Bertuzzi saw.

I also just don't really get the "what if they don't want to show photos" thing. I don't have kids, I don't have a fiancee I'm about to marry, I haven't been to a cool tropical vacation, but I do have cats and if someone I was trying to get to know asked me for photos of my cat I'm showing that person photos of my cat no problem. It doesn't really feel like that intrusive of a question.

At worst Babcock's "people skills" are awful and his attempts to get to know people feel significantly more forced than people with actual charisma like Dubas or even Treliving so his attempts to get to know others come across too strong. Even then though the Biz crew's spin on this whole thing is still absurd.

 

[Bullfrog]

Well this isn't exactly a typical office manager/employee relationship. Coaches are often lauded I feel like for trying to get to know their players on a more personal level. I mean I think both Dubas and Keefe have been praised for that exact sort of thing. I don't think anybody would have batted an eye if Keefe asked Tyler Bertuzzi about what he did over the summer in their first meeting and then asked a picture of a cool waterfall or something Bertuzzi saw.

That's true, but I don't know if it necessarily works in favor of your argument. The coach has a direct impact on the player's career, even as simple as how much ice time they get. A coach (as seen in numerous lawsuits, criminal cases, etc.) wields power and influence over a player. Yes, these are professionals, but still fairly young humans and they will absolutely feel pressure to comply. Nonetheless, I agree this isn't on the magnitude of other stuff he's done. Praised for getting to know your players on a human level is great; but if Keefe asked to see the players' pictures (and even display them on screen, if this is true) would be equally weird.

I also just don't really get the "what if they don't want to show photos" thing. I don't have kids, I don't have a fiancee I'm about to marry, I haven't been to a cool tropical vacation, but I do have cats and if someone I was trying to get to know asked me for photos of my cat I'm showing that person photos of my cat no problem. It doesn't really feel like that intrusive of a question.

You've answered your own question here. Directly asking to see a picture of someone's kids or wife (or <gasp> boyfriend) isn't as "normal" as it once was. But I suppose it really depends on how it's asked. I don't do this, but some of my friends blur out their children in any picture they share. That is to say: some people value privacy more than others. I don't so much, but it would be awkward to say, "sure, just look away as I scroll past the nudes."

At worst Babcock's "people skills" are awful and his attempts to get to know people feel significantly more forced than people with actual charisma like Dubas or even Treliving so his attempts to get to know others come across too strong. Even then though the Biz crew's spin on this whole thing is still absurd.

Definitely agree with this last statement. Ultimately, I think it's a non-issue, but it is an illustration of Babcock's lack in the subtlety department.

 

[dappleganger]

I work remotely. I go into the office every now and then. I literally had my boss ask to see pictures of the kids. Obviously this was off my phone. I whipped out the phone and found a few good pictures. This was not awkward or untoward at all. I definitely enjoyed that she was taking an interest in who I was as a person.

Now, if I was a more let's say "adventurous" person and my life was full of debauchery, I'd probably be more hesitant to whip out my phone and start scrolling my album for some good photos to share. 

 

[rdowdall]

I think the problem is that there isn't enough information to actually form an opinion, which leaves many of us filling in the gaps with our own assumptions, which is really bad reporting.  It's reporting for the sake of controversy, and they are wrapping it in the guise of trying to do right by the players.

Any leader worth their salt knows that they have to understand the people they are leading so that they can create roles for them that they will feel invested in and ultimately perform well at.  So Babcock trying to get to know his players is not all that strange.  It's how that personal connection is being fostered that matters.  You can't force a personal connection.  It needs to be grown.

So if Babcock invites the players into his office, they start chatting and then organically it leads to showing some pictures on the screen, then that's fine.  There is nothing wrong with that.

Even if Babcock sends out an email ahead of time to the team and says something like "Hey I'm new here, I want to get to know you guys a little better, so during our 1 on 1 meeting, I would like for you to show me some pictures from last summer around what you did" is a little more forced, but still okay because it isn't a surprise, everyone is on the same page for the reasoning, and there is time for the player to prepare. 

But if the player walks in to Babcock's office sits down and the first thing out of Babcock's mouth is "Get out your phone and show me what's on it", then even if the reasoning is that he is trying to get to know them, that is forced, and invasive, which counteracts the part of trying to get to know them.

So without knowing how the whole thing shook out, it's really hard to judge whether this is something that is bad or good.

 

[dappleganger]

I think the problem is that there isn't enough information to actually form an opinion, which leaves many of us filling in the gaps with our own assumptions, which is really bad reporting.  It's reporting for the sake of controversy, and they are wrapping it in the guise of trying to do right by the players.

Any leader worth their salt knows that they have to understand the people they are leading so that they can create roles for them that they will feel invested in and ultimately perform well at.  So Babcock trying to get to know his players is not all that strange.  It's how that personal connection is being fostered that matters.  You can't force a personal connection.  It needs to be grown.

So if Babcock invites the players into his office, they start chatting and then organically it leads to showing some pictures on the screen, then that's fine.  There is nothing wrong with that.

Even if Babcock sends out an email ahead of time to the team and says something like "Hey I'm new here, I want to get to know you guys a little better, so during our 1 on 1 meeting, I would like for you to show me some pictures from last summer around what you did" is a little more forced, but still okay because it isn't a surprise, everyone is on the same page for the reasoning, and there is time for the player to prepare. 

But if the player walks in to Babcock's office sits down and the first thing out of Babcock's mouth is "Get out your phone and show me what's on it", then even if the reasoning is that he is trying to get to know them, that is forced, and invasive, which counteracts the part of trying to get to know them.

So without knowing how the whole thing shook out, it's really hard to judge whether this is something that is bad or good.

To that point, here's what we have to go on: At least two players from the Blue Jackets have come out and refuted what Spittin' Chiclets said on their pod. And I'll add this:



Jack Han who was on the Leafs coaching staff:

https://x.com/JhanHky/status/1701669871547765070

 

[herman]

I will add that Babcock is folksy and brusque and has interesting social quirks that appear to be social interaction procedures/routines (sort of the way a neurodivergent person sets up routines to avoid mishaps with misreading emotions or non-verbal cues) but that is very unqualified speculation. Babcock can very easily come across as self-serving and calculating, regardless of his intent. You can see it in Jack Han's anecdote; his first response was: what's the angle?

https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/mike-babcock-perfectionist/

 

[herman]

In any case:
https://x.com/KatieJStrang/status/1702362562593972327
Full on in-person investigation from the top execs of the NHLPA, including Babcock's former go-to player.

 

[herman]

https://x.com/cbjcenter/status/1702496458887299540

 

[CarltonTheBear]

I mean unless there's new/worse details I'm still not sure this seems worthy of this level of attention, but if players were uncomfortable with it they're obviously fully entitled to bring those concerns up the chain.

I'm also realizing that it probably says a lot about the NHLPA that these players seemed to think they were better off going to Paul Bissonnette than their union with these concerns.

 

[dappleganger]

I mean unless there's new/worse details I'm still not sure this seems worthy of this level of attention, but if players were uncomfortable with it they're obviously fully entitled to bring those concerns up the chain.

As long as Babcock didn't take the phones out of the player's possession I think this is a nothingburger. It's been established Babcock has done this activity in the past, with no one saying "he took my phone and starting going through it" and until that changes I think this is weird but not a gross violation of people's rights to privacy. We know people have a vendetta against Babcock and I also consider that in all this.