WHOA - Mike Babcock OUT | Sheldon Keefe IN

[L K]

O Dog on Overdrive just said he talked to ex NHLers and they all said, he works hard, likes to win and all that stuff but he's the worst human being around. Every guy he talked to said he's a bad person.

Funny how all these people their knives out once he's been fired, but not a peep out of them while he's in a position of importance.  I'm impressed.

I recall Commodore peeping quite a bit.

Commodore comes across as the guy looking worse when he does though.  He was delusional to his skill level at the end of his career and his constant tirades just came across like a bitter washed up player rather than a guy who was legitimately done wrong.

 

[Bullfrog]

...
There are now a lot of clearly-documented incidents/accounts of Babcock's issues. This isn't a he said, she said thing. It's nice that Kadri said that he liked his former coach, but that in no way impacts the approximately 90% of the players who thought he was a prick.

Well, he actually said "he's a great coach." That's not the same as saying he liked him.

 

[ZBBM]

He said something quite positive.  Did he have to do that?

I mean, yeah kinda. Look, I don't know what Kadri thinks of Babcock. But Naz has 10 years of experience dealing with the Toronto media. He's smart enough to know that if he said anything less than positive it would have been spun into "Kadri hated Babcock" headlines or whatever.

But I don't really get what opinion you're trying to express here. You think Kadri calling Babcock a "great coach" means that what Tulloch reported isn't true? Even if we 100% take Kadri at his word there, he can still think Babs was a dick for pulling that stunt on Marner.

Part of the opinion I'm expressing is that if he's been Mike Evilbabs forever, which is the line being spun out these past few days, why has that line been completely absent as a narrative from people like (say) O'Neill *before* the firing?  We have just gone through 2 months of crappy hockey and there were abundant stories about how Babcock and Dubas and/or Babcock and the players may not be seeing eye to eye, but nothing (at least nothing I saw) that claimed this disconnect could be because Babcock is the world's biggest prick.  It was all presented as a difference of philosophy or playstyle.

Now, after he's gone, out comes these ex post facto explanations that it's all because he's an a-ho, and oh by the way it's common knowledge.  To me, it seems like a lot of piling on by people, and it smacks of Internet mob mentality.

At the very least, if all this supposedly common knowledge about him was truly that, then the commentariat ought to have brought it up before, not now, when there can be no consequential pushback from the guy.

I am not by any means endorsing Larry Brooks, but one thing I had to give him back in the day is that he said his criticisms to Torts' face, not just on talk radio a few days after he got fired.

 

[Zee]

I agree Commodore is way over the line and he should let it go but I don?t see many former players coming and and saying Commodore is full of it and defending Babcock in any way either.

 

[Bates]

He said something quite positive.  Did he have to do that?

I mean, yeah kinda. Look, I don't know what Kadri thinks of Babcock. But Naz has 10 years of experience dealing with the Toronto media. He's smart enough to know that if he said anything less than positive it would have been spun into "Kadri hated Babcock" headlines or whatever.

But I don't really get what opinion you're trying to express here. You think Kadri calling Babcock a "great coach" means that what Tulloch reported isn't true? Even if we 100% take Kadri at his word there, he can still think Babs was a dick for pulling that stunt on Marner.

Part of the opinion I'm expressing is that if he's been Mike Evilbabs forever, which is the line being spun out these past few days, why has that line been completely absent as a narrative from people like (say) O'Neill *before* the firing?  We have just gone through 2 months of crappy hockey and there were abundant stories about how Babcock and Dubas and/or Babcock and the players may not be seeing eye to eye, but nothing (at least nothing I saw) that claimed this disconnect could be because Babcock is the world's biggest prick.  It was all presented as a difference of philosophy or playstyle.

Now, after he's gone, out comes these ex post facto explanations that it's all because he's an a-ho, and oh by the way it's common knowledge.  To me, it seems like a lot of piling on by people, and it smacks of Internet mob mentality.

At the very least, if all this supposedly common knowledge about him was truly that, then the commentariat ought to have brought it up before, not now, when there can be no consequential pushback from the guy.

I am not by any means endorsing Larry Brooks, but one thing I had to give him back in the day is that he said his criticisms to Torts' face, not just on talk radio a few days after he got fired.

Pretty sure I have heard O'Neill rant about Babcock many times in the last couple years and even question how great he is as a coach based on his single Stanley Cup.

 

[Kin]

At the very least, if all this supposedly common knowledge about him was truly that, then the commentariat ought to have brought it up before, not now, when there can be no consequential pushback from the guy.

So much of modern hockey media is people going out of their way to do nothing that could possibly antagonize any league sources so I'm really not sure why this is throwing you.

 

[Guilt Trip]

He said something quite positive.  Did he have to do that?

I mean, yeah kinda. Look, I don't know what Kadri thinks of Babcock. But Naz has 10 years of experience dealing with the Toronto media. He's smart enough to know that if he said anything less than positive it would have been spun into "Kadri hated Babcock" headlines or whatever.

But I don't really get what opinion you're trying to express here. You think Kadri calling Babcock a "great coach" means that what Tulloch reported isn't true? Even if we 100% take Kadri at his word there, he can still think Babs was a dick for pulling that stunt on Marner.

Part of the opinion I'm expressing is that if he's been Mike Evilbabs forever, which is the line being spun out these past few days, why has that line been completely absent as a narrative from people like (say) O'Neill *before* the firing?  We have just gone through 2 months of crappy hockey and there were abundant stories about how Babcock and Dubas and/or Babcock and the players may not be seeing eye to eye, but nothing (at least nothing I saw) that claimed this disconnect could be because Babcock is the world's biggest prick.  It was all presented as a difference of philosophy or playstyle.

Now, after he's gone, out comes these ex post facto explanations that it's all because he's an a-ho, and oh by the way it's common knowledge.  To me, it seems like a lot of piling on by people, and it smacks of Internet mob mentality.

At the very least, if all this supposedly common knowledge about him was truly that, then the commentariat ought to have brought it up before, not now, when there can be no consequential pushback from the guy.

I am not by any means endorsing Larry Brooks, but one thing I had to give him back in the day is that he said his criticisms to Torts' face, not just on talk radio a few days after he got fired.

O Dog has always called him the greatest coach in the world. Just ask him. O Dog heard this story like everyone else so he went and asked former Nhlers about it. He has ripped him before for being an asshat for his treatment of Madano and Spezza. 

 

[Guilt Trip]

O Dog on Overdrive just said he talked to ex NHLers and they all said, he works hard, likes to win and all that stuff but he's the worst human being around. Every guy he talked to said he's a bad person.

Funny how all these people their knives out once he's been fired, but not a peep out of them while he's in a position of importance.  I'm impressed.

I recall Commodore peeping quite a bit.

Commodore comes across as the guy looking worse when he does though.  He was delusional to his skill level at the end of his career and his constant tirades just came across like a bitter washed up player rather than a guy who was legitimately done wrong.

He does come across looking bad but after reading why he hates Babs, I thought a little differently. Yes still over the top,  but I get where he's coming from.

 

[rdowdall]

...
There are now a lot of clearly-documented incidents/accounts of Babcock's issues. This isn't a he said, she said thing. It's nice that Kadri said that he liked his former coach, but that in no way impacts the approximately 90% of the players who thought he was a prick.

Well, he actually said "he's a great coach." That's not the same as saying he liked him.

I think that's the difference.  Players may not have liked him as a person but they thought he was a good coach because he was able to get wins.

There are lots of players that are good at hockey but they aren't good people.

 

[Highlander]

Lots of people are great at what they do. But they are assholes as people. It?s just the way of the world. I think Steve Jobs was a genius, but by all accounts he was not a very nice man.

 

[herman]

https://twitter.com/trueblueleafs/status/1199043533887483904

 

[herman]

At the very least, if all this supposedly common knowledge about him was truly that, then the commentariat ought to have brought it up before, not now, when there can be no consequential pushback from the guy.

So much of modern hockey media is people going out of their way to do nothing that could possibly antagonize any league sources so I'm really not sure why this is throwing you.

I?m pretty sure roasting your current coach, i.e. ice time manager for the foreseeable future, is what we call in the industry a career-limiting move. This really shouldn?t be all that confusing and it?s a testament to our players? professionalism, current and former, that little of this leaked. It is starting to connect the dots for me on a few weird things from this past couple of seasons: Matthews not reporting his legal trouble, Marleau?s weird remarks in his return to Toronto, Zaitsev?s trade request...

Media members also make their living off of access. Michael Russo had a dump truck?s worth of yikes on Fenton and that didn?t come out until he was out the door.

Either way, active NHLers are still wary of saying anything untoward while they?re still playing. The fraternity of players is small, but the fraternity of coaches and managers is smaller still, so good luck if you?re the player that sets off that blaze. All the Leaf players have done this far is overtly praise the current coaching staff vociferously.

https://twitter.com/koshtorontosun/status/1199115431979692033

 

[Kin]

Media members also make their living off of access.

Well, lousy ones do.

 

[herman]

Media members also make their living off of access.

Well, lousy ones do.

Haha name a non-lousy Toronto one, pls.

I think in the space Toronto hockey occupies, we?re not going to get a mainstream media member who has both the clout and cachet to bring it. Steve Simmons isn?t afraid, but Steve Simmons also has an allergy to accuracy.

 

[lc9]

There is nothing less shocking then the Babcock/Marner story. It has been oft-discussed all over the airwaves about how much of a jerk Babcock is.

Pretty surprising to still see people defending him.  When Babcock was fired there were plenty who thought it was a bad idea.  Babcock was literally trying to pit players against themselves while also stifling their development because he didn?t want to adjust his style of coaching.  Good riddance. 

 

[herman]

https://twitter.com/dreamer_aliu78/status/1199119380774359045
https://twitter.com/dreamer_aliu78/status/1199119524513165312
https://twitter.com/dreamer_aliu78/status/1199119569576767491

 

[Kin]

Media members also make their living off of access.

Well, lousy ones do.

Haha name a non-lousy Toronto one, pls.

I think in the space Toronto hockey occupies, we?re not going to get a mainstream media member who has both the clout and cachet to bring it. Steve Simmons isn?t afraid, but Steve Simmons also has an allergy to accuracy.

But I think that this story sort of is a great example of the problem here. This is something that was apparently effectively common knowledge that would be of interest to fans that wasn't reported for fear of angering sources or crossing management.

I get the market realities that cause guys like Friedman and Johnston to not report these things because they think that if they do they might not be as cozy with league sources and as a result they won't be able to tweet that Anaheim has traded a 4th line forward to Columbus for a 6th round pick five minutes before someone else on deadline day but we should still acknowledge that it's a bad thing.

 

[ZBBM]

This is getting to be pretty funny.  I read these boards regularly and I don't recall anybody here discussing Babcock in these extreme terms.  All kinds of criticism of stubbornness, being out of touch, etc. ? things not much different than folks on here said when PQ began to go stale, or of others coaches when their shtick gets old.  But that is not at all the same as accusing someone of being a near-sociopath.

As for the media cozying up to coaches, GMs, etc. ? that's the least surprising, least confusing thing in the world.  But I have always been given to understand that there are levels of hockey media, running from the in-the-pocket anodyne shills like Hendricks to the ? supposedly ? "real" journos, presumably at places like The Athletic.  I would have thought that the latter would have spun at least a few stories at least referencing these supposed ingrained character defects.  Did they? 

I guess I have a higher standard for sports journalists than most bother with.

 

[Kin]

As for the media cozying up to coaches, GMs, etc. ? that's the least surprising, least confusing thing in the world.  But I have always been given to understand that there are levels of hockey media, running from the in-the-pocket anodyne shills like Hendricks to the ? supposedly ? "real" journos, presumably at places like The Athletic.  I would have thought that the latter would have spun at least a few stories at least referencing these supposed ingrained character defects.  Did they? 

I guess I have a higher standard for sports journalists than most bother with.

It's not just a matter of journalism though. Reality is that a lot of fans would look at a story like that and react wildly differently to it if the team was winning vs. if they weren't. That these stories are coming out now are as much about the fact that the Leafs weren't playing well as it is the fact that Babcock got fired.

Look at anything that ever gets written about Bill Belichick. There's a guy who's almost universally acknowledged as a sociopath and Pats fans will react with "Hurr durr, count da rings".

 

[herman]

https://twitter.com/tsn_sports/status/1199051549491810304