WHOA - Mike Babcock OUT | Sheldon Keefe IN

[Guilt Trip]

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

He looks uncomfortable talking about it.

 

[Zee]

Man I knew Babcock was a hard ass but you can never guess that kind of dysfunction going on for a pro team. I mean you can if it?s Ottawa but I never guessed this for the Leafs under this regime

 

[TML fan]

Is it really necessary to tear the man down after he's been fired? It's all in the past. The Leafs made a decision that they believed will make their team better. All this mud slinging is just sad. Babcock was good for the Leafs until he wasn't. I hope Keefe is good for the Leafs too.

 

[herman]

Speaking of Keefe

https://www.tsn.ca/from-bob-mckenzie-s-hockey-confidential-the-road-to-redemption-1.1401391

 

[CarltonTheBear]

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.

I hope this doesn't come off as a weird question, but are you doubting that this story actually happened? Because as you can see in the video a couple posts up Marner essentially confirmed it's validity.

Edit: and of course Babcock himself confirmed that this happened as well.

 

[ZBBM]

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".

No denying that.

 

[Kin]

Apparently the coach Aliu was talking about is Bill Peters.

 

[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.

I hope this doesn't come off as a weird question, but are you doubting that this story actually happened? Because as you can see in the video a couple posts up Marner essentially confirmed it's validity.

Edit: and of course Babcock himself confirmed that this happened as well.

What makes you think I doubt that it happened?

 

[Kin]

"Reporters shouldn't tell the truth if it hurts the reputation of the rich and powerful" is a hell of a take.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

What makes you think I doubt that it happened?

I dunno, some of your comments just seemed like it was standing up for Babcock. Maybe I was just reading it wrong, which is why I wanted to clarify. If you want to say "NHL media sucks because they sat on this story for years until Babs was out" I don't think anyone will disagree with you. Some of us just feel like that's par for the course at this point I guess.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Apparently the coach Aliu was talking about is Bill Peters.

Flames GM basically gave a "no comment" and Calgary didn't make Peters available after his game tonight.

 

[ZBBM]

What makes you think I doubt that it happened?

I dunno, some of your comments just seemed like it was standing up for Babcock. Maybe I was just reading it wrong, which is why I wanted to clarify. If you want to say "NHL media sucks because they sat on this story for years until Babs was out" I don't think anyone will disagree with you. Some of us just feel like that's par for the course at this point I guess.

I am not standing up for him in the sense of denying or discounting what's being claimed about him; I haven't bothered to check into the allegations.  I am expressing a fair amount of disbelief that the hockey media *could* have, as a group, squelched this overall storyline of his alleged personal toxicity for so many years.  My personal experience is that very few people can keep secrets, especially "juicy" ones. A whole class of people (i.e., hockey media), over so many years?  I have a hard time believing that.  Seems like there could be a herd mentality leading to some exaggeration here.

 

[Arn]

Is it really necessary to tear the man down after he's been fired? It's all in the past. The Leafs made a decision that they believed will make their team better. All this mud slinging is just sad. Babcock was good for the Leafs until he wasn't. I hope Keefe is good for the Leafs too.

I agree with this to an extent. I had kind of felt that since last season Babcock was no longer the guy to take this team forward - his method didn't really translate to being in tune with coaching younger guys who now seem to need more of an arm round the shoulder, gentle encouragement style of man management than the old hard nosed my way or the highway style that might have been the case in the past and you just sucked it up and accepted it.

It's kind of like when you split up from your wife and start to slag her in public for all her little quirks that you used to find attractive til you got sick of her and they started to grate.

I guess where this may potentially have a positive side is: I bet that Babcock isn't the only one and the Leafs aren't the only club where this kind of things goes on. So if outing it helps to cut down on some of these kind of methods that could potentially be construed as bullying etc then maybe it's not so bad that the issues are raised publicly.

 

[AvroArrow]

I am not standing up for him in the sense of denying or discounting what's being claimed about him; I haven't bothered to check into the allegations.  I am expressing a fair amount of disbelief that the hockey media *could* have, as a group, squelched this overall storyline of his alleged personal toxicity for so many years.  My personal experience is that very few people can keep secrets, especially "juicy" ones. A whole class of people (i.e., hockey media), over so many years?  I have a hard time believing that.  Seems like there could be a herd mentality leading to some exaggeration here.

Weinstein and Epstein are two non-hockey examples of the same thing.

 

[Andy007]

What makes you think I doubt that it happened?

I dunno, some of your comments just seemed like it was standing up for Babcock. Maybe I was just reading it wrong, which is why I wanted to clarify. If you want to say "NHL media sucks because they sat on this story for years until Babs was out" I don't think anyone will disagree with you. Some of us just feel like that's par for the course at this point I guess.

I am not standing up for him in the sense of denying or discounting what's being claimed about him; I haven't bothered to check into the allegations.  I am expressing a fair amount of disbelief that the hockey media *could* have, as a group, squelched this overall storyline of his alleged personal toxicity for so many years.  My personal experience is that very few people can keep secrets, especially "juicy" ones. A whole class of people (i.e., hockey media), over so many years?  I have a hard time believing that.  Seems like there could be a herd mentality leading to some exaggeration here.

So you're acknowledging that these incidents happened but you think the reporting of them is being exaggerated? What does that mean?

 

[herman]

Pretty sure the media and players are still holding back much of what they?ve heard and experienced. For those who are reporting or in a position to receive these stories, it?s not their first rodeo and very likely similar to how Marchand and the Bruins get away with far more infractions than most: this stuff has been normalized. And protected naturally by the industry power structure. 

Several people already said as much when the Marner story came out. This is just hockey culture spanning several decades, and most of the icky stuff isn?t quite to the level of egregious, so there?s no big reason to stick your neck out.

 

[Kin]

If you listen to virtually any hockey podcast with credentialed reporters on it you hear some variation of "Oh man, I have a great story to tell about this subject but can't say it on air".

 

[herman]

https://theathletic.com/1410444/2019/11/26/mirtle-the-shine-is-off-of-mike-babcock-after-his-mind-games-become-public/?source=shared-article

After this story broke on the weekend as we flew back from Denver, I spent Monday talking to a lot of people around the team, including some of Babcock?s former players, their agents and others close to the situation over the last few years.

Some of the main takeaways:

1. A lot of this kind of stuff does not get out because players are very team-focused and not anxious to publicly go against their coach or GM ? especially in a place like Toronto. It?s part of hockey?s culture that you suck it up and take what is thrown at you. It?s also self-preservation, as making incidents public could have a negative impact on your career or your relationship with other coaches or managers. No one wants to be seen as ?soft? or a malcontent. And Babcock was a massive figure in the game, one of the winningest coaches ever, someone who would be intimidating for anyone to challenge, let alone a green rookie.

2. Babcock is more guilty of these mind games than most NHL coaches, based on talking to those who have played for him. He liked to pick favourites and didn?t often explain why he was so hard on others. And once you were in his doghouse, you rarely escaped. One former player explained he spent part of one frustrating season under Babcock Googling articles about the coach to try and figure out how he could win him over. (He never did.) Those situations often left more than just the players targeted frustrated with Babcock, as teammates didn?t like seeing others singled out and browbeaten.

This is very Ender?s Game-y

 

[CarltonTheBear]

https://twitter.com/catmsilverman/status/1198794851992555521

Gonna continue this thread in text form:

Often times, people within orgs will give information off the record for context, but expect the media member they tell to use it for context only and not burn them.
Source burning is more than just losing access. Often times, off the record info is given with trust.

It's not just about dirty secrets. Sometimes, it's something as simple as being told a player is dealing with something personal, so to hold off on speculations or reports. Other times, it's player observations from a coach that help you do your job, but aren't for public eye.

There's also the question of whether or not you want to make things even harder on a player in a situation like the Babcock one.
If there's a media/public firestorm over a situation like that, you have to think: will this make things worse on the player you're 'protecting'?

My rule of thumb for reporting things told via access: will not reporting the information cause harm to someone? If not, is it worth these other consequences - lost trust, potentially making things worse for the player - just to get the 'scoop'?
Often times, it's not.

I'm sure some media sat on the story because they wanted to protect Babcock. But we spend so much time clawing and howling for information that we don't always consider: we don't *actually* need to know every little piece of gossip that goes down. Hope that adds perspective.

 

[ZBBM]

What makes you think I doubt that it happened?

I dunno, some of your comments just seemed like it was standing up for Babcock. Maybe I was just reading it wrong, which is why I wanted to clarify. If you want to say "NHL media sucks because they sat on this story for years until Babs was out" I don't think anyone will disagree with you. Some of us just feel like that's par for the course at this point I guess.

I am not standing up for him in the sense of denying or discounting what's being claimed about him; I haven't bothered to check into the allegations.  I am expressing a fair amount of disbelief that the hockey media *could* have, as a group, squelched this overall storyline of his alleged personal toxicity for so many years.  My personal experience is that very few people can keep secrets, especially "juicy" ones. A whole class of people (i.e., hockey media), over so many years?  I have a hard time believing that.  Seems like there could be a herd mentality leading to some exaggeration here.

So you're acknowledging that these incidents happened but you think the reporting of them is being exaggerated? What does that mean?

You'll have to answer those questions yourself, because that's not what I said.