WHOA - Mike Babcock OUT | Sheldon Keefe IN

[CarltonTheBear]

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.

What did you mean by this then:

Seems like there could be a herd mentality leading to some exaggeration here.

 

[ZBBM]

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.

Look, the story being pushed today is not that he did one lousy thing to Marner, but that it's just one symptom of a repeated pattern of toxic behavior.  If that's true, it's not just "context" or "perspective" ? it's a major story of its own that needs to be reported.

To her point about the effect on players: it's not a journalist's job to decide whether or not to hold information based on how it might affect some person or persons.  Their job is to report what's really going on.

I have no idea what's she talking about in terms of off-the-record info.  Real reporters don't ask for off-the-record statements.  They ask for statements that are not for attribution to an identifiable person and then attribute them to an anonymous source, which they can and should protect the identity of to the bitter end.  This is bread-and-butter stuff.  Non-sports journalists do it all the time.  Why did no one ever do that here?

I'll tell you why: because these folks aren't really, truly journos.  As I said before, there's a spectrum running from people who are obviously not objective in any sense, up to people who like to posture and pretend they are objective.  Are they really?  I doubt it very much.  All this solemn tut-tutting after he's been fired is not exactly the results of collective Profiles in Courage.

 

[ZBBM]

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.

What did you mean by this then:

Seems like there could be a herd mentality leading to some exaggeration here.

Exaggeration by the people spreading the stories.  Is anyone checking their veracity?  That's all I'm saying.  If they check out, then fine, all the hockey media has to answer for then is to explain why they didn't report them all along, since apparently his behavior was supposedly akin to almost an open secret.

And BTW just in case anyone is inclined to misread this, I am in no way defending the kind of behavior being attributed to Babcock right now.

 

[Kin]

You're the one who has described the stories as presenting him as "evil" and "borderline sociopathic".

Do you suppose it's a possibility that people are just reporting that Babcock is more disliked than other coaches, have given some examples of why and maybe you're the one doing the exaggeratin'?

 

[TimKerr]

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.

What did you mean by this then:

Seems like there could be a herd mentality leading to some exaggeration here.

Exaggeration by the people spreading the stories.  Is anyone checking their veracity?  That's all I'm saying.  If they check out, then fine, all the hockey media has to answer for then is to explain why they didn't report them all along, since apparently his behavior was supposedly akin to almost an open secret.

And BTW just in case anyone is inclined to misread this, I am in no way defending the kind of behavior being attributed to Babcock right now.

The media did answer why they didn't report these things. You just didn't like their answer. Which is your prerogative and truth be told I agree with you. These media members didn't report the whole story because........ hockey. That doesn't make the stories any less true.

 

[herman]

https://twitter.com/sheriffmcmorrow/status/1199346525022773248

In the immortal words of the chonk chart for cats: oh lawd he comin

 

[Bullfrog]

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.

I'm confused about how you have any level of disbelief when the incident with Marner is concrete proof that these things with Babcock happen and are secretive. I don't think the players are saying every coach is a great buddy except for Babcock. It's only natural for there to be some piling on given his firing.

 

[disco]

Speaking of Keefe

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

This is excellent Herman, thanks for sharing. I'll put in Keefe's thread. Knew of the Frost connection and story from Bobby Mac's book but it's good to have a refresher.

 

[L K]

I'm loving this.  I cannot wait to see more of these A-holes brought down.

 

[Peter D.]

I'm loving this.  I cannot wait to see more of these A-holes brought down.

The same goes for players, who can be nasty and ruthless in their own right.

 

[LuncheonMeat]

Cam Jansen was on First Up/TSN this morning talking about Babcock. He is usually an entertaining interview, and this one was pretty good.

https://www.tsn.ca/radio/toronto-1050/cam-janssen-on-if-babcock-crossed-the-line-with-marner-1.1403926

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Carlo Colaiacovo talked a lot of Babcock on TSN 1050 today. Here's the video link: https://www.facebook.com/TSN/videos/954908608227843/

I jotted down/paraphrased some of the key things he said:

Babcock uses fear and a sense of being uncomfortable as a motivational tool/strategy with his players.

I've been aware of this for the past year or so, I don't know why this is coming out now. And I've known about other things that Babcock has done to players that hadn't even scratched the surface. But it's not my responsibility to get into that.

When he signed with Detroit it was because he wanted to play for the Red Wings, but he was afraid of playing for Babcock because of what other players were saying about him. How he's not a good person. How he doesn't treat guys with respect. How he singles guys out. How he makes examples of players. Players say the same thing about him: good coach, but very questionable the things he does to certain people.

There were players in Detroit who hated him. Every year in Detroit the leaders would go in and try to get him fired. Ken Holland wouldn't entertain the conversation because he knew what he was getting as a coach.

What Babcock did to Marner contradicts the things Babcock said about wanting to make Toronto a safe space for young players.

Babcock majored in psychology. He puts guys in uncomfortable situations because he thinks when they bounce back from that he gets credit.

 

[Kin]

I think sometimes we underestimate just how prized NHL jobs(on-ice or not) are and how much that affects what people are willing to say or do that could potentially cost them a shot at one even in the hypothetical future.

Within hours of Babcock being fired there were people speculating about him maybe being hired in Seattle so there's really never a safe time to take a shot at someone with a lot of clout in the league.

 

[dappleganger]

Carlo Colaiacovo talked a lot of Babcock on TSN 1050 today. Here's the video link: https://www.facebook.com/TSN/videos/954908608227843/

I jotted down/paraphrased some of the key things he said:

Babcock uses fear and a sense of being uncomfortable as a motivational tool/strategy with his players.

I've been aware of this for the past year or so, I don't know why this is coming out now. And I've known about other things that Babcock has done to players that hadn't even scratched the surface. But it's not my responsibility to get into that.

When he signed with Detroit it was because he wanted to play for the Red Wings, but he was afraid of playing for Babcock because of what other players were saying about him. How he's not a good person. How he doesn't treat guys with respect. How he singles guys out. How he makes examples of players. Players say the same thing about him: good coach, but very questionable the things he does to certain people.

There were players in Detroit who hated him. Every year in Detroit the leaders would go in and try to get him fired. Ken Holland wouldn't entertain the conversation because he knew what he was getting as a coach.

What Babcock did to Marner contradicts the things Babcock said about wanting to make Toronto a safe space for young players.

Babcock majored in psychology. He puts guys in uncomfortable situations because he thinks when they bounce back from that he gets credit.

If Colaiacovo had been aware of things  for the past year or so, and didn't report on it, he's a dipshit.

 

[Kin]

He's not a reporter.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

If Colaiacovo had been aware of things  for the past year or so, and didn't report on it, he's a dipshit.

I think one of the reasons this wasn't brought up earlier is because players like Carlo or actual reporters/media who have spent years or decades in or around NHL dressing rooms were probably just used to this sort of behavior from people like Babcock. It's funny to read the original reporting of this from Terry Koshan. It's just two little sentences buried in the middle of an article that isn't even necessarily about Babcock. I'd bet anything Terry or the Sun didn't expect it to blow up like it did.

Hopefully, the reaction to this coming out will signal to people who were maybe jaded to this sort of stuff that it isn't something to just ignore.

 

[dappleganger]

He's not a reporter.

Are you saying Radio hosts shouldn't break stories? It seems they have the platform.

Bob McCown would do it.

 

[dappleganger]

If Colaiacovo had been aware of things  for the past year or so, and didn't report on it, he's a dipshit.

I think one of the reasons this wasn't brought up earlier is because players like Carlo or actual reporters/media who have spent years or decades in or around NHL dressing rooms were probably just used to this sort of behavior from people like Babcock. It's funny to read the original reporting of this from Terry Koshan. It's just two little sentences buried in the middle of an article that isn't even necessarily about Babcock. I'd bet anything Terry or the Sun didn't expect it to blow up like it did.

Hopefully, the reaction to this coming out will signal to people who were maybe jaded to this sort of stuff that it isn't something to just ignore.

I think that's a fair point, Colaiacovo probably didn't think it was a big deal.

Hopefully that was the reason and not because he was sacred or maintaining some kind of "code".

 

[Kin]

Are you saying Radio hosts shouldn't break stories? It seems they have the platform.

Bob McCown would do it.

I don't think a radio hosting gig actually does give someone a platform for serious and thorough reporting, no.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Are you saying Radio hosts shouldn't break stories? It seems they have the platform.

Bob McCown would do it.

I don't think a radio hosting gig actually does give someone a platform for serious and thorough reporting, no.

I would also guess that Bob McCown probably has dirt on pretty much everyone in the NHL that he never dropped.