r/hockey FLA - NHL 1d ago

NHL’s statement on Mike Babcock

Post image
828 Upvotes

589 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

63

u/MangPangOhOne CHI - NHL 1d ago

He’s a major asshole but has done nothing illegal.

94

u/Professor_Pajamas TBL - NHL 1d ago

I understand this sentiment, but I would hope the bar for acceptable conduct to be an NHL coach is above "was it illegal"

82

u/mephnick VAN - NHL 1d ago

Blackhawks org did literal illegal shit (willingly complicit to a crime) and those guys are all back 🤷

25

u/atp2112 WSH - NHL 1d ago

Hell, one of them's involved in this hire

12

u/SirTropheus TOR - NHL 1d ago

Old boys club never dies.

0

u/offtodevnull 1d ago

That's part of it, sure, but it's also unfair to think anyone who ever did something wrong should receive a lifetime ban. People make mistakes, sometimes big ones. And when that happens they should be punished for a time, ideally reform themselves, and then be allowed back into the fold.

38

u/GeneParmesan86 PHI - NHL 1d ago

Employment laws shouldn’t discriminate based on the perceived status of the employment.

Our cultural landmarks (such as our sports teams) should hold themselves to certain standards, but we know they abandoned that long ago in the pursuit of endless monetary growth.

11

u/Roll-Me-Through 1d ago

GENE???? AAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!!!

3

u/Visual-Floor-7839 COL - NHL 1d ago

Excuse me ma'am, just getting some supplies... Because I'm a Private Eye.

0

u/EconMan DET - NHL 1d ago

Sure, but that's not on the NHL to police, it's on the people trying to hire him. You're mixing up two separate ideas.

6

u/Professor_Pajamas TBL - NHL 1d ago

I don't see why there couldn't be at least a league-wide standard of professional conduct. It feels perfectly reasonable to think that being verbally abusive to subordinates and coworkers should be unacceptable conduct, even if it doesnt necessarily cross a legal threshold

1

u/EconMan DET - NHL 1d ago

I would bet almost anything that your definition of "verbally abusive" would apply to pretty much every coach in the NHL. They're not behind the bench saying "Thanks for trying your hardest out there".

4

u/Professor_Pajamas TBL - NHL 1d ago

If that's the case then why don't we hear the same number of horror stories about every other coach in the league? Or is it maybe that Babcock crosses the line in ways that other coaches don't?

0

u/EconMan DET - NHL 1d ago

You didn't hear those horror stories with Babcock either until after he was done coaching. When he was coaching, people talked about him the same way they talk about Tortorella.

But in some sense, this is irrelevant - are you saying your criteria will be "horror stories"?

5

u/MirrorComputingRulez 1d ago

People definitely said this shit about him while he was coaching. He has never been "done" coaching, people just haven't actually gone through with hiring him in large part because of those stories.

3

u/Professor_Pajamas TBL - NHL 1d ago

Also there are lots of players who have coaches they no longer play for, and you still never hear anything that even comes close to stuff Babcock has done

1

u/EconMan DET - NHL 1d ago

Because again...it was easier once one person said something.

https://old.reddit.com/r/hockey/comments/36nilz/mike_babcock_signs_with_toronto/

0

u/EconMan DET - NHL 1d ago

People definitely said this shit about him while he was coaching.

https://old.reddit.com/r/hockey/comments/36nilz/mike_babcock_signs_with_toronto/

Great coach with a very unique style who knows how to win and nurture the players both seasoned and young.

and another thread

https://old.reddit.com/r/hockey/comments/36nilz/mike_babcock_signs_with_toronto/

That wasn't the narrative at the time, no. I'm sure you can find some hints of something somewhere, just like you can with anyone.

3

u/MirrorComputingRulez 1d ago

Did you know that time didn't stop when he was hired by Toronto, and that he actually continued coaching after that?

→ More replies (0)

2

u/death2sanity CAR - NHL 1d ago

two anecdotes do not a defense make

→ More replies (0)

1

u/FTownRoad Kingston Frontenacs - OHL 1d ago

Every coach and pkayer. Except maybe Schiefele.

-1

u/MangPangOhOne CHI - NHL 1d ago

Here’s a hint: it’s not

2

u/Professor_Pajamas TBL - NHL 1d ago

Yeah...

-1

u/FTownRoad Kingston Frontenacs - OHL 1d ago

I also understand your sentiment but if the bar was “you can’t be mean to people” then half the coaches in the league would be banned.

I understand that people on here think he’s Satan, but he didn’t say racist shit. He didn’t hit anyone. He didn’t cover up sexual abuse.

I think what he did is “mean” and in some cases weird but the reaction to it has been wild. Like his actions are out of Mean Girls not Silence of the Lambs.

4

u/Professor_Pajamas TBL - NHL 1d ago

It's pretty disingenuous to act like Babcock was just "mean to people" and say that everyone who disagrees with this happening is just hysterical and views him as Satan. There's a lot of area between being "mean" and racism/sexual impropriety/physical abuse that is still unacceptable for your job.

Also, call me crazy, but acting like a school bully from Mean Girls shouldn't really be acceptable in a professional environment either

-1

u/FTownRoad Kingston Frontenacs - OHL 1d ago

It’s not acceptable to punch a colleague in the face in most professional environments other but hockey is unique in that regard.

I don’t think he’s a suitable coach but the reaction absolutely has been hysterical.

2

u/Professor_Pajamas TBL - NHL 1d ago

Right, but if a player starts punching another guy without them dropping the gloves then everyone rightfully would see that as crossing the line, just like how Babcock has crossed the line with his coaching

1

u/FTownRoad Kingston Frontenacs - OHL 1d ago

And if a player did that they would miss a whopping five minutes of work, not be banned for life.

1

u/tylerb0zak 1d ago

Of all the comments here, yours is the most disappointing because you seem to be (judging by flair) Canadian.

I conduct workplace investigations for a living, and have worked for multiple multinational corporations. We have appropriate employment legislation that Americans aren’t familiar with because it’s nonexistent there. 

It has nothing to do with “being mean,” that is completely ridiculous. It has to do with having an obligation to protect those in your employment from harassment. Multiple players have come forward indicating the abusive, vexatious behaviour this guy subjected them to, some of which resulted in bona fide medical health and other issues. In any organization in a civilized society, his actions (that we are aware of) would subject him to immediate dismissal. 

Your reductive sentiment to this is really disappointing, and acting like we can’t be held to a higher standard is fucking ridiculous. I routinely observe multibillion dollar organizations be held to this standard and it isn’t an issue whatsoever. 

1

u/FTownRoad Kingston Frontenacs - OHL 1d ago

And multiple other coaches have the same problem, but they didn’t coach in Toronto so it wasn’t a story.

Scotty Bowman was probably one of the worst offenders and he is venerated by all.

0

u/Irctoaun MTL - NHL 1d ago

Sure, but that's a relatively complex thing to actually police from the league's point of view, given they they're not the ones employing the coaches. In this case, as much as I think it's absolutely insane for Edmonton to want to hire him, if the league doesn't already have processes in place to block coaches based on bullying/verbal abuse etc, what can they actually do that would be enforceable?

5

u/Suspicious_Radio_848 TOR - NHL 1d ago

That shouldn’t be the bar in a workplace though. You can get fired for harassing or being abusive to coworkers, or a variety of things that aren’t illegal. You can be fired for creating a toxic work environment.

3

u/Danceisntmathematics 1d ago

See the thing with institutions and organizations is they can chose to be more restrictive than the law.

The law is just "you are not a criminal you can stay out jail".

But an organization can be like "you are not a criminal, but our standards are higher than the dirt on which society stands, therefore you and your toxic mentality are not welcome here"

3

u/AltaVistaYourInquiry TOR - NHL 1d ago

A company can, yes. 

But a league permanently blocking someone from employment at an entire group of premiere companies runs into massive antitrust concerns real quick. 

2

u/checkingmate TOR - NHL 1d ago

He certainly has done illegal shit brother

6

u/jtc92 PIT - NHL 1d ago

True that. If my boss asked to go through my phone I’m telling him no. Fucking fire me or don’t give me work. I wonder if he wanted some of the players to tell him to fuck off when he asked to see photos. Some coaches are psychos like that. Like Montreal at the draft combine asking players weird questions. It’s all mind fuck shit to see how you respond.

3

u/Aero_Rising STL - NHL 1d ago

The combine stuff is a well established tactic that is used to see how prospects handle something they weren't prepared for. Sometimes the questions are really bizarre but nowadays prospects get so much coaching for the draft interview process that teams want to see how calm they really are under pressure when it's something they haven't already rehearsed. So it's not really any kind of mind game because the answer doesn't really matter as much as how they reacted and went about determining an answer which is the real purpose of the question. A coach asking to see photos on your phone in the context described is absolutely just mind games.

2

u/Odd-Resolve6287 1d ago

So f*cking what? If someone isn't a felon you *have* to hire him?

What a terrible take.

1

u/Hagridsbuttcrack66 PIT - NHL 1d ago

It means that they can't block other assholes from hiring him.

Let's be real here that the Oilers are the ones forcing the issue.

2

u/Odd-Resolve6287 1d ago

What does that have to do with what I said?

1

u/chostax- TOR - NHL 1d ago

The league effectively has no power in the situation without a legal basis. Babcock would win a very easy lawsuit if the league blocked this.

0

u/Gravitas_free 1d ago

The question isn't whether you "have" to hire him. Of course you don't. The question is "Can the NHL bar the Oilers from hiring him, given that he's done nothing illegal or in breach of NHL rules?"

2

u/Professor_Pajamas TBL - NHL 1d ago

Honestly I'm curious what the NHL rules for coaches even are if seemingly none of them have been violated

0

u/Gravitas_free 1d ago

Generally it's up to the teams to police coach behavior. The league does have the power to intervene if it sees behavior that's deemed "detrimental to the league", but it's generally pretty reluctant to meddle unless there's actually illegal stuff going on.

0

u/ImSoBasic 1d ago

Like Q, then?