[Rumour] Babcock...doing Babcock things? Babcock resigns

[dammage79]

I think dreger and everyone else knows the real story here. They're just waiting for the okay to drop stuff. Unlike the SC guys, they're bound by corporate ties to not spill beans. I'm more inclined to believe Babcock and possibly Kekalainen will be axed before the season starts solely based on the fact Dreger even implied jobs are at stake here.

Takes something real for the PA to turn around and get back on a plane to go back and do face to face meetings with players. That's beyond due diligence IMO.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Why would Babcock want dick pics when the players walk around naked in the dressing room?

[dustygoon]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

I myself don't, but their gross misrepresentations influenced actual journalists like Friedman to pile on to the reaching instead of remaining measured, reporting the actual credible information, and waiting for the full story to come out.

Come on. Why is this so hard for you? Friedman was measured. Go listen to what he said.

You a closet Babcock fan that thinks this is unwarranted? Or you just get triggered by athletes who act in public like most athletes do in the locker room?

[Reggie Dunlop]

Also: Remember when CP filters would truncate "Babcock" to "Bab****?"

[dustygoon]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

Also: Remember when CP filters would truncate "Babcock" to "Bab****?"

Why would Babcock want dick pics when the players walk around naked in the dressing room?

No matter how unhinged some get in here, i love when Reg drops in some light hearted stuff.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

Why would Babcock want dick pics when the players walk around naked in the dressing room?

Future extortion opportunities. You can't complain about the coach if he has dirt on you.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by dustygoon

Come on. Why is this so hard for you? Friedman was measured. Go listen to what he said.

You a closet Babcock fan that thinks this is unwarranted? Or you just get triggered by athletes who act in public like most athletes do in the locker room?

Go listen to what I listened to?

[Yeah_Baby]

Yeah, it's fully possible that the core intent was benign or even well intentioned. Where I suspect things could go weird is when you don't wanna show pictures of your kids or whatever and you coerced or made to by your boss because they're your boss. Them not respecting your 'no thanks' is the issue.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

Why would Babcock want dick pics when the players walk around naked in the dressing room?

So he can ask Johnny to rank them by hardest to softest and then read the list out to the team.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

So he can ask Johnny to rank them by hardest to softest and then read the list out to the team.

[dustygoon]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

Go listen to what I listened to?

I had to ask. You seem to be hunkered down in your echo chamber. Here is a summary of Friedman's comments or the link below. The podcast talked a lot about what the NHLPA is doing and asks questions (did he commit a violation, can the team perform with him coaching?).

Maybe it doesn't fit your narrative, but how is this not measured?

The guy i have to listen to is the guy who is here in Vegas...Johnny Gaudreau. Also spoke to a few people. Babcock has done this before. People he spoke to made it clear that Babs didn't take their phones; he asked for them. Comes down to how comfortable you feel sometimes with your phone.

PB doesn't throw this out there without them saying they are uncomfortable. We have to know that sometimes people will be OK with this and some people will be uncomfortable. Some will care. Some won't. Not everyone will feel the same way.

https://www.sportsnet.ca/nhl/video/w...t-allegations/

[SuperMatt18]

To me there would be a clear line between asking for the phone, and forcing somebody to hand over the phone.

Somebody could ask to see your phone, and you could feel awkward about that, but you still relent because they are your superior. To me that is not a great experience for that player...but also don't think it means it's intentionally malicious.

Based on the story Jack Han posted, and the statements that Gaudreau and Jenner made, it seems like something Babcock does with his players / staff that isn't necessarily malicious but a bit awkward.

If it's that I think you just tell him "Please stop asking to see pictures on people's phones" but don't think it's a fireable offence right off the bat.

However...if he forced you to hand over your phone even if you said you weren't comfortable, and if he used the photos he saw in a malicious way to criticize the player or judge them in any way, or made inappropriate comments about players GF/Spouses...then I think that maybe starts to cross the line into the "You can't do that" territory.

Part of me is really starting to wonder if maybe this is more about a comment that was made about a players GF/Spouse/Partner that was inappropriate more than the sharing of the photos themselves...

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by dustygoon

I had to ask. You seem to be hunkered down in your echo chamber. Here is a summary of Friedman's comments or the link below. The podcast talked a lot about what the NHLPA is doing and asks questions (did he commit a violation, can the team perform with him coaching?).

Maybe it doesn't fit your narrative, but how is this not measured?





https://www.sportsnet.ca/nhl/video/w...t-allegations/

That's not the Friedman audio I'm talking about.

[Matt Reeeeead]

Let’s not be naive.

If he simply wanted to see a few pictures, he could ask in advance, or have guys submit a few pictures of them with family or something meaningful.

Putting someone on the spot, using airplay, etc

Everything guys like Babcock do is methodical


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Asking someone to hand over your phone to review pictures (as opposed to a person just asking to see pictures) is awkward and weird. A boss asking to hand over your phone is borderline psychotic. A step beyond acceptable behaviour and a breach of privacy. I don't know if that should be a fireable offence, but it is more than just awkward and weird.

[FanIn80]

You're sitting in your office quietly working away on whatever, and suddenly your phone rings and the new COO wants to see you in his office. You head over there to see them, they offer you a seat and say they just want to officially say hi and get to know you a bit. Then they ask you to pull out your phone and show them some pictures of your family and friends and your most recent vacation.

- Are you surprised and/or annoyed, but go along with it because you have no idea what the job market is like out there right now, since up until this very minute you've been more than happy with your job and the company you work for.

Someone else speaks up about it (anonymously of course!) to an outside party and now you're in a position to have to make a choice.

- Do you back up whomever that was or take the side of the new COO, knowing that even if the whole thing comes out, there's a good chance the company's not going to fire them and then you're now the guy who tried to get him fired. (Afterall, if he's the kind of guy that thinks it's ok to want to look at your phone, then what else is he gonna be willing to do?)



Edit: Actually, another thought just occured to me... what if the real story isn't that he asked to see their phone OR that he just asked to see a picture. What if he's the kind of guy who's like "oh is that your family? awesome! hey lemme see? I don't have my glasses handy..." and then starts swiping on his own. In my mind, that would be the absolute worst scenario. Those are the people that need to be fired off into space.

[activeStick]

I listened to the 32 thoughts portion where they talked about this and all I heard was Friedman saying, "I wonder how the younger players feel about all this" and he never outright said that the younger players didn't like what happened, by using the word "wonder" (which he overuses, but I digress). Have there been any other sources that confirm the younger players have issues with this?

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

Edit: Actually, another thought just occured to me... what if the real story isn't that he asked to see their phone OR that he just asked to see a picture. What if he's the kind of guy who's like "oh is that your family? awesome! hey lemme see? I don't have my glasses handy..." and then starts swiping on his own. In my mind, that would be the absolute worst scenario. Those are the people that need to be fired off into space.

To me I think this is a possible scenario.

There are actually just people that are socially awkward, that have no social intelligence, and don't understand boundaries.

I had a boss once who was a probably a bit on the spectrum, and very socially awkward, and he would do some things most people would really cringe at. But in the end he actually was a guy who was actually really caring for this team, was curious, and it wasn't malicious but that doesn't mean it wasn't really really awkward.

One time he started going through a co-workers glove box without asking as they were driving to an off-site event. She was terrified and it was completely offside - but he actually wasn't doing it maliciously in anyway - he was just that socially awkward that he wouldn't have thought it was unacceptable.

Doesn't mean that it's acceptable and that you have to live with that behavior, but also doesn't mean that it was intentionally malicious.

However the people who didn't like him - would always think he was doing this with some type of malicious intent, or that he was a terrible human in some way.

That situation kind of reminds me of this in a way. None of Jack Han (no longer an employee of Babcock), Gaudreau, and Jenner thought it was intentionally malicious. But it doesn't mean that it's not awkward, or that somebody wouldn't take it as malicious or feel that it crossed a line.

However at this point I think there might be part of the story that we are not aware of, because if the threat of him being fired is actually out there (according to Dreger) then I don't think he could be fired for cause just by asking to look at the photos. There would have to be another layer to it that he somehow crossed a line with either how he asked, or a comment he made I think.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

To me I think this is a possible scenario.

There are actually just people that are socially awkward, that have no social intelligence, and don't understand boundaries.

I had a boss once who was a probably a bit on the spectrum, and very socially awkward, and he would do some things most people would really cringe at. But in the end he actually was a guy who was actually really caring for this team, was curious, and it wasn't malicious but that doesn't mean it wasn't really really awkward.

One time he started going through a co-workers glove box without asking as they were driving to an off-site event. She was terrified and it was completely offside - but he actually wasn't doing it maliciously in anyway - he was just that socially awkward that he wouldn't have thought it was unacceptable.

Doesn't mean that it's acceptable and that you have to live with that behavior, but also doesn't mean that it was intentionally malicious.

However the people who didn't like him - would always think he was doing this with some type of malicious intent, or that he was a terrible human in some way.

That situation kind of reminds me of this in a way. None of Jack Han (no longer an employee of Babcock), Gaudreau, and Jenner thought it was intentionally malicious. But it doesn't mean that it's not awkward, or that somebody wouldn't take it as malicious or feel that it crossed a line.

However at this point I think there might be part of the story that we are not aware o, because if the threat of him being fired is actually out there (according to Dreger) then I don't think he could be fired for cause just by asking to look at the photos. There would have to be another layer to it that he somehow crossed a line with either how he asked, or a comment he made I think.

Yeah, good points. I was kinda think of it as in a person doing it purposefully while knowing it was offside... But absolutely there are people who suffer from ASD and just aren't aware of these things.

(not directed at anyone specific, just a genral point: for the record, I was suggesting the malicious actors be fired off into space - not ASD sufferers)

Also now that I think about it, there are stories (quotes?) about Babcock being socially awkward, no?

I mean if that's the case, then there's more room for working it out. Like maybe it needs to be explained to players that he might say/do/ask something from time to time that's not cool - and if it happens it's ok to say no. On the flipside, it would also need to be explained to him that players are allowed to say no if they're not comfortable (obv not talking about lineup changes, day to day hockey stuff, etc).

But then again, he's in a poisition of authority... who's to say that a player getting benched after one screw up 3 weeks from now isn't because he said no to showing pictures today?

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by AustinL_NHL

How funny would it be for Biz and Spittin Chiclets to be the people that brings the old men's hockey club crashing to the ground and forces change around the NHL.

The anti-hero's we needed

As much as they're party guys so people write them off, they've always been very loud and outspoken against this type of crap