Holland on Babcock

[MBH]

quite possible. But we are currently in a time where people are/were calling it "abuse" to simply keep the score of games. Couple that with ex pro athletes who grew up getting constant attention, who are suddenly not getting any attention since retirement, and I think it's also quite possible, and probably more likely, that this is all nonsense

Oh, don't bring the snowflake nonsense in here, bro.

 

[Richard Gibson]

Well, one good thing about all this is finding out which posters to avoid

As for Babcock. There isn't anything in the ballpark of Peters going on. Like all bosses who's leadership style is half teaching, half bullying, Babcock probably didn't do anything deliberately immoral or wrong, but he represents an old school philosophy which is not only a little out of step with current working practices in a world where young people are more informed than ever before, but also his approach is very trad Canadian Hockey...there is a reason why a number of the European players had issues with Babs, particularly the Scandinavian ones, because they are from more progressive societies, where communication styles and respect are very different. Of course, with abuse being discussed more openly in Western Society as a whole, being able to brush unreasonable behaviour under the carpet of locker rooms being sacrosanct is starting to be challenged.

Do I think Babcock is evil, unhinged, mentally ill or worthy of criminal charges? No. Do I think he is an egomaniac with narcissistic tendencies who is happy to take the credit but not the blame, and can resort to bullying behaviour to try to get what he wants? Yes.
But I also think he did what he did with the belief it would get the best results for the team (and by extension himself), and hopefully will reflect on the reactions to what has come out about him in recent weeks, and affect a change in approach, so that his positive knowledge of the sport can still be applied successfully in an era where players are increasingly unlikely to put up with coaches being unreasonable or bullying or tyrranical or screwing with people for any length of time.

All I've heard suggests that he is just as unpleasant to play for as was hinted, and has a far greater loyalty to himself than his players, but nothing to suggest he's crossed the line between being an obnoxious a-h*** and it being untenable that he coaches again. The kind of boss that you can't take to an employment tribunal, but that will eventually unite the workplace against him, and those without too much to lose will walk away from. That said, I'm sure there will be more drip drip drip from disgruntled ex-players in time.

yes he did something wrong,he picked on the wrong guy,excusing him is wrong

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

that's not what Chelios said in the interview, though. The interviewer specifically asked if the leadership group did anything and Chelios said no. Then he said that when "something did happen, some second guessing got to Kenny Holland, he came down to the room and he had this speech... ."

And Chelios was still employed by the Wings. You don't think he traveled with the team? And I'm not sure it really matters if Chelios "saw" it from the bench when it's already been corroborated by two different people. If Chelios is "completely false" then Franzen and Holland are also lying about it, and it really doesn't do Holland any good to lie about it to confirm it.

You don't think it matters if I'm telling a story about some incident as if I saw it, but I actually wasn't even there and just heard it secondhand?

I honestly don't know if Chelios travelled with the team. I have no idea what an Advisor on Hockey Operations does. But I'm pretty confident he wasn't on the bench when it happened.

I'm in no way saying Franzen and Holland are lying about it. I'm saying Chelios is retelling a story as if he was a witness when he wasn't there. And he took an event that happened years earlier and turned it into Holland's response to the Franzen incident. He painted an extremely different picture of what happened.

I've spent way too many words on this already. It's just tricky to articulate I think the whole thing is getting overblown without people taking it as dismissing it entirely.

 

[The Zetterberg Era]

Holland laid the ground work for being kept out of the loop by walking into the locker room and reportedly threatening to just deal guys if they can't deal with it. While you have to maintain some semblance of order and structure within the organization, the way Holland and Babcock went about it seems to be an increasingly archaic form of management. To go with that, I think we also saw Babcock gather increasing amounts of say in the Wings organization. We saw it in the style of the team, in personnel, etc. I think it's likely the Babcock that Holland thought he had in 2008 was not the same Babcock coaching that team in 2012.

I don't really blame Holland other than he seems to have become increasingly out of touch with the team in those years, from ceding GM duties to underlings to giving Babcock a disproportionate voice, or at least latitude. Babcock just seemed to grow ever more the megalomaniac.

Telling guys if they were unhappy to come speak with him and he will work on a trade isn't a threat. It is something he has been saying since 1997... You can't spend years talking about how milktoast Ken Holland is and think he fire and brimstoned them.

We have heard plenty of crap about Babcock over the years. Sorry if I have trouble getting on this with Holland. Not to mention he is inaction implicates far more than him if that is the standard. We are pushing an extreme at this point. So barring more damning information I have trouble understanding his involvement at this point in the story. We need more evidence.

 

[TheClap]

You don't think it matters if I'm telling a story about some incident as if I saw it, but I actually wasn't even there and just heard it secondhand?

I honestly don't know if Chelios travelled with the team. I have no idea what an Advisor on Hockey Operations does. But I'm pretty confident he wasn't on the bench when it happened.

I'm in no way saying Franzen and Holland are lying about it. I'm saying Chelios is retelling a story as if he was a witness when he wasn't there. And he took an event that happened years earlier and turned it into Holland's response to the Franzen incident. He painted an extremely different picture of what happened.

I've spent way too many words on this already. It's just tricky to articulate I think the whole thing is getting overblown without people taking it as dismissing it entirely.

He definitely traveled with the team. Got his autograph with Lidstrom the year before at a Rangers game when Lids was hurt and was in the press box with Cheli. Cheli was good friends with and played with a lot of those guys. No doubt they communicated, especially with his role in the organization. It may have been second hand, but Franzen basically confirmed what Cheli said.

 

[Winger98]

You don't think it matters if I'm telling a story about some incident as if I saw it, but I actually wasn't even there and just heard it secondhand?

I honestly don't know if Chelios travelled with the team. I have no idea what an Advisor on Hockey Operations does. But I'm pretty confident he wasn't on the bench when it happened.

I'm in no way saying Franzen and Holland are lying about it. I'm saying Chelios is retelling a story as if he was a witness when he wasn't there. And he took an event that happened years earlier and turned it into Holland's response to the Franzen incident. He painted an extremely different picture of what happened.

I've spent way too many words on this already. It's just tricky to articulate I think the whole thing is getting overblown without people taking it as dismissing it entirely.

I'm saying the narrative isn't fiction if it actually happened. And by all accounts it did. Could Chelios have been clearer? Yeah, but Chelios' lack of communication skills doesn't take anything away from what happened. I listen to that interview, though, and I don't get confused about when Holland talked to the team, I think Chelios is pretty clear these were separate incidents.

Regardless, happy Babcock isn't here. We don't need him going up to Larkin or Mantha or Hronek and going, "here, make me a list."

 

[Winger98]

Telling guys if they were unhappy to come speak with him and he will work on a trade isn't a threat. It is something he has been saying since 1997... You can't spend years talking about how milktoast Ken Holland is and think he fire and brimstoned them.

We have heard plenty of crap about Babcock over the years. Sorry if I have trouble getting on this with Holland. Not to mention he is inaction implicates far more than him if that is the standard. We are pushing an extreme at this point. So barring more damning information I have trouble understanding his involvement at this point in the story. We need more evidence.

It's clearly telling the players who is expendable and how problems with the coach is going to be handled. And considering the lack of turnover, the group of people Holland made that stand with in 07/08/whenever would have been the same group around in 2012. It doesn't have to be fire and brimstone, it's just a statement of fact about whose side the organization will be on. It makes it entirely pointless to come to him with any issues when Hollan's fallback is going to be, "well, I'll send you to Columbus."

edit; and I disagree it's not a threat to say they can trade you. We both know these guys value some level of stability. I wouldn't be surprised if they valued preserving the life they had off the ice over having to deal with Babcock.

 

[Dotter]

Holland laid the ground work for being kept out of the loop by walking into the locker room and reportedly threatening to just deal guys if they can't deal with it. While you have to maintain some semblance of order and structure within the organization, the way Holland and Babcock went about it seems to be an increasingly archaic form of management. To go with that, I think we also saw Babcock gather increasing amounts of say in the Wings organization. We saw it in the style of the team, in personnel, etc. I think it's likely the Babcock that Holland thought he had in 2008 was not the same Babcock coaching that team in 2012.

I don't really blame Holland other than he seems to have become increasingly out of touch with the team in those years, from ceding GM duties to underlings to giving Babcock a disproportionate voice, or at least latitude. Babcock just seemed to grow ever more the megalomaniac.

Are you worried Yzerman might be out of touch, also? I mean he did name Babock head coach in 2010 and 2014.

 

[TheClap]

Telling guys if they were unhappy to come speak with him and he will work on a trade isn't a threat. It is something he has been saying since 1997... You can't spend years talking about how milktoast Ken Holland is and think he fire and brimstoned them.

We have heard plenty of crap about Babcock over the years. Sorry if I have trouble getting on this with Holland. Not to mention he is inaction implicates far more than him if that is the standard. We are pushing an extreme at this point. So barring more damning information I have trouble understanding his involvement at this point in the story. We need more evidence.

Agreed. The only thing Holland is guilty of his not having the balls to move away from Babcock when the team leaders were expressing their discontent... and basically begging him to stay in 2015 despite all that and the lack of recent success they had had. It's almost like he was an emotionally abused lover of Babcock.

But to argue he was complicit in Babcocks general d****ebaggery is pretty ridiculous.

 

[Bench]

Regardless, happy Babcock isn't here. We don't need him going up to Larkin or Mantha or Hronek and going, "here, make me a list."

Probably not. Unless...

 

[Dotter]

Agreed. The only thing Holland is guilty of his not having the balls to move away from Babcock when the team leaders were expressing their discontent... and basically begging him to stay in 2015 despite all that and the lack of recent success they had had. It's almost like he was an emotionally abused lover of Babcock.

But to argue he was complicit in Babcocks general d****ebaggery is pretty ridiculous.

Plus we got Blashill. So all is good.

 

[TheClap]

Plus we got Blashill. So all is good.

LOL. We got a Mike Babcock clone, without the intensity and talent, but also without the prickish behavior. Win-win... ?

 

[Winger98]

Are you worried Yzerman might be out of touch, also? I mean he did name Babock head coach in 2010 and 2014.

You're going after the wrong person if you're expecting me to defend Yzerman. I think Babcock has lived off his reputation for awhile, and that greased the skids for some of opportunities. It could also be a thing where it's a short tournament, and whatever reservations Yzerman had with Babcock were mitigated by the time lines involved.

I'd be a bit surprised if Babcock's next job is the sort of high profile gig that coaching the Leafs (or Wings, tbh) was.

I should also admit that I think Holland's quality of work improved greatly when Yzerman and Nill gutted his front office, and Babcock moved on. I thought Holland really dug in again, and I liked what he was doing the last few years here.

 

[Dotter]

LOL. We got a Mike Babcock clone, without the intensity and talent, but also without the prickish behavior. Win-win... ?

So basically not a clone at all.

 

[The Zetterberg Era]

It's clearly telling the players who is expendable and how problems with the coach is going to be handled. And considering the lack of turnover, the group of people Holland made that stand with in 07/08/whenever would have been the same group around in 2012. It doesn't have to be fire and brimstone, it's just a statement of fact about whose side the organization will be on. It makes it entirely pointless to come to him with any issues when Hollan's fallback is going to be, "well, I'll send you to Columbus."

edit; and I disagree it's not a threat to say they can trade you. We both know these guys value some level of stability. I wouldn't be surprised if they valued preserving the life they had off the ice over having to deal with Babcock.

It ignores the open door part but sure. Basically it is saying if you find this unlivable I will work at helping you. Oddly enough this is something Commodore has championed Holland for. Cleary went to him and got more playing time. We have stories, they chose not to share this Franzen story with him and I don't think that is on Holland. I will change my mind if more statements come out from legit sources.

 

[TheClap]

So basically not a clone at all.

Clone in terms of general strategy. The "do my thing but harder, and if doesn't work you aren't doing it hard enough" mindset. And stupid ice time decisions, and line-up choices, like Glendening on the wing of a scoring line. Etc.

 

[GMR]

Sounds like Babcock may have purchased Mike Keenan's book on coaching, titled "How to Make Everyone Hate Me"

 

[Run the Jewels]

Dare I ask, should Franzen have been on LTIR if he could not handle the stress of being yelled at in-game? People apparently like calling this abuse, but what is it (this isolated incident) at the end of the day? It is yelling. No offense, but in professional athletics there is a reasonable expectation that you will be yelled at. I am not saying it is the most effective motivational tool, but it is hardly unforeseeable. If anything I hope this encourages the league to further explore the various issues associated with the cognitive health of the players and that the PA works hard to put players in a position to do right by their mental health.

Babcock is a ****ing dick. I don't think anyone on this board would want to play for him. That said, he is not an anomaly in terms of professional athletic coaching and professional athletics is a different planet from the one on which we live and work. If posters want to continue to eat the sausage, I suggest they not look into how it is actually made.

He should have been bought out, which is what I was campaigning for at the time. The typical Holland defenders were saying LOL, you let him play and LTIR him when necessary. It's gotta be real difficult twisting your opinion to exonerate Holland every time more data comes out to indicate he was a lame duck GM from about 2010 on. Just about every decision he made from that point on led us to where we are right now. He kept Babcock because that was his only shot to keep the playoff streak alive. Holland knew he was completely lost without Babcock behind the bench. Sure enough, look at the team's record since Babcock left for Toronto, we're one of the absolute worst franchises in hockey. We'd mock franchises for doing as much stupid shit as Holland did during this time frame.

 

[avssuc]

Lets be honest, if Gen X had the same weak mentality as Millennial's and Gen Z's in terms of the #metoo outcry, then Scotty Bowman and many other coaches would be ripped from the HHOF and any statues, posters, books would all be burned to the ground and their name and success would completely be removed from the history books.

That's where we are heading.

Do any of the entrenched on either ever bother to look at the other side? Why is this issue so polarizing? Not only that, but you people are throwing Bowmans name around quite a bit, but what is to say that he was guilty of the same sorts of issues? Maybe I missed it, but I haven't seen any comments where Bowman horror stories are put next to what Babs has done. Not saying they aren't out there, I'm just saying that we might want to include them if you want to draw the comparison.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

Do any of the entrenched on either ever bother to look at the other side? Why is this issue so polarizing? Not only that, but you people are throwing Bowmans name around quite a bit, but what is to say that he was guilty of the same sorts of issues? Maybe I missed it, but I haven't seen any comments where Bowman horror stories are put next to what Babs has done. Not saying they aren't out there, I'm just saying that we might want to include them if you want to draw the comparison.

It's because there wasn't social media when Bowman was coaching, but he was easily as bad or worse than Babcock. There's a reason he was referred to as an evil genius and master of head games. It's all fond memories now that he's retired but so many people hated Bowman, players and management, when he was coaching. People here may be too young to remember what a tyrant he was.

Here's one article I found written after the Wings Cup win in '97:

Crawford's display, extreme and embarrassing, may have been a singular manifestation of the bitter feelings many in hockey hold toward Bowman.

Ciccarelli called Bowman ''a great coach and a rotten person.'' Errey said Bowman used Slava Kozlov as a ''Russian whipping boy'' because he knew he could intimidate Kozlov, who wouldn't fight back.

Burr said Bowman kicks over the luggage of strangers at airports.

But many who know Bowman, and don't necessarily like him, will admit he might be a hockey genius. Steve Shutt, who played for Bowman in the 1970's in Montreal, once said that Bowman is the kind of coach a player hates for 364 days a year before putting on his championship ring on Day 365.
When he coached Pittsburgh in the early 1990's, the players agreed to play for Bowman only if he stayed in the locker room during practice. He has more power over the players in Detroit, but the team's bitter office politics are an open secret.

Jim Devellano, the senior vice president of the team and Bowman's superior on the organizational depth chart, said during the season that he doesn't like Bowman and Bowman doesn't like him but that they are able to work together.

Bowman seems to have several personalities, not just moods. He will invite people to dinner one night -- and pick up the tab -- and coldly ignore them the next morning after picking their brains for information.

Mr. Congeniality He's Not, but Mr. Stanley Cup Has a Resounding Ring

The Lightning's Dino Ciccarelli took a few shots at former coach Scotty Bowman when he visited Detroit last week. Asked why the Red Wings had traded Paul Coffey, Keith Primeau, Shawn Burr - and him - Ciccarelli said: "Coff spoke up. Burzy spoke up. Primeau spoke up. I spoke up. The list goes on. Does he want a bunch of robots? Maybe he does."

CICCARELLI ON BOWMAN: MAYBE HE WANTS ROBOTS

 

[Dotter]

Do any of the entrenched on either ever bother to look at the other side? Why is this issue so polarizing? Not only that, but you people are throwing Bowmans name around quite a bit, but what is to say that he was guilty of the same sorts of issues? Maybe I missed it, but I haven't seen any comments where Bowman horror stories are put next to what Babs has done. Not saying they aren't out there, I'm just saying that we might want to include them if you want to draw the comparison.

Looks like this was answered for you, in comprehensive form, below.

It's because there wasn't social media when Bowman was coaching, but he was easily as bad or worse than Babcock. There's a reason he was referred to as an evil genius and master of head games. It's all fond memories now that he's retired but so many people hated Bowman, players and management, when he was coaching. People here may be too young to remember what a tyrant he was.

Here's one article I found written after the Wings Cup win in '97:



Mr. Congeniality He's Not, but Mr. Stanley Cup Has a Resounding Ring



CICCARELLI ON BOWMAN: MAYBE HE WANTS ROBOTS

 

[TheClap]

It's because there wasn't social media when Bowman was coaching, but he was easily as bad or worse than Babcock. There's a reason he was referred to as an evil genius and master of head games. It's all fond memories now that he's retired but so many people hated Bowman, players and management, when he was coaching. People here may be too young to remember what a tyrant he was.

Here's one article I found written after the Wings Cup win in '97:



Mr. Congeniality He's Not, but Mr. Stanley Cup Has a Resounding Ring



CICCARELLI ON BOWMAN: MAYBE HE WANTS ROBOTS

Here's some more that I posted in another thread:

Snippets about Bowman and his antics/tactics:

The Doghouse Diaries

All of which proves that you can teach an older dog new tricks, something to which Hurricanes defenseman Aaron Ward can attest. In his formative NHL seasons with the Red Wings in the late 1990s, Ward didn't need a Ch√¢teau Bow Wow so much as a kennel the size of Versailles. The joke in the Detroit dressing room was that Ward should have his name legally changed from Aaron to F---ing because that is the way he was generally referred to by Bowman, who once called him up from the minors but sent him back down after the morning skate. Ward presumes he had a bad morning skate.

"One time [the Red Wings] had played poorly on special teams and we were practicing the penalty kill," Ward says. "The puck comes to me, I stop for a second and then shoot it out of the zone. Scotty blows the whistle and starts screaming that I should get rid of the puck before I get it. There I am, wondering if that's even physically possible. Now we're doing a drill where the [defensemen] have to get the puck out of the zone off the face-off, and he's standing at the boards at the blue line. For me to get it out, I'm going to have to wing it right at him. At this point I probably haven't been in the lineup for two weeks. Off the face-off the puck comes to me way too easy in the corner—you can see [centers] Steve Yzerman and Kris Draper grinning—so I fire it around the boards and wham! it hits Scotty in the head. He's bleeding. My career's over. He blows the whistle and screams, 'That's how you get the puck out of a zone.'

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/sports/capitals/longterm/1998/stanleycup/articles/bowman15.htm

Before this season, when Ken Holland was elevated to the post of general manager, Bowman served as director of player personnel for Detroit as well as coach. As Holland put it, "he was the guy whose philosophy everyone had to buy into. If they didn't buy in, they weren't here for very long." Players such as Dino Ciccarelli, Paul Coffey and Ray Sheppard were cast off, moves that were sometimes unpopular but certainly necessary to Bowman.

Bowman even had some problems with beloved Red Wings captain Steve Yzerman, and the situation almost came to a boil in 1995 with rumors that Yzerman was going to be dealt to Ottawa. But the two worked out their differences, both on and off the ice, and Yzerman has become one of Bowman's supporters.

"I found that you really have to prove yourself with him, regardless of your past record," Yzerman said. "It just took a while for me to adjust to what he was trying to do, but it went pretty smoothly after that. He's really driven. Winning is important, and during the season, he demands that guys come to practice and play every day."

Bowman may have been a jerk, a-hole, whatever, but there was a method to his madness that ultimately guys that bought into his system respected him and his process because it brought success. They may not have like him, but they respected him, they listened to him. The guys that didn't and spoke out, Shephard, Coffey, Dino... they didn't do much after leaving Detroit.

Babcock does not have the pedigree, and his behaviour does seem much worse. And furthermore he does not have the respect of his former guys like Bowman does. The comparison just doesn't fit.

 

[Fynn]

Guys that speak out are never thought highly of at the time. Ted Lindsay and Doug Harvey would have been called liberal snowflakes by some here because they spoke out and were instrumental in forming the players union.

At the very least, I hope Chelios speaking out has given Franzen some peace and he can hopefully find some sense of healing and normalcy in his life.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

Here's some more that I posted in another thread:

Snippets about Bowman and his antics/tactics:

The Doghouse Diaries

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/sports/capitals/longterm/1998/stanleycup/articles/bowman15.htm

​

Bowman may have been a jerk, a-hole, whatever, but there was a method to his madness that ultimately guys that bought into his system respected him and his process because it brought success. They may not have like him, but they respected him, they listened to him. The guys that didn't and spoke out, Shephard, Coffey, Dino... they didn't do much after leaving Detroit.

Babcock does not have the pedigree, and his behaviour does seem much worse. And furthermore he does not have the respect of his former guys like Bowman does. The comparison just doesn't fit.

The only real difference was the number of Cups, the era, and the lack of social media. The behavior is not worse. Bowman was brutal on players.

People want an investigation into Holland for allegedly implying that if players didn't buy into Babcock's system, they'd be traded. As GM/Coach Bowman did exactly that to players. Openly. Multiple times.

To be clear I'm not comparing their ability as actual hockey coaches. Just their level of manipulation and generally being an a-hole.

 

[Richard Gibson]

It's because there wasn't social media when Bowman was coaching, but he was easily as bad or worse than Babcock. There's a reason he was referred to as an evil genius and master of head games. It's all fond memories now that he's retired but so many people hated Bowman, players and management, when he was coaching. People here may be too young to remember what a tyrant he was.

Here's one article I found written after the Wings Cup win in '97:
Dino and Burr lost out on cups,prove it like Franzen did,22 years Claude has never apologized,nor now is it wanted.


Mr. Congeniality He's Not, but Mr. Stanley Cup Has a Resounding Ring



CICCARELLI ON BOWMAN: MAYBE HE WANTS ROBOTS