What Is "The Culture" And How Do You Fix It?

[majormajor]

I think it indirectly stems from the piece discussed in this thread:
News Article: - Former players tell The Athletic about CBJ as an organization

Right, I understood it that way. But they seem like separate issues that were brought up at the same time, both in the interviews and in this thread.

 

[JacketsDavid]

IMO the culture needs to center around taking care of the players.
Every team has a salary cap that you can't get around. But upgrade everything for the players - we should have the nicest lock room in the NHL as an example. We already have the attached practice facility which is a plus.
We should invest in a coaching staff. Spend money getting a great staff.

All the PR stuff will happen (guys with foundations, charity work) but I remember how big of joke it was when IDWT had every free agent commit to buying a certain number of tickets for groups (all he was doing was padding pathetic attendance numbers). THe players will do the right things if they are taken care of.

The players have got yo want to be here.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Our culture?

We have a nice zoo.

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

Your comments about marketing are interesting. It sounds like they worked pretty consistently at getting good press for both the team and individual players. Thanks for sharing that otherwise I doubt I ever would have known about this.

To be clear, and I know you didn't ask and this doesn't reply to your post --
my friend's job in team marketing was specifically regarding player public appearances and community relations. Not the sales stuff or season slogans or signage or any of the other stuff we'd associate with that aspect of operations.

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

Our culture?

We have a nice zoo.

Calling the @Viqsi ballbat emoji...

 

[DJA]

As mentioned previously, we need to have the nicest locker room in the NHL, like what Mark Cuban did for the Mavs, I’m talking TVs, Playstations in every stall, top of the line lounge with every food or drink you could think of, the best training facilities in the league, loaner cars, private jets, this the kind of stuff I don’t see McConnell willing/having the deep pockets to do and it stifles us. It’s why I’ve been curious about the Haslams coming in and bringing an NFL- player mindset to the club.

 

[majormajor]

Culture requires hard work from ownership, management, AND the players themselves.

Owners need to be willing to spend the money necessary to succeed as well as act as advocates for their team both to the league and community. While I applaud John McConnell's willingness to support the team financially, he seems to be too passive as an advocate. You never see him give an interview, never hear his thoughts about what is going on in the league, and never see him promoting himself and the team locally. Compare this to owners of many other franchises across different sports.

I'll say I much prefer our model of ownership to just about every other kind I've seen around the major sports. I don't want a high profile owner, I don't want them to be doing press, and I don't want them visibly around the team celebrating our victories. Actually that last bit irks me a lot when I see other sports constantly showing the owners and their reactions, and giving them center stage when the trophies are presented. You just inherited a bunch of money, you're not the star of the show. Just give money to the team, hire the best hockey man, and get out of the way. And that's what our owners do. They're perfect!

 

[Viqsi]

Our culture?

We have a nice zoo.

by request

 

[Crede777]

I'll say I much prefer our model of ownership to just about every other kind I've seen around the major sports. I don't want a high profile owner, I don't want them to be doing press, and I don't want them visibly around the team celebrating our victories. Actually that last bit irks me a lot when I see other sports constantly showing the owners and their reactions, and giving them center stage when the trophies are presented. You just inherited a bunch of money, you're not the star of the show. Just give money to the team, hire the best hockey man, and get out of the way. And that's what our owners do. They're perfect!

I certainly prefer what John McConnell does to James Dolan and Eugene Melnyk. But I do think that culture starts at the top and that JPM seems happy to let Priest do everything which seems to be rather little.

 

[majormajor]

When I look at professional sports franchises across sports, certain teams regularly succeed and almost always put a competitive team on the field/court/ice. With these teams GMs change, coaches change, the roster continually changes, what remains constant is ownership, the commitment to excellence and fielding a winning product. For the most part, established players WANT to play for contenders. Is Blue Jacket ownership the root problem?

Not how it works in hockey. There's a lot of parity, and teams go up and down all the time. The best teams are built around players they drafted. And when those players are past their primes, they either replace them with equal talent through the draft or they're toast. "Fielding a winning product" doesn't transcend the star players you drafted.

Detroit is toast. Chicago is toast. L.A. is toast. That's your best teams of 10 years ago. Well Pittsburgh and Washington, but they will probably be toast soon.

No CBJ ownership is not at the root of the problem. I'm totally f***in miffed that it's even a topic. We might have the best ownership in sports.

 

[majormajor]

I certainly prefer what John McConnell does to James Dolan and Eugene Melnyk. But I do think that culture starts at the top and that JPM seems happy to let Priest do everything which seems to be rather little.

I'm not privy to what Priest does on the business side. I don't follow that like I follow hockey. So I wouldn't know. I also don't think we know in general. Like @Double-Shift Lasse's comment about marketing, it sure seems like just about all of us have no idea what the professionals who work on that side of the team actually do. They might be fantastic for all we know.

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

I certainly prefer what John McConnell does to James Dolan and Eugene Melnyk. But I do think that culture starts at the top and that JPM seems happy to let Priest do everything which seems to be rather little.

What is his role? What does he do and what does he not do that he should be?

Asking genuinely as a person completely willing to lay blame on Mike Priest although I don’t know him as a person.

 

[Crede777]

I'm not privy to what Priest does on the business side. I don't follow that like I follow hockey. So I wouldn't know. I also don't think we know in general. Like @Double-Shift Lasse's comment about marketing, it sure seems like just about all of us have no idea what the professionals who work on that side of the team actually do. They might be fantastic for all we know.

That's completely fair. I'm not really saying ownership is a root problem, but rather that they likely could do a bit more than they currently are.

I'm less concerned about marketing because that isn't really up to the team. It's not like Priest can demand that Wendys give Seth Jones a 2 minute spot or that NBCSN show more Jackets games. Perhaps they could demand that a part of the television rights deal include a clause requiring teams be shown equally or the like, but that would likely lower the dollar amount of the deal (ESPN would see less value in a deal that requires them to show small markets equally to big markets).

Perhaps ownership can do more to wine and dine free agents (and I don't mean take Nathan Horton to the zoo), but we don't really know what goes on there either.

What is his role? What does he do and what does he not do that he should be?

Asking genuinely as a person completely willing to lay blame on Mike Priest although I don’t know him as a person.

I'm talking about ownership acting like John Davidson - which is why I think it's a good thing they got him back. He's a liaison to the rest of the league and garners respect which is the type of leadership and culture I think that ownership contributes to the overall equation. He also offers input on the overall state of the team and league which is something I like to see from ownership. It signals a vested interest beyond merely the financials. Sure, Davidson does have his rare bad take (like the "it's extortion!" quote from the Johansen fiasco) but he usually demonstrates a willingness to act as a bit of a figurehead for the rest of the team. When we are talking about what constitutes team "culture," I think that's certainly part of it.

 

[NotWendell]

This entire organization is all about being "good enough." Not about being elite.

 

[majormajor]

This entire organization is all about being "good enough." Not about being elite.

Lol. Did they have a discount on hot takes?

What are you talking about Lee?

 

[majormajor]

I'm talking about ownership acting like John Davidson - which is why I think it's a good thing they got him back. He's a liaison to the rest of the league and garners respect which is the type of leadership and culture I think that ownership contributes to the overall equation. He also offers input on the overall state of the team and league which is something I like to see from ownership. It signals a vested interest beyond merely the financials. Sure, Davidson does have his rare bad take (like the "it's extortion!" quote from the Johansen fiasco) but he usually demonstrates a willingness to act as a bit of a figurehead for the rest of the team. When we are talking about what constitutes team "culture," I think that's certainly part of it.

- Since we have John Davidson does that mean we don't need ownership to be John Davidson?

- Which owners around the league are even capable of being that kind of team figure? To chart the course, have authority and instant credibility, and actually make good decisions?

- I'd really rather owners didn't try to be John Davidson. I know you said "not like Dolan/Melnyk" but to me that's what an active owner in the NHL does. That or the Aquilinis in Vancouver or Pegulas in Buffalo. All of the examples I can think of are terrible disasters. I think that's what happens when owners try and play that role, it's just not the right division of responsibilities.

I'm trying to think if I know of any owners who play such a big role and aren't sort of awful. I'll exclude the ones who were gifted superstars, so no Katz, Lemieux, or Leonsis. Who else is there that is high profile in public and making hockey decisions?

 

[Crede777]

Not how it works in hockey. There's a lot of parity, and teams go up and down all the time. The best teams are built around players they drafted. And when those players are past their primes, they either replace them with equal talent through the draft or they're toast. "Fielding a winning product" doesn't transcend the star players you drafted.

Detroit is toast. Chicago is toast. L.A. is toast. That's your best teams of 10 years ago. Well Pittsburgh and Washington, but they will probably be toast soon.

No CBJ ownership is not at the root of the problem. I'm totally f***in miffed that it's even a topic. We might have the best ownership in sports.

I think it goes deeper than building around drafted players. A major part of success in this league is fitting as much talent as possible under the cap.

Drafted players are important because they provide value while making minimal money on their ELC's. Then, when they come off their ELC's, they don't have much actual negotiation leverage and so are presumed to continue providing value that is less than they actually make.

That's why the Jackets took the hammer to young players which resulted in losing Johansen and Anderson. While we don't know why PLD left, my bargain bin guess is that it had to do with Anderson given the timing of the whole thing.

On the other hand, we have Edmonton, Buffalo, and Toronto who all handed out mega deals to their young stars because they were worried about keeping them happy (and in town). However, those teams are golfing now also and their stars seem to be upset at the losing rather than the contract negotiations.

 

[Crede777]

- Since we have John Davidson does that mean we don't need ownership to be John Davidson?

- Which owners around the league are even capable of being that kind of team figure? To chart the course, have authority and instant credibility, and actually make good decisions?

- I'd really rather owners didn't try to be John Davidson. I know you said "not like Dolan/Melnyk" but to me that's what an active owner in the NHL does. That or the Aquilinis in Vancouver or Pegulas in Buffalo. All of the examples I can think of are terrible disasters. I think that's what happens when owners try and play that role, it's just not the right division of responsibilities.

I'm trying to think if I know of any owners who play such a big role and aren't sort of awful. I'll exclude the ones who were gifted superstars, so no Katz, Lemieux, or Leonsis. Who else is there that is high profile in public and making hockey decisions?

I was going to say Lemieux but he's off the table. I think Chicago's ownership does that well (Rocky Wirtz the son of Bill Wirtz) but I'm also looking at team owners that are actually corporations or a board (Comcast with the Flyers, MLSE, and Predators Holdings LLC).

You're definitely right, though, that there are more "bad" active individual owners (the Pegulas, Melnyk, Dolan, etc.) than good ones right now.

 

[majormajor]

I think it goes deeper than building around drafted players. A major part of success in this league is fitting as much talent as possible under the cap.

I'm sure we could agree on that and a lot of other things that you need to be successful in this league, but my point was that if you look around, there's no such thing as an org that has a monopoly on winning. Everyone's going up and down.

The winningest team of the last two decades is the Boston Bruins, and that stretch includes a rebuild for them and four years where they missed the playoffs. So literally every team has had to rebuild at least once. You can't just look at a team that's out of the playoffs and conclude from that fact that "welp, they didn't have a commitment to excellence emanating from their FO". Not in this sport.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

I can't roll my eyes hard enough at sports team culture discussions. It's such an easy boogeyman when you're bad and an almost equally trite excuse when you're good. I do think there are some genuine examples out there (Steelers, Cowboys, Raiders, Patriots all come to mind if you'll allow a cross-sport comparison -- then again maybe I only perceive this because NFL media more than any other REALLY loves to get all masturbatory about culture and frankly each of those cultures can be tied to one specific personality, three of whom happen to be owners).

But generally speaking I don't think the vast majority of sports teams have a "culture" beyond winning and losing, which isn't actually a culture but rather a series of consistent outcomes that people like to ascribe to amorphous nonsense like culture.

When you're doing well you can pat yourself on the back and say, "Well, it's because we give everyone a personalized cupcake on their birthday!" and when you're doing bad you can blame it on "The guys don't hang out off the ice" or some such thing. The reality is that there are probably ostensibly "bad" culture teams that still get good results and "good" culture teams that suck.

Can anyone identify for me the actual discernable "culture" of any specific NHL teams? Cuz I'm struggling.

 

[Iron Balls McGinty]

Mentality, people, mission. All need significant upgrades.

Mentality/Mission - "The goal of this organization is to win the Stanley Cup. Anything less is not acceptable and a failure. Everyone and everything in this organization must be aligned with this, this is non-negotiable." No more - "Making the playoffs" or "Winning a series" nonsense. Anyone that's worried about making the 8th seed is already losing. There is a killer instinct and mentality of winners, and it is nowhere to be found.

People - We may be turning the corner here with JD. Having Jared Boll leading development isn't going to cut it in the ECHL and certainly won't cut it here. No more front office jobs for former players unless they're bringing something to the table. Rick Nash - looking at you too - guy who asked for a trade out of town is going to be in charge of "Player Recruitment?" GMAFB. Torts is out, but he definitely was not a player's coach and it's showing with the key departures in his tenure. Woody Hayes - You Win with People.

Funny because Torts is the Woody Hayes of hockey coaches. He was a hard ass who got fired for punching a player.

 

[LJ7]

I can't roll my eyes hard enough at sports team culture discussions. It's such an easy boogeyman when you're bad and an almost equally trite excuse when you're good. I do think there are some genuine examples out there (Steelers, Cowboys, Raiders, Patriots all come to mind if you'll allow a cross-sport comparison -- then again maybe I only perceive this because NFL media more than any other REALLY loves to get all masturbatory about culture and frankly each of those cultures can be tied to one specific personality, three of whom happen to be owners).

But generally speaking I don't think the vast majority of sports teams have a "culture" beyond winning and losing, which isn't actually a culture but rather a series of consistent outcomes that people like to ascribe to amorphous nonsense like culture.

When you're doing well you can pat yourself on the back and say, "Well, it's because we give everyone a personalized cupcake on their birthday!" and when you're doing bad you can blame it on "The guys don't hang out off the ice" or some such thing. The reality is that there are probably ostensibly "bad" culture teams that still get good results and "good" culture teams that suck.

Can anyone identify for me the actual discernable "culture" of any specific NHL teams? Cuz I'm struggling.

A good example of this is another cross sport one: the Miami Heat. Last season when they made the finals "Heat culture" was seen as a genuine force that drove them to winning. This season it's a punchline because they got swept round one. To further help your point the LA Kings off ice "culture" in the 2012 playoffs was an interesting case study

 

[Nanabijou]

I'll echo MM's and others' support of ownership. Maybe a decade ago, I was a little skeptical of JMac Jr as an owner. But, I have to say, he's answered the bell - he's spent money on the team when it was needed. There was some talk of an internal cap this year, which I completely understand given the pandemic, but he still answered the bell in terms of eating salary on Foligno's and Savard's deal which has set the CBJ up nicely this draft.

I've known a couple of people that have been in his suite during games and I've talked to one or two that seem to know him a bit better. What I've heard is that he is pretty passionate about the team, but hates the limelight, and knows better to act on his fan impulses. So, he lets the hockey people he has in charge do their job. I respect that.

There's some issues that need to be fixed and the owners have a role in making sure that there are people in place who can fix those issues and money available for those fixes. But, I have no issues with current ownership in terms of the culture question.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

A good example of this is another cross sport one: the Miami Heat. Last season when they made the finals "Heat culture" was seen as a genuine force that drove them to winning. This season it's a punchline because they got swept round one. To further help your point the LA Kings off ice "culture" in the 2012 playoffs was an interesting case study

Exactly. And what I think "Heat culture" really means at its heart is Pat Reilly. When he goes, so goes that culture. So I wonder if what we really talk about when we talk about sports culture is actually more of a cult of personality. Bill Belichick. Jerry Jones. Woody Hayes. HELL JOHN TORTARELLA could probably qualify.

 

[Jaxs]

Interesting topic(s) and posts.

Culture is not amenities in the dressing room or private plane privileges. Culture is a way of adhering to a set of self governing or self discipline handed down between players. The captain is in charge of culture as well as leaders on team. A coach is also involved. Hierarchy on a team or anywhere else sets the standard. If there are a bunch of practical jokers on a team, the standard is loose. If there are a bunch of hard asses, the standard is rigid.
That is my interpretation of culture when it comes to a team. Culture in society is quite different than on a team or a club.

Being a new franchise, who set the standard, or how does culture become engrained? Did Dougie Mac set the tone? Dave King? John McConnell? The coaches that came thru all had their styles. Hitch and Torts were firebreathers while Richards had more of an easy going persona. It all has set the standard. Jarmo has mentioned in interviews recently that we don't want to lose the culture we have set or built, referring mainly to the Torts years.

I am saying that culture can mean one thing to me and another to you when asking what does culture mean (when referring to a sport or team or the team you and I root for).