Read on Twitter
Been thinking about the possibility of a Babcock hire and what it means w/r/t the alleged ugly stuff in his history and think it should be approached with nuance. I'm not about to make excuses for any of the off-ice stuff (and, really, it's all inter-related, isn't it?). (1/4)
That said, if they do hire Babcock, the smart take isn't "They're ignoring the ugly stuff" or "They don't care about it," but rather "They did their due diligence on it and were satisfied with the answers they got (from Babcock and from other folks)." (2/4)
And you can take issue with whether they should be satisfied with those answers, those references, etc., or even if satisfaction should be possible with some of the allegations. But suggesting that they're indifferent to or ignoring the issues doesn't ring true (for me). (3/4)
This is a team that has emphasized "culture" to a degree that has made a lot of folks uncomfortable. They handed 34-year-old Brooks Orpik $27.5m to help with the "culture." Mac just spoke of the culture "slip[ping]." Culture matters to them, and it will matter in this hire. (4/4)
