Some 10 days ago, when hockey’s MeToo movement was just beginning, a collection of scribes talked in Edmonton about the coaches who might be next.
Marc Crawford was mentioned almost immediately and this was before the Chicago Blackhawks began investigating events from 13 years ago and longer involving their assistant coach. Ken Hitchcock’s name came up. So did Bob Hartley’s. Mike Keenan would have been on everyone’s first ballot but then, as now, it was unclear if the statutes of limitations have expired on Keenan.
It was the talk of the morning skate before the Oilers-Canucks’ game and it continues to be the talk of the hockey world. But, that day at least, no one mentioned Jim Montgomery, the Dallas head coach who was fired Tuesday for a “material act of unprofessionalism,” according to Stars’ GM Jim Nill.
Nill went on to say Montgomery’s dismissal was unrelated to NHL commissioner Gary Bettman’s pronouncement on Monday night and maybe that’s the case.
But if it is, you have to admit that’s one helluva coincidence.
Montgomery has become the second NHL head coach in the last two weeks to lose his job for reasons other than his team’s won-loss record. On Nov. 29, Calgary’s Bill Peters resigned four days after it was revealed he’d directed the N-word at African-Canadian Akim Aliu during the 2009-10 AHL season in Rockford.
Peters, we stress, is in a different category than Montgomery who’s in a different category than Crawford and they’re all different than Mike Babcock, who was fired in Toronto before a laundry list of unsavoury actions came to light.
But in the current environment, it’s difficult to distinguish one of those coaches from another; hard to know what Montgomery did that Crawford didn’t. We know Bettman announced a zero-tolerance policy toward abusive behaviour on Monday and, as part of this new direction, all NHL coaches, GMs and assistant GMs will undertake “consciousness-raising education and training on diversity and inclusion.”
And we know Bettman further suggested a hotline could be set up where complainants can report inappropriate behaviour anonymously. Beyond that, who knows what the end game is here? We just know that sound you hear is John Ferguson rolling over in his grave.
And one other thing, please sell tickets for John Tortorella’s session on consciousness-raising.
Hockey’s day of reckoning, of course, was long overdue but it’s also attempting to correct a culture that has been entrenched for a century or so in the space of a fortnight.
Predictably, that’s created a lot of confusion. Peters, as mentioned, is one thing. But what exactly was the “material act of unprofessionalism” that cost Montgomery his job? Did he wear stripes with solids? Did he tip 10 per cent? In the absence of specifics, we’re left to make bad jokes but if the NHL is prepared to go down this road, here’s three words to consider: wrongful dismissal lawsuit.
That’s not as funny.
Still, Bettman has made this a priority for his administration and if you doubted his intent, you just had to listen to the chilling warning he directed Monday to NHL teams; “We don’t like to be surprised.”
Montgomery was the first coach to fall. Will Crawford be next? Will he be employable after the Hawks are finished with their investigation? If he isn’t, does he have legal recourse?
What about Babcock? He was the NHL’s highest-paid coach and, before this year, on the short list of the game’s best. Ordinarily, he’d have his choice of jobs but these are hardly ordinary times. The league, it seems, has appointed itself judge and jury in these matters which raise any number of questions. What constitutes abuse? How far back will they go? Does it apply to the NHL or will minor-league and junior events be examined?
While we’re asking questions what, exactly, is the serious punishment Bettman alluded to on Monday?
We’ll find out soon enough. In the meantime, make no mistakes about the league’s intent here.
This weekend, your agent had a lengthy telephone conversation with Colin Campbell, who’s worked at the NHL’s head office for a quarter of a century. We touched on a couple of subjects related to this paper’s Canucks at 50 series before I asked him about the subject on everyone’s mind.
I’ll talk about that, he said.
Campbell, who can charitably be described as old school, said change had to come to the game but he was uncomfortable with “turning back the calendar,” and judging events that occurred 20 or 30 years ago by the standards of 2019. It was, by any measure, a reasonable answer but the next morning someone called from the NHL office wondering if Campbell had spoken about coaches.
They’re kind of sensitive about this in New York. That much is certain. Less certain is knowing where this will all lead.
CLICK HERE to report a typo.
Is there more to this story? We’d like to hear from you about this or any other stories you think we should know about. Email [email protected]
Copyright Postmedia Network Inc., 2019
