Rutherford Press Conference on Dec. 13, 2021.

[DeNiro]

16 minutes ago, NUCKER67 said:

Sounds like the new GM could be Patrik Allvin (currently A/GM in PIT)

Why would he leave mid season for a lateral position?

[Googlie]

2 minutes ago, DeNiro said:

Why would he leave mid season for a lateral position?

A Pittsburgh AGM equates to a Vancouver GM?

[DeNiro]

3 minutes ago, Googlie said:

A Pittsburgh AGM equates to a Vancouver GM?

Oh whoops I read that as AGM for Vancouver.

[Gawdzukes]

18 hours ago, JM_ said:

yup, you have to get the pro-scouting correct. Jim made some big mistakes on that, so hopefully the new GM has a better eye on that kind of thing. 

 

I do feel a bit for Gramlund, he had that 19 goal season and then needed wrist surgery, wasn't the same player after. 

The thing with that is it's a tough ask no matter how good your pro scouting is. Trading an established player for someone on the cusp always comes with some element of risk, otherwise they wouldn't trade that player in the first place. Most times I'm guessing it doesn't work out but once in a while you can strike gold. It depends on where you are in your trajectory if you need to and can afford to take that risk. I wouldn't necessarily call it bad pro scouting if it doesn't go right, These are gambles after all.

[aGENT]

1 hour ago, EternalCanuckFan said:

The problem with trading either of them however is that the Canucks basically have nothing in the pipeline to replace them.

This is why I'm hoping to see a package. Not necessarily these guys specifically but something like:

 

Miller, Poolman and Rathbone for Dobson  and Czikas. That way we still maintain C depth (and grit).

 

Or something like Miller and Poolman for Severson and Bahl, then move Rathbone for the (younger but somewhat proven) 3C.

[eeeeergh]

5 hours ago, IBatch said:

Thing is defense is a patch job at best as it is.  Take Myers out of the equation and try and replace him with half the cap (the other half going to his replacement, and of course Miller's gigantic raise)....and we'd likely have to retain to get anything decent back.   Where as Miller is a very desirable commodity right now - sell high buy low as they say and right now the most we could get for him, is before or at this years deadline.   Wonder who those teams were - and who the players they were asking about were?   Anyone with Ltir cap space to fill up, and who is going for it this year.    The market for Miller could be insane, and it's a one time opportunity.   Next year he is just a pure rental.    Myers is a decent anchor to have, guys like him don't grow on trees (maybe in the zoo though?lol).  

 

Edit:  Of course Miller won't be easy at all to replace either - only via the draft really.  Which will take time.   This is part of JB legacy - whom do we keep.   At least almost every single player is a tradeable asset though.    We aren't winning a cup with Miller this or next season.    Of the goal is to win, taking the emotion out of it - sure makes senses to try and get something back for him while we can.    Others too eventually as well.   Glad we don't have to make those tough decisions.  

Yeah I think thats all very fair. There will need to be some cuts up front - and if Petey becomes the #1 center he's supposed to be, and we've still got Horvat, then and only then would I think it make sense to move Miller. But given that Petey loses a majority of the faceoffs he takes, I think the entire forward group kind of collapses without Miller right now.

[alt kilgore]

56 minutes ago, Googlie said:

A Pittsburgh AGM equates to a Vancouver GM?

 Actually it kinda has in the past.  Nonis and Benning both moved from AGM. That or first time GMs. including Pat Quinn, is our history. You have to go back a few years to find anyone with experience. Burke had a job as a GM before, but it was just one year's worth in Hartford.  You'd have to go further back to Jake Milford who had a few years experience with the Kings as GM before us, and Jack Gordon with the North Stars for a few years. 

 

This may be the first actual experienced POHO we've ever had. And hopefully he will hire an actual properly experienced GM for the first time.

[Coconuts]

5 hours ago, Boudrias said:

Biggest need is on defense so likely a forward is moved. Boeser makes me nervous. He has a wicked shot but has not demonstrated enough consistency in his career to commit to a long term contract. Not saying he can't, just that the risk his higher. Miller is more a proven player. Top that with his ability to play center and Rutherford has a real gem to trade. I actually wouldn't be surprised to see both moved eventually. 

I've been leaning towards moving Miller over Boeser because Boeser likely fits out upcoming window better, but the more I think about it the more I could see both being moved. 

 

It'd open up a lot of cap flex without our paying to dump cap, and it'd bring in a lot of assets. Picks, prospects, and near NHL ready players would go a long way towards the getting younger bit that Rutherford wants. Goaltenders tend to age fine, and having Pettersson/Hughes/Horvat rounding out the rest of our core would probably be fine. 

 

Yes, losing them both would hurt in the short term. But maybe not as much as one might thing depending on what the returns are. 

 

3 hours ago, D-Money said:

I think we'll only be able to keep 1 of Miller or Horvat. And it may not come down to who we want to keep, but rather, who wants to stay (without a significant overpayment).

 

I suspect management will keep both JT and Bo until the end of the year, then talk contract negotiation with them and see how that goes. It could be that both make clear they'd rather move on to try to win, which would change our timeline greatly.

I'd keep Horvat over Miller every time, he's younger and I honestly think he's more likely to stay. He's also capable of producing while being our best faceoff man, and he's our captain. Wouldn't be surprised to see Boeser, Miller, or both moved before the deadline, or at the draft. 

 

1 hour ago, eeeeergh said:

Yeah I think thats all very fair. There will need to be some cuts up front - and if Petey becomes the #1 center he's supposed to be, and we've still got Horvat, then and only then would I think it make sense to move Miller. But given that Petey loses a majority of the faceoffs he takes, I think the entire forward group kind of collapses without Miller right now.

"Right now" being the key words. We're chasing the playoffs, we could claw our way back into competing but it's a long shot. If Covid hits this team again, and we'll know more about that by the end of the day, it could really hurt our momentum as we're already missing OEL and Hamonic. We're not contenders in the near future, and Rutherford's made it clear he sees holes in the lineup and wants to get younger. 

 

Pettersson's also young, having just turned 23, there's no reason to think he couldn't improve on draws. He's got the hockey smarts, he just needs practice/experience/coaching. 

[SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME]

11 hours ago, wallstreetamigo said:

I frequently support the media but i have to go with WHL on this one. Stupid diversity and sexual assault questions.

 

I can see that this is a majority opinion on CDC (at least among those posting in the threads), so I don’t expect what I have to say will be all that popular, but I think it’s worth saying anyway. 
 

(Apologies also for this being a very long post.)
 

I don’t think the media were at all out of line asking those questions.

 

The diversity concerns are reflective of the values of many members of the contemporary society at large, and I don’t think it’s just the “woke mob” that pushes this sort of “narrative.” I think there are many Canucks fans who would like to see more diversity and representation in hockey operations. And I don’t believe this needs to be in conflict with “hiring the best people.”

There are plenty of qualified women and BIPOC candidates out there. They should be given every opportunity.

 

And when it comes to hockey, it’s kind of funny that questions about qualifications and experience suddenly become front and centre when the topic of diversity comes up.

 

It’s not like we haven’t seen plenty of previous hires in this league over the years of inexperienced “white guys” whose only real qualifications are having once played a game pretty well and being able to look good on camera and string a few sentences together.

 

I have little doubt that any woman or BIPOC hire would be much more qualified than the scores of former NHL players who’ve been elevated to significant positions in hockey operations without much in the way of practical experience or education (other than a previous playing career).

And I don’t think anyone is talking about hiring random people to merely fill a diversity quota. 
 

Just that hiring qualified candidates, who also bring a more diverse background, can only be a good thing, especially for hockey.
 

Rutherford himself seemed to welcome the question, and said that he agreed with the reporter. Increasing diversity in hockey operations seems to be something that JR really supports. This doesn’t mean hiring women or BIPOC staff merely for the sake of diversity alone. But if there’s a qualified candidate who also happens to come from an underrepresented group, they should be giving every consideration.

 

And while I don’t want to get bogged down in tired, old “equality vs. equity” arguments, I do think that more diverse hirings are “value added” and do bring something tangible to an organization, that a similarly qualified “white guy” probably can’t offer an NHL organization.

 

It’s not like these conversations aren’t happening every day in today’s society at large, and also within hockey fandom. It’s an important issue for many people. And I’d even go so far as to say that the majority of Canucks fans would be happy to see more diversity in the organization, so long as it didn’t come at a compromise, in terms of the talents and abilities of the staff (and I really don’t think it would).

 

Certainly, Rutherford did not seem at all bothered by the question. Like I said earlier, he seemed to welcome it, and support the idea. 
 

And I was very happy to hear his answer (and I suspect I’m not alone on this), which may not have happened without that reporter actually asking that “diversity” question.

 

As to the “sexual assault” questions, I think they probably needed to be asked, at least at some point, even if just to clear to air.

 

Long before Rutherford was hired, there was plenty of discussion on social media, especially about his role in Pittsburgh. Plenty of people were saying that they wanted no part of any PoHO or GM candidate who might be tied to anything like what had happened to Kyle Beach in Chicago, and many were worried that a guy like Rutherford, given his age and lengthy history, might have skeletons in his closet, when it comes to sexual assault/abuse incidents that might have happened under his watch, and/or coverups that might one day see the light of day. 
 

And when it comes to the Pittsburgh incident, Rutherford did somewhat conveniently avoid having to deal with the media scrutiny, having resigned shortly after that lawsuit was filed.
 

I don’t think JR has ever really had to directly answer questions about his possible involvement in the alleged mishandling and coverup.

 

So he probably knew (or should have known) that the questions were coming, once he decided to take the Vancouver job.
 

Certainly he didn’t seem surprised or bothered when he was asked about it.

 

The question itself was pretty tame. He was merely asked if he learned anything from his experience in Pittsburgh that he could bring to the Canucks’ handling of the ongoing Virtanen investigations.

 

I think it was probably good for him to have the opportunity to address the matter early on, rather than have questions continue to linger on social media.
 

JR made a strong statement condemning the incident and others like it, saying that it should “never happen,” while also making it clear that he didn’t have any direct involvement in the handling of the incident itself (he delegated to Guerin, and then to HR), and noted that a settlement had been reached, to the satisfaction of both parties, and the matter was now closed.

 

I think it was probably a good thing for Rutherford to have the opportunity to answer these questions on day one, to make a statement, and thereby avoid any cloud of suspicion hanging over him. Especially since he’s coming into an organization that still has an ongoing investigation into a former player, in Jake Virtanen.

 

Monday’s media availability included a lot of statements about “changing the culture” of this organization, and while I’m sure this was mostly intended to be about the product on the ice, there’s also an aspect of hockey culture that’s recently come to light through the Blackhawks scandal (and others like it) that represents an important and long overdue conversation, both in sport, and our society at large.
 

While these topics may be uncomfortable, I do think we’re better off facing them head on, rather than avoiding them, and media has a role to play in this, as do the organizations.

 

After all, the Kyle Beach incident only really came to light because reporters refused to let it get swept under the rug, and kept asking questions, pushing stories, and keeping up the pressure.

 

I’m not saying that either the Pittsburgh incident or the Virtanen allegations are the same as what happened in Chicago. However, when it comes to the Penguins, even after the settlement, the allegations of mishandling and a coverup are still being investigated by the US Center for SafeSport, and the incident did take place under Rutherford’s watch (even if he wasn’t directly involved in how it was handled).
 

When it comes to Virtanen, there is still an active investigation, both by VPD, and the independent investigators contracted by the Canucks. And while the former player has been bought out and the GM has been fired, there still may be information uncovered  through these investigations that reflect poorly on the organization, in terms of what they knew and when they knew it. After all, I know of several people (even some on these boards) who had heard things about Virtanen long before the allegations by Jane Doe were leaked. The Virtanen stuff certainly wasn’t a surprise to many people, given what’s been rumoured about him over the years. It’s quite possible that some Canucks players, coaches, staff, etc were aware of issues, on some level anyway, before the current allegations become public. This could still become a scandal for the organization, especially if we later learn that the team failed to act, or tried to sweep it under the rug, before they were forced to take action, when the current allegations were made public.

 

Aquilini has also stated in previous media availability (IIRC the one with Smyl) that he agrees that the organization, under the previous regime, failed to provide adequate messaging, access, and transparency, and that he wanted to do a better job moving forward.

 

I think part of the reason why some of these reporters push for answers to questions on the more “unsavoury” topics is that the team has done such a poor job communicating in the past, and the GM and owner have sometimes “hidden” from the media, especially over the last year or two.
 

So when the new PoHO and the owner actually get in front of cameras, some media members may feel like they need to ask certain questions that have until now gone unanswered, at least by the team’s upper level management and ownership (certainly Green was, in the past, left as the public face of the team to answer questions that would have been more appropriate for a GM, President, or owner), and also they may suspect that they won’t get another opportunity (especially with Aquilini) any time soon.

 

I get that people would have preferred to have had the media members stick to “hockey only” on Monday. But I don’t think the reporters were out of line in any of the questions they asked. I actually think they did the team a service, by giving Rutherford and Aquilini a chance to get their messaging out on these topics (diversity and sexual assault) which very well could have festered in various corners of social media and bubbled to the surface in other ways.

 

Personally, I think Rutherford did an excellent job. And I don’t think JR felt anything he was asked on Monday was disrespectful or improper, on the media’s part, so I don’t really think we all need to be getting offended on his behalf.
 

Could certain media members have done better? Damn straight. They’re painfully awkward and hamfisted at times. And some of the local reporters’ personalities, gimmicks, and schticks are just embarrassing to witness. Many of these guys wear on me just as much as anyone else. But still, I’m actually glad they asked the questions they did, because I valued and appreciated Rutherford’s answers to pretty much every single one of those questions.

 

Anyway, just my $0.02 and not really directed at anyone in particular.

 

(And sorry again for the long post.)

[JM_]

2 hours ago, Gawdzukes said:

The thing with that is it's a tough ask no matter how good your pro scouting is. Trading an established player for someone on the cusp always comes with some element of risk, otherwise they wouldn't trade that player in the first place. Most times I'm guessing it doesn't work out but once in a while you can strike gold. It depends on where you are in your trajectory if you need to and can afford to take that risk. I wouldn't necessarily call it bad pro scouting if it doesn't go right, These are gambles after all.

drafting is a big risk as well tho. At least with RFAs you have some kind of performance history to evaluate at higher levels. The whole thing is risky.

[combover]

4 hours ago, Gawdzukes said:

Holy crap are our fans ever aholes lol. You saving this one to grammatically hang him like everyone did with Benning? Truly and unbelievably pathetic. Prime example of why this market sucks if you're a hockey player. They got the pitchforks out before the JR got off the plane. 

It should have said he didn’t say. 
 

We didn’t hang Benning he hung himself 

he used stupid saying and catch 

phrases to sell his in competence and failures. 
I was happy to see JR doesn’t feel he need to sugar  coat or dumb down his responses 
 

I like what JR has to say.
i made one negative reference to the failure that got fired meaningless presser fluff. 
 

it’s almost like you didn’t read anything else I wrote just focused on the one line that mocked  JB and that was it Panties  knotted.

 

[PetterssonOrPeterson]

15 hours ago, N4ZZY said:

But the team doesn't have enough cap to keep all of Bo, Miller, Boeser, etc, etc. Do they? 

 

The person I see as the odd man out is Miller, although if the team doesn't take Brock's QO, what happens to him? 

 

I don't know who would come in and could replace Brock as an equally effective player with a much more cheaper salary than a guy like him or Miller would demand.

There's more of a possibility that we'd be downgrading in terms of our forward group as a result.

It's tough since I think the vision of the ownership and the management will be to win and compete now with this core but there are so many loops we need to find our way through.

 

It's definitely going to be some hard knots to untie for this upcoming management and we can thank Jim Benning/John Weisbrod for this cap mess.

[PetterssonOrPeterson]

8 hours ago, Jester13 said:

Maybe, but he's going to get more calls for Brock, so he'll be enticed more as a result. It'll take a lot of strength for Aggressive Jim to not entertain trading Brock and not pulling the trigger. But then again, maybe he'll hire a GM sooner rather than later and Brock is still lighting it up and all of this is moot anyways.

 

My biggest interest now is whether or not the team keeps rolling and what JR then sees with his team evaluation. I feel like we are a solid team that is much, much better than people think, and that we don't have as many holes as people think as well (up front, at least). His comment yesterday that this team isn't as good as some people think (paraphrasing) makes me curious to know where he thinks the team is at. I personally feel that our defence is what needs some bolstering, or at least some players back from injury. Anyhoogan, I'm rambling now.

I do agree that Brock is our more valuable commodity but like you said, I also hope they are really smart and are more calculative about this.

Brock is one of our more valuable players and despite his skating issues, he has that intangible of being a good finisher. Our best pure-goalscorer at his peak imo.

 

We'll have to see what exactly happens.

We knew that Benning was insistent on keeping Brock even when he'd gotten multiple calls for Boes in the past too.

JR is a complete 180 from Benning so I am wondering if he does actually mess around with this current core if they don't fit his overall vision for the team.

[J.I.A.H.N]

13 hours ago, Gollumpus said:

Never know. Approach with confidence and maybe something happens. And if nothing else, maybe you wind up with a very good second choice.

 

I'm thinking that the Canucks gets something better than a 1 for 1 kind of trade.

 

                                                        regards,  G.

I think that is probably the case, but want to stay conservative on my demands....................But yes, the second prettiest is a great consolation prize, and make better wives!

 

Metaphorically speaking. 

[WHL rocks]

7 hours ago, Ghostsof1915 said:

Hang in there dude. There's no speed limit on the road to recovery. 

Thank you. I was on too much meds and in pain  I shouldn't have been on here posting..

 

This forum is my favorite thing and it helps me forget my reality and pain when I'm in here..  Thanks to all you guys for putting up with me last few days..

 

 

[sxqhfeh]

Travis Hamonic has been placed on long-term injured reserve and that Phil Di Giuseppe, a forward, has been recalled from Abbotsford.
For what it's worth, Di Giuseppe was originally drafted by the Carolina Hurricanes back in 2012 — when Jim Rutherford was still Carolina's GM. So we may be witnessing the Canucks' first Rutherford-induced roster tweak!

 

above from HockeyBuzz.com - Carol Schram - Game on? Schenn, Lammikko in Covid protocol ahead of Tuesday's game

Edited December 14, 2021 by sxqhfeh

[Nucker 67]

I like how up front Rutherford is.  He's not kidding that there is a lot of work ahead, and it's going to take a while to get this team right.

 

Rutherford mentioned the Canucks are in the wrong part of the cycle to be trading 1st rounders. I guess Benning didn't get the memo on that.  I'm really glad to hear that though, because VAN will have a 1st next year. Who knows, maybe Rutherford (and the new GM) will be shrewd and get VAN another 1st. 

 

Rutherford did mention the D being an area that could be better, so I think that may be the first trade, for a Dman.  They'll probably get the new GM in there first though.

 

 

 

 

[WHL rocks]

18 minutes ago, sxqhfeh said:

Travis Hamonic has been placed on long-term injured reserve and that Phil Di Giuseppe, a forward, has been recalled from Abbotsford.
For what it's worth, Di Giuseppe was originally drafted by the Carolina Hurricanes back in 2012 — when Jim Rutherford was still Carolina's GM. So we may be witnessing the Canucks' first Rutherford-induced roster tweak!

 

above from HockeyBuzz.com - Carol Schram - Game on? Schenn, Lammikko in Covid protocol ahead of Tuesday's game

 Hamonic's injury

 

https://www.sportsnet.ca/nhl/article/canucks-place-travis-hamonic-injured-reserve-recall-noah-juulsen/

 

 

Edited December 14, 2021 by WHL rocks

[WHL rocks]

10 minutes ago, NUCKER67 said:

I like how up front Rutherford is.  He's not kidding that there is a lot of work ahead, and it's going to take a while to get this team right.

 

Rutherford mentioned the Canucks are in the wrong part of the cycle to be trading 1st rounders. I guess Benning didn't get the memo on that.  I'm really glad to hear that though, because VAN will have a 1st next year. Who knows, maybe Rutherford (and the new GM) will be shrewd and get VAN another 1st. 

 

Rutherford did mention the D being an area that could be better, so I think that may be the first trade, for a Dman.  They'll probably get the new GM in there first though.

 

 

 

 

I think he's going to sit a bit to get new GM. I think he'll make a move soon after new years..  take 3 weeks to assess the team and give courtesy to players not trading them this time of year.

 

Even if new GM gets hired he'll be more of a day to day mundaine duties guy. The roster and trades will go thru JR.. he's the guy going to be on phone calls when major issues being discussed..

 

It'll be like Shanahan in Toronto.. he guides the kid GM , let's him do all the GM work except player moves.. he makes final decisions regarding roster.

[Jester13]

27 minutes ago, PetterssonOrPeterson said:

I do agree that Brock is our more valuable commodity but like you said, I also hope they are really smart and are more calculative about this.

Brock is one of our more valuable players and despite his skating issues, he has that intangible of being a good finisher. Our best pure-goalscorer at his peak imo.

 

We'll have to see what exactly happens.

We knew that Benning was insistent on keeping Brock even when he'd gotten multiple calls for Boes in the past too.

JR is a complete 180 from Benning so I am wondering if he does actually mess around with this current core if they don't fit his overall vision for the team.

The tricky part of all of this is that we're further along than many people think, and if we trade away any of our core (and supporting core) guys, say Brock for a top RHD, we're filling one hole but creating another. If we trade away said player for futures, well, then we're essentially rebuilding.

 

Personally, I'd like to see Petey, Hughes, Brock, Miller, Garland, Bo, Hogs, Podz, and Demko as untouchables and the rest on the trade table. Anyone but these guys, please and thank you.