Photo Credit: Matthew Henderson

Monday Mailbag: Luke Schenn, Virtanen’s Linemates, and Building the Prefect Front Office

I think Schenn returning next year is basically a lock at this point. With Michael Del Zotto and Erik Gudbranson gone, the Canucks are likely to believe he fills a need. I’m not convinced he really brings any more utility to the role of a 6/7 than Alex Biega, but I think you could do much worse than the two of them as your go-to depth defensemen. We’ve seen how often the Canucks’ blue line deals with injuries and I’m sure the Comets organization would appreciate not having to lose it’s entire top four to call-ups by the end of February every season.

I would be in favour of re-signing Schenn if only because it might save the team’s front office from themselves. If they feel they need a big, physical, stay-at-home defenseman, Schenn will come at a fraction of the cost of most of their other options.

The Canucks made waves when they banned playing Fortnite on the road this season. A lot of people laughed it off, and I know opinions on the merit of video games tend to be divided, but setting aside wherever you come down on that debate, I think we all can agree that there’s such a thing as playing too much.

Patrik Laine plays too much. We’re talking so much it might qualify as a bonafide addiction. On a Saturday in late January the guy literally logged 14 hours.

Someone on Reddit even tracked his on-ice performance when he’s taking a break from Fortnite vs. when he’s logging big minutes. The results are honestly pretty convincing. It’s a bit of a conspiracy theory but until someone comes up with a better answer I’m sticking with it.

Tanev: Traded at some point over the next year.

Edler: Re-signed to a three-year deal.

Juolevi: Makes his NHL debut late next season.

They miss him in the sense that he’s a proven NHL-calibre defenseman and that can’t be said for everyone currently manning the Canucks’ blueline. The Canucks already have one of the weakest blue lines in the NHL at the best of times, so losing one of their only defenders with a basic level of competency was going to hurt them regardless of who it was.

Having said that, people really need to understand how much Tanev’s play has dropped off in the last two years. Even when he’s been healthy, the solid underlying shot metrics that were once his calling card have completely deteriorated. With his issues staying healthy and the team’s need to revamp the defense, I would be surprised if he isn’t traded at some point in the near future.

I don’t see it happening. Brock Boeser’s a great goal scorer, but he hasn’t even reached the 30-goal plateau yet, let alone 50. Obviously, injuries have been a major stumbling block when it comes to reaching that milestone, but I still think it’s relevant information when we’re talking about whether or not Brock Boeser can be in an extremely exclusive club.

Over a 137-game career, Boeser has scored 59 goals. That’s an average of roughly 35 goals per season, if he stays healthy. So, theoretically, he would have to improve on his average output by almost 30%. He’s been a pretty consistent goal-scorer over his career and has boasted a shooting percentage well above league average and it still looks like his ceiling right now is maybe 40 goals, if he plays all 82 games. I just don’t see him taking that big of a step over the next season or two.

That’s not a knock on him, either. I think people don’t really realize how rare a 50-goal campaign is. Offense is up from historical levels in a big way this season and there’s still only one player who’s reached 50, and he’s arguably the greatest pure goal scorer in the history of the game. In the post-lockout era, players have scored 50 or more goals just 21 times, and 8 of those times were Alex Ovechkin. The remaining players on that list are a who’s who of the most lethal offensive players of the modern era, including Steven Stamkos, Ilya Kovalchuk, Evgeni Malkin, Sidney Crosby, Corey Perry, Vincent Lecavalier, Dany Heatley, Jarome Iginla, and Jaromir Jagr. I think the world of Boeser but I don’t think he’s quite at the level of most of those players. Then again, Johnathan Cheechoo scored 56 in 2005-06, so I guess anything is possible.

I’m going to have to go with option 2. It already came reasonably close to happening and the team hasn’t even been very good. Unless they get some more decent wingers, I don’t see them getting the secondary scoring that would be needed to get Boeser and Horvat the necessary assists to eclipse 70 points for some time.

If Adam Fox makes it publicly clear that he’ll only sign with a few teams and Vancouver is one of them, and the Hurricanes have absolutely no leverage, then there’s maybe a 1% chance that could happen. Otherwise, no. They just aren’t even in remotely the same stratosphere as prospects. Adam Fox is arguably the best defenseman in the world not currently in the NHL, whereas Lockwood would be an afterthought in post team’s pools.

To be completely honest, I don’t think it matters as much as some people think it does. Some players need linemates they can mesh with to be productive, but I see Virtanen as basically an independent contractor. He doesn’t exactly make great use his linemates and his skill set is tailor-made for end-to-end rushes and individual plays. People talk about him as if he doesn’t get opportunities but his most frequent linemate this year has been Bo Horvat, so I think he’s had plenty of chances to prove he belongs in a top-six role. At times he’s teased a bit of his potential, but he’s also struggled with consistency for stretches, too. Ideally, I would like to see the Canucks revamp their top six, and roll an offensive-minded third line of Virtanen, Adam Gaudette, and Josh Leivo, but in the short term I don’t mind Travis Green moving him up and down the lineup on a game-by-game basis.

If the Canucks think Tanner Pearson and Josh Leivo are their silver bullets in the top six next year they’re going to be headed for another bottom-ten finish.

In an ideal world, where everyone who could feasibly take a job with the Canucks is interested in working in Vancouver, my ideal front office would have Steve Yzerman in a Presidential role; Laurence Gilman as general manager; and Pat Verbeek and Eric Tulsky as AGMs. I’d like to see Brackett retain his position, I think he’s done about as good a job as anyone could ask of him; but I would want to make a few changes to the amateur scouting staff by bringing in new CHL scouts. I’d also like to see Jonathan Wall take an AGM or senior advisor position, working closely with Tulsky in this fantasy scenario I’ve concocted.

To be honest, I’d also ideally like to diversify the Hockey Operations staff, too. I don’t know if teams ought to go as far as to have an inclusion rider necessarily, but scouting and hockey ops staffs across the NHL are overwhelmingly male and Caucasian and while obviously there’s nothing wrong with white guys, that seems like it has the potential to breed an intellectually stale and incurious environment. The Maple Leafs recently made Hayley Wickenheiser their Assistant Director of Player Development, which was frankly long overdue considering she’s one of the most decorated players in the history of the sport. The Canucks happen to have a similar figure in their own backyard in the form of Cammi Granato, perhaps there’s a role for her somewhere in the organization if there’s interest on her part.

  • Killer Marmot

    I don’t know if teams ought to go as far as to have an inclusion rider necessarily, but scouting and hockey ops staffs across the NHL are overwhelmingly male and Caucasian and while obviously there’s nothing wrong with white guys, that seems like it has the potential to breed an intellectually stale and incurious environment.

    Of for gawd sake. Racial and gender diversity for the sake of diversity is nonsense. The reason management’s white and male is because … well look out on the ice. Where do you think knowledgeable hockey people come from?

    By calling for diversity, you make any women or racial minority who is hired look like a diversity hire.

        • Steampuck

          I accept the premise that a more varied boardroom is a more versatile one—one that is more open to diverse opinions and new ideas. So does every major company on the planet. Jackson isn’t talking about diversity for diversity’s sake: you are. He’s not talking about “optics,” but about reaching outside the box and outside of staid and tired comfort zones to look for the best people available.

          There is nothing in the white male chromosome that makes him inherently better at all things hockey than anybody else. The lone “advantage” is a longstanding culture of hockey being dominated by white boys and white men. But in 2019, that’s even become a fallacy. There’s terrific diversity in the stands at a Canucks game; why shouldn’t that start to translate into management? It’s not about “representation” or “optics.” It’s about new, forward-thinking contributions and recognition that the talent pool isn’t limited to a mid-twentieth-century mindset that imposes false cultural norms and glass ceilings (which still very much exist).

          • Killer Marmot

            I accept the premise that a more varied boardroom is a more versatile one

            I agree, but the type of variation we’re looking for is not a function of race or gender. Rather you want people having different outlook and expertise. The diversity you’re looking for is found in the mind, not in the color of skin.

            Expertise is mostly going to come from people who have played the game at a very high level. Those people are almost all white and male. Like it or not, that’s the fact. Anyone who hires solely on merit is going to end up with a staff that reflects that.

            The argument that management should reflect the diversity of the crowd is bogus. We don’t demand that of the players. We go for the most talented, and never mind their race. If you insist on race-based hiring in management, you should also insist that of the players. And yet you don’t, because you know full well that would be disastrous, and even unfair.

            It’s ironic that those who call for pure merit-based hiring regardless of race or gender are the ones called dinosaurs.

          • Robby-D

            The “expertise” and “experience” in these former-players and long-term hockey insiders could be blinding them to alternatives to the established hockey wisdom. Diversity in appearance isn’t necessary the goal, but diversity in thought should be. And I think that’s the point that Jackson is making – maybe a bunch of old-school hockey “white males” aren’t the best mix you could put together for a front office poised to build a successful team for the 2020’s.

          • Killer Marmot

            Robby-D: You acknowledge that diversity of thought is valuable, a point that we both agree on. But you then equate that to diversity of skin color or gender, a premise which is highly dubious.

          • Steampuck

            Nope. You’re inferring rather than reading. I said it was NOT about representation or optics.

            And the whole “played at a very high level” argument has its limitations. You know as well as I do that having played at a very high level doesn’t predetermine success in coaching or management. So why assume that playing has anything to do with it? I want someone who “understands” hockey, not someone who played real good a long time ago. Yes: playing and understanding tend to overlap, but not always. Like it or not, the massive growth of analytics means a lot of non-hockey people are actually very good at understanding how hockey works. And how to build a better team, especially within the confines of salary caps. Also, did you just claim that Cammie Granato hasn’t played hockey at a high level? Or Hayley Wickenheiser? Or that women’s hockey isn’t really hockey? Or that they don’t deserve to be considered for top-level jobs? I’ve not met either one, but interview clips suggest they’re very sharp minds who know the game a good deal better than you or I. We’re not even talking about the top jobs in the system: we’re talking about any job within hockey operations.

            Last thing—and maybe read this carefully before you respond in a knee-jerk manner—to get upset by the prospect that a good candidate for the job might be someone who isn’t white and male has everything to do with a latent “I’m not racist or sexist, but” mentality that assumes there’s nothing wrong with the way things are going now—or that there is no point in reflecting on improvements or being more open-minded and inclusive. You’re not a dinosaur for championing merit-based hiring. You’re a dinosaur for thinking that the playing field in the job pool is even remotely level and that there is only a singular kind of merit or expertise.

          • Killer Marmot

            I said it was NOT about representation or optics.

            Given that I didn’t say a thing about representation or optics, I have no idea what you’re talking about. My main point was this: diversity of thought is not equivalent to diversity of skin color.

            And yes, analytics is part of modern hockey. The Canucks should hire the best damn analytics people they can find, presumably experts in statistics and numerical software. The odds are high that it will be a Caucasian or Asian male but whatever, may the most qualified candidate win. To carry out preferential hiring based on race and gender would be fool hardy and unfair.

          • Killer Marmot

            to get upset by the prospect that a good candidate for the job might be someone who isn’t white and male

            You’re making it up out of whole cloth. I never said anything even vaguely like that. In fact, I said the opposite. I said I didn’t care what race or gender they were provided they were the best candidate for that job.

            You’re the one all upset over the race and gender of people.

          • kermit

            This back and forth reminds me of the tanking argument, where people are reading too much into a single word and start throwing bombs based on philosophy, whereas in reality people’s positions are not that different. I’m not sure what Jackson meant by his comment. Does he mean putting aside merit in favour of diversity, or does he mean the Canucks may be missing a merit based candidate because they are not rolling over all the rocks to see what’s under them. Any rock that wore a jill strap instead of a jock strap, is ignored. And how many of us actually know how a hockey operations organizations works. What does Hayley Wickenheiser title actually mean? We are left to our own assumptions on that, and it wouldn’t mean the same thing in every organization. There is room for women in hockey, some of the best skating coaches are women, but every hire should be based on merit, and that usually means starting at the bottom. Alain Vigneault said that the reason Alex Burrows could play with the Sedins was because he was the smartest player on the team. He’s now an assistant coach in Laval. Some day he will probably be an AHL head coach, then an NHL coach, and maybe eventually a NHL GM. But it will have to done on merit. Diversity means creating equal opportunity, not forcing equal outcomes, if Jackson is pushing for diversity for social justice reasons, then that is a formula for failure.

          • TD

            It’s funny that Jackson wants some diversity in front office’s, and yet look at his answer for the dream roster for the Canucks’ revamped front office. Nothing but white males…

        • Freud

          “Race-based hiring” is an incredibly simple minded statement that completely misses the point. But would we expect anything less from Killer Marmot?

          And then to lap up the notion that you had to have played at a high level for expertise is laughable. Keep grovelling to that mythological authority.That’s your total schtick.

          • Killer Marmot

            I didn’t say “had to have”. I said “expertise is mostly going to come from people who have played the game at a very high level. ”

            See the word “mostly”? For someone who is constantly reminding us how smart you are, your reading comprehension is woeful.

  • Bud Poile

    Schenn and Guddy are RHD’s.
    MDZ is a leftie and his departure has no bearing on Schenn’s re-signing status,whatsoever.
    MDZ was superflous as LHD’s Edler, Hutton,Quinn,Sautner and even Brisebois are all better options.

    • ClassOF2011

      Yawnnnnnnnnn – The dumb old dog still OBSESSING with his bone about a proven non issue… aka a myth

      2011 best all-time Canucks D-Corp
      Bieksa RH
      Salo RH

      Edler LH
      Hamhuis LH
      Rome LH
      Ehrhoff LH (played offside RHD and led team in playoffs w 10 points)

      2019 Western Conf Champion Calgary Flames D Pairings
      Giordano (LH) – Brodie (LH)
      Hanifin (LH) – Hamonic (RH)
      Stone (RH) – Andersson (RH)

      Run along Dud, humiliated, ‘right hand’ between legs… :-p

      • Bud Poile

        MDZ is not talented enough to play his off side and never played rhe right side as a Canuck.
        He was here for two seasons and you still haven’t figured that out.

        • ClassOF2011

          Who cares about MDZ, he is long gone, not interested – I am telling you that this ridiculous obsession of yours with perfect balance on D is a MYTH and a NON ISSUE!……. get over it.

          THE LHD/RHD MYTH EXPOSED for Dud…

          SC Finalists D that played 10+ games in the playoffs…

          2018: Vegas 2 RHD & 5 LHD//Caps 2 RHD & 4 LHD

          2017: Pens 1 RHD & 5 LHD//Preds 3 RHD & 3 LHD

          2016: Pens 3 RHD & 4 LHD//Sharks 3 RHD & 3 LHD

          2015: Chicago 2 RHD & 4 LHD//TB 2 RHD & 5 LHD

          2013: Chicago 2 RHD & 4 LHD//Bruins 2 RHD & 4 LHD

          2011: Bruins 2 RHD & 4 LHD//Vancouver 2 RHD & 5 LHD

          2010: Chicago 3 RHD & 4 LHD//Philly 0 RHD & 6 LHD

          Because after 60 years you still haven’t figured it out!

          • Bud Poile

            List the Canucks LHD’s that played the right side over the last five years.
            Tell me what both Green and Gillis preferred as I have their quotes on this issue.
            5on5 vs powerplay d men and an overwhelming LHD% in the NHL necessitates playing LHD’s on their off side.It is not ideal nor preferred.
            You are so full of yourself in that thick,racist and self-proclaimed elite pea brain that you can’t understand basic hockey matters of fact.

  • IF

    The canucks management bashing is in many ways well deserved if only because they have taken their leadership in hockey decisions from ownership. But frivolous shots that serve no purpose have become the calling card for canucks army. Today’s example “I would be in favour of re-signing Schenn if only because it might save the team’s front office from themselves.” I mean for goodness sakes! Get over yourself Hendersen and Jackson and see what you can do about being let’s obnoxious.

    • ClassOF2011

      Yawnnnnnnnnnn – Another Dud Poile sock account outted…

      When will you ignorant, deluded, #fakenews Benning cheerleaders get it through your thick skulls that Larry Gilman and NHL GM of the year Mike Gillis were *not* hired by ownership to focus on rebuilding or drafting – they were employed to get us over the playoff hump (managing the cap) during the franchises SC window because Nonis and Burke couldn’t… and GM Gillis did that in spades, coming within one game of immortality whilst owning the regular season for years.

      Get a clue and show some RESPECT… the Canucks were so good under GMMG he NEVER had a top nine first round pick **10th (from Nonis), 22nd, 115th, 29th, 26th** that’s it!!!,… until he was finally given the nod from ownership to start rebuilding in 2013… where he then pulled Captain elect BOWIE HORVAT out of the hat with a franchise changing draft day trade.

      Truly outstanding. End of!

      • Bud Poile

        The knob with 60 revolving accounts believing that others are as stoopid as he is.
        Get out your Gillis fan boy posters and gel.
        Astute GM’s manage their club for the future.
        How’d that work out again?
        Unemployment line for Gillis and his fan boys.

        • ClassOF2011

          Hahaha Dud fuming as his tired old narrative has been totally destroyed with FACTS.

          Could you tell us who these astute GMs are in the CAP ERA who have successfully managed their teams ‘for the future’ whilst in a legit Stanley Cup window Dud?… Chicago? Pittsburgh? LA? Boston? San Jose? Vancouver?……….. NOPE……….. nextttttttttt

          Oh, and Dud, can you finally tell us, were YOU a Canucks supporter between 2008 and the SC Final run of 2011???????

      • FairPM

        The GMMG era could have at least yielded something of note from their 1st, 3rds, etc… They traded. Ost of their 2nds for scraps. They were gifted with talent that was already performing. If you want to give them credit, credit them the sleep doctor.

        • FairPM

          As well, much easier to sign free agents when you are a cup contender. Not so much when you are bottom of the barrel as the canucks of benning have been. To compare their FA signings is also problematic.

      • bobdaley44

        So you’re saying they didn’t want any young talent coming up because they needed the nod from ownership to draft competently? Regardless where you pick if you scout properly and know talent you can get a gem in later rounds. That team was a basket case when Benning took over. Zero prospects and no studs in the system save for Horvat.

        • ClassOF2011

          Zzzzzzzzz – Wake up deadmen… Markstrom, Tanev, Hutton, Biega, and the stud Bo Horvat are more than enough for the clown Benning to inherit, plus Utica studs McEneny and Gaunce… plus Judd Brackett, Hammarstrom and Gradin (Quinn hire) in the scouting dept… ALL still in the org. All still delivering. The Gillis legacy lives on.Wow!

          Keep reaching blowhards, your words are as empty as your heads. #firebenning #worstgm #noplayoffsagain #cluelessfakefans

          • Cageyvet

            That’s your core that you expect a GM to build into a winner? You have 1 proven NHL defenseman and 1 high-end prospect. You rounded it out with an unproven goalie, a 5th round defenseman, and 3 AHL players. You have gone beyond your usual dense commentary and reached new lows. Whether you truly believe your own multiple-personality drivel, or just need to bash the team so badly you don’t know when to stop, it’s truly pathetic. Not surprising, but I don’t know how you could make yourself look any dumber.

  • wojohowitz

    Here`s the thing with Schenn. He came in, saw an opportunity, stepped up and filled that role. It`s debateable whether he can fill that role over a full season but it also shows a major shortcoming from management. They needed some muscle from game one and only recognized that problem when Schenn showed it to be a need. Maybe he can do or maybe not but that hole in the lineup is crying for help. There`s three guys/games that stick out; Reaves with Vegas challenging everyone and anyone to stand up. Josh Anderson with Columbus and Kevin MacDermiad – big tough guys trying to intimidate and the Canucks had no one to answer the bell.

    Here`s the thing with Hughes. It`s obvious that management has told him to work on his defence – playing without the puck. Not the power play and not the run and gun. Concentrate on his play without the puck and he will have a career. He doesn`t have to rack up the points or try to impress everybody. Just get his defensive game in order and cut back on mistakes and when management is happy with his game then he can start running the power play.

    • Killer Marmot

      Management recognized they needed muscle and size at the back end. That’s why they were so patient with Gudbranson. He just wasn’t able to deliver.

      • Braindead Benning

        Meanwhile.. .The meat heads who run the team were inclined on concentrating on what was happening in the NHL like 10 years ago they forgot about the likes of McCann and Debrincat who happens to keep on delivering it 😂

  • Holly Wood

    So your ideal front office does not include the GM who has drafted the franchise back to having a very respectable prospect pool, but will include Gilman who was involved in Gillis handing out all the no trade clauses and as Bobdaley pointed out was assistant gm during the most abysmal drafting in team history. No thanks, Gilman and Gillis mismanaged this club into a black hole that they are starting to finally climb out of.

        • ClassOF2011

          Amen Brainer… I can exclusively reveal that 2x Cup winner DEAN LOMBARDI is being courted by ownership to become the Canucks next President of hockey ops… never fear Brainer, his first move will be to put his own men in place – goodbye Benning, Brown, Greener and all the other trash that is stinking up the joint after all these years of failure.

          • LemonHart

            Class, not that I think Dean Lombardi wouldn’t be a good hire, because I think he is an astute hockey manager, however there is almost zero correlation between hiring a GM who’s previous team has one a cup to winning a cup for the new team. Rutherford is the only one that comes to mind in the modern NHL and if I recall correctly it has only been done one other time.
            Bottom line is all GMs make mistakes, (and I’m not defending Benning) and no matter who they hire someone with a confirmation bias will be able to pick them apart. For the most part it’s about hiring the person that will make the least amount of mistakes, so that rules out PC too.

  • Kanuckhotep

    It is no secret Benning has had his fair share of trials and tribulations in his tenure with the Canucks. But at this stage who can argue with his management team’s selection of Brock, Petey and Quinn Hughes specifically with Demko and Gaudette not there yet but looking reasonably promising. This is what fans want. Good or even great young guys to lead this franchise that hasn’t done much for quite awhile. Some of the FA signings were a bit bonehead but Benning I think is learning from his most deficient aspect as the GM. Pray he signs a proper FA this summer that won’t cripple the cap and appreciably help this team. Whether it be a D man or forward no more Loui contracts please.

    • Rodeobill

      Maybe in was Linden keeping from him making savy moves. JK. I have noticed that he seems to have improved as time has gone on in some ways. Goalie coaching and development, not being afraid to draft on skill over size, etc. The team is better this year. Not so much in the standings, but on the ice and with each other, but there seem to be parts of the puzzle still in need of some attention (more draft picks for rebuild, Utica management, player development, etc.), but hey, at least we aren’t EDM or OTT!

    • Braindead Benning

      Don’t worry JB will most likely do sometimg that will surprise everyone on the 1st of July…although it may depend on his diet that morning… I presume if it’s full of meat and potatoes, the team spends another 12 million for like 10 goals… Or he could be smart and…. 😂

  • Burnabybob

    I still don’t understand why the Canucks didn’t trade Tanev before his no movement clause kicked in, and when his trade value was higher. It was pretty clear that the Canuck rebuild would take time, and that he might no longer be a top-four defenseman by the time they were ready to compete, and that’s exactly what has happened.

    • Because trading Tanev would have left us without a legitimate Top 4 RHD and Benning has always insisted on icing a competitive team. While Tanev’s play has clearly deteriorated, arguably faster than one would have expected, at the time he was still producing at a high level defensively on a team friendly contract.

      • Burnabybob

        The Canucks have not been remotely competitive for the past 4 seasons. They might have finished a few points higher in the standings each season due to Tanev, but that has only hurt their draft position. His contract could have been a selling point to an interested trade partner.

        • Without a doubt, the Canucks have been terrible. The deadcat bounce of 2014-2015 didn’t help but if you look at the new GM paradigm, playoff pushes are all about “windows”. At the time, the Canucks were doing very well so it made sense for a competitive GM to go all in and support his players. If a GM can get into the playoffs and senses that the team could do well, they should/will support that push.

          After realizing in 2015-2016 that the team wasn’t going to be able to repeat their 2014-2015 performance, they admitted failure and switched to “rebuild mode”. But it’s not like the Canucks sold the farm like Kekäläinen in Columbus who has gambled nearly the entire 2019 draft and scrapped trading Panarin and Bobrovsky.

          The way how I frame it, they had one year of success (101 pts), two years of failed retool (75, 69 pts), and are now in the 2nd year of a true rebuild (73,78+ pts). Benning has very promising (potentially elite) players in all key positions, lots of prospects still to come, and we’re trending up in points. Benning has only wasted a 7th on Mazanec so the days of giving up draft picks for stop-gap players is over. As more drafted prospects replace the stop-gap veterans, the team will only get better, in a sustainable way.

  • Fred-65

    From what I’ve read.

    Schenn was smarter than most, he looked at the roster identified what was missing and told himself I can do that. Maybe he should be in management LOL. My hope is once he has signed a contract which seems likely he’ll drift back to his old ways.

    Gillis identifying talent. He acknowledged he should have stepped up earlier to make changes in the scouting staff. However he hired Brackett, he landed Horvat, Tanev, Markstrom, Hutton, Erhof. That’s not without merit. His NTC were given to maximise his Cap space ( giving term and NTC to lesson salary demands ) on a team which was in the midst of it best run in franchise history ( 2 President Trophies and game 7 in the SC ) He convinced Aquaman that buying their own AHL franchise was necessary. He recognized the team needed more muscle hence Lapierre and Torres, Glass and Rypien.

    Gender discrimination is bad but before you go full steam ahead knowledge is more important. There are places for women in hockey management they just don’t need to be involved in areas where others are better & more experienced. Orca Bay has a lot of women in management. If I’m investing big money in a corporation demand a return. I do not consider myself a social activist first and fore most

    Enjoy the day, rain is returning to your favourite + patio tomorrow for a week

    • Killer Marmot

      Some of the best coaches have come from journeymen players, guys whose talents were distinctly limited but who figured out how to make themselves valuable through smarts and hard work.

      • Cageyvet

        Probably because they can coach the attributes that made them successful, helping other players achieve their peak. Gretzky, on the other hand, how can you teach somebody to do what you do when you’re that elite? Journeymen have always made great coaching contributions, and I don’t see that changing. They also need the paycheque more than their more gifted brethren, who can chill for the rest of their lives on their paycheques and endorsements.

    • Kanucked

      “Gender discrimination is bad but before you go full steam ahead knowledge is more important. There are places for women in hockey management they just don’t need to be involved in areas where others are better & more experienced. ”

      Based on your comments, it seems you’re pretty comfortable with gender discrimination. Your premise that women are automatically not knowledgeable or experienced is so biased that I’m not sure what to say.

      So that you know, it is possible for a woman to be more experienced & knowledgeable and get an executive position in hockey on her merits.

      Wish I could down vote your post 1000Xs

      • Bucket

        You quoted him stating gender discrimination is bad and then followed up by accusing him of being comfortable with it? You then ‘presumed’ what he really meant. It seems more like you are looking for an argument where there isn’t one.

        • Kanucked

          His comment was discriminatory despite him saying that discrimination is bad.

          I didn’t presume anything. He literally said that they don’t need to be involved where others are better and more experienced. How does he know that women wouldn’t be better or more experienced?

          If he said that the best candidate should get the job, I wouldn’t have responded. He specifically grouped all women together and said “others” are better.

      • Fred-65

        How can you accuse me of gender discrimination when my first words were …. Gender discrimination is bad …. did you read that part. There are many situation where women stand out in their field but no one mocks them, there are areas where men stand out. l don’t believe that I ever watched the best women boxer go up against Mohamed Ali, obviously and recently when I had some surgery all the nurses were women and very very good. This concept of one size fits all is simplistic for the simple minded. I do have daughters and have at times reached the glass ceiling …. she moved on and joined a company where she could and does flourish …guess what guys do that too reach a point where they’re going no further and make a move. I reached that point in a career where it was deadmens shoes … I moved on

          • LemonHart

            In my opinion, if she is the best person for the job, yes. Of course this is somewhat of a tough one as Team A and Team B might have the same 3 candidates for apply for the same position in their organizations and come up with totally different rankings as to who is the best person for the job.But it will happen someday.

          • Fred-65

            As long as she has the knowledge, experience and know how why not. Now here’s your challenge keeping in mind the criteria name me some women that would fit or better

          • Kanucked

            Good to hear.

            I’m not advocating for any specific women for any specific jobs only that they have opportunities to pursue those jobs. I don’t think there is anything endemic in hockey that precludes women from being successful in management.

            Look at Theo Epstein from baseball. He was never involved in the game at a high level, yet he became one of the best executives in all sport. I’m sure there are women who could do the same.

  • james

    Gillian did not get us over the hump. We did not win it all.Saying they were hired to get us over the hump ,being gifted great talent means they failed big time.