News Article: Rachel Doerrie has left the Canucks

[Bubbles]

Interesting if this news is being buried by TSN and Sportsnet. I've only seen it on "Daily Hive".

 

[SeawaterOnIce]

Sounds like an opportunity for Melvin.

 

[BoHorvat 53]

Rutherford had these same issues in Carolina and Pittsburgh. Seems like a flaw of his.

Virtanen being accused for sexual assault + Aquilini being accused of child abuse is somehow Rutherford's fault? That's an interesting take.

 

[shottasasa]

The team made a big deal about hiring this "mid-level employee", and used her as part of their re-imagined, "forward thinking" management team...they'd have to be kind of dense if they thought they'd be able to remove her without anyone asking questions about it...especially in this market.

The argument that Canucks “made a big deal” of her hiring (which I disagree with, the media and the market were just as responsible) is a strawman when it comes to something like this that seems to be sensitive. Just because a company is proud to have hired someone doesn’t mean they need to immediately disclose why that person left the company in any Circumstance.

 

[StreetHawk]

I would imagine that she is a contract employee. Not a FTE. Any position where a team can’t afford to have the person just give 2 weeks notice and leave for another opportunity/team has to be on contract.
This isn’t someone in sales, admin, accounting.

So, both sides have probably been working on the proper financial package and the classification of her departure. Whatever the reason for her departure doesn’t seem like a standard one of another opportunity has arisen, lot something else.

 

[shottasasa]

Interesting if this news is being buried by TSN and Sportsnet. I've only seen it on "Daily Hive".

Or national outlets don’t write stories about mid-level employees. No one outside of Canucks fans, the hockey industry, or hardcore fans is going to care about this unless something major comes out. Or one of their reporters could know what’s going on but are taking the same line as Dhaliwal. This conspiracy about media burying stuff is laughable. There are so many other plausible explanations.

 

[RangerDoggo]

The plot thickens.

I see a great big shit-talking mouth that doesn't know to shut the hell up runs in the family. Also, very appropriate name for her sister(?) to have.

Personally, I don't want an explanation now. I'm just enjoying the nice, roaring fire of drama.

 

[StreetHawk]

The argument that Canucks “made a big deal” of her hiring (which I disagree with, the media and the market were just as responsible) is a strawman when it comes to something like this that seems to be sensitive. Just because a company is proud to have hired someone doesn’t mean they need to immediately disclose why that person left the company I any Circumstance.

It is also important for both sides to come to the same reason for the public as to the separation. It impacts her future employment opportunities and impacts how attractive the Canucks position is to others as to why the predecessor moved on.

These media people need to consider that. Their thirst for a scoop doesn’t take precedence over that from the team and RD.

 

[rypper]

I see a great big shit-talking mouth that doesn't know to shut the hell up runs in the family. Also, very appropriate name for her sister(?) to have.

Personally, I don't want an explanation now. I'm just enjoying the nice, roaring fire of drama.

Jesus man, how did Rachel hurt you? Did she say mean things about a prospect?

You have nothing better to do than trash her on two separate boards.... yikes.

 

[Bubbles]

Or national outlets don’t write stories about mid-level employees. No one outside of Canucks fans, the hockey industry, or hardcore fans is going to care about this unless something major comes out. Or one of their reporters could know what’s going on but are taking the same line as Dhaliwal. This conspiracy about media burying stuff is laughable. There are so many other plausible explanations.

She was featured on NHL.com not too long ago.

Inside the Mind of Rachel Doerrie

And Boudreau just last week, spoke highly of her:

Canucks: Rachel Doerrie's role on coaching staff gets some clarity

I suspect the true story will be in an Athletic article, because they seem to be the only media out there doing serious journalism.

 

[Petey But Really Jim]

Jesus man, how did Rachel hurt you? Did she say mean things about a prospect?

You have nothing better to do than trash her on two separate boards.... yikes.

What did someone say recently? “Show me on the doll where the words hurt you.”

 

[Canucker]

The argument that Canucks “made a big deal” of her hiring (which I disagree with, the media and the market were just as responsible) is a strawman when it comes to something like this that seems to be sensitive. Just because a company is proud to have hired someone doesn’t mean they need to immediately disclose why that person left the company I any Circumstance.

First off, I'm not saying they NEED to do anything...they don't NEED to, but sometimes it's better to make a generic statement saying that they've "parted ways and wish her the best in her future endeavors" and leave it at that.
Second, you must have missed all the Canucks videos over the off season that showed her in the scouting meetings and the draft and did a big Q&A for Canucks.com...to suggest she wasn't seen (or used) as something more than an average run-of-the-mill "mid-level employee" is disingenuous.

 

[rypper]

It is also important for both sides to come to the same reason for the public as to the separation. It impacts her future employment opportunities and impacts how attractive the Canucks position is to others as to why the predecessor moved on.

These media people need to consider that. Their thirst for a scoop doesn’t take precedence over that from the team and RD.

I've kind of shifted my point of view on this. (Not that I ever expected a reason for her departure but just that the team would address it, period, before it snowballed into the rampant speculation it is right now.)

But I read a different point of view on twitter. If the team was trying to keep it quiet, to protect her, as well as protect themselves for future hiring. I totally get that. Reading some replies on twitter...and even in this very thread are proof of why they may have wanted to do that.

 

[SurferBroChad]

who?

 

[Peen]

I see a great big shit-talking mouth that doesn't know to shut the hell up runs in the family. Also, very appropriate name for her sister(?) to have.

Personally, I don't want an explanation now. I'm just enjoying the nice, roaring fire of drama.

Is this satire? you ran your mouth to a ridiculous extent in this post relative to the nothingness of what Rachel’s mother posted.

 

[tradervik]

To be honest, I thought Doerrie was overqualified for the position she was given.

My main thought right now is how tough it must be to have one's firing turned into a public circus.

 

[Petey But Really Jim]

Is this satire? you ran your mouth to a ridiculous extent in this post relative to the nothingness of what Rachel’s mother posted.

Do as I say not as I do

 

[Billy Kvcmu]

Most likely because she likes a tweet that was mocking the owner

 

[shottasasa]

First off, I'm not saying they NEED to do anything...they don't NEED to, but sometimes it's better to make a generic statement saying that they've "parted ways and wish her the best in her future endeavors" and leave it at that.
Second, you must have missed all the Canucks videos over the off season that showed her in the scouting meetings and the draft and did a big Q&A for Canucks.com...to suggest she wasn't seen (or used) as something more than an average run-of-the-mill "mid-level employee" is disingenuous.

Again, there are a multitude of reasons why they haven’t made a statement, especially if there are legal issues management wants buttoned up first (anything from negotiating an exit to more serious stuff). Doerrie was shown for a few seconds in a video about the draft. So what, so we’re a dozen other employees. And a Q&A for the company website is about the most you can point to, but even that isn’t that unusual as she was breaking some ground in an area where there aren’t many women.

None of this means they “used” her or should adjust how they handle her departure if there are good reasons to handle it discreetly. We don’t know what happened and I think it’s a bit premature to point fingers and decide what each party should or shouldn’t have done. The facts will probably come out and then maybe everyone can then get on their horse and decide what how this should have been handled.

 

[shottasasa]

I've kind of shifted my point of view on this. (Not that I ever expected a reason for her departure but just that the team would address it, period, before it snowballed into the rampant speculation it is right now.)

But I read a different point of view on twitter. If the team was trying to keep it quiet, to protect her, as well as protect themselves for future hiring. I totally get that. Reading some replies on twitter...and even in this very thread are proof of why they may have wanted to do that.

Totally agree with the second part. We don’t know what happened. They could be trying to protect her or themselves, or both. It could be firing for a serious offence or it could be that she quit for some personal or professional reason.

 

[SeawaterOnIce]

Reading the comments on social media has me glad I'm not a young woman. Words such as "entitled" and "spoiled" are being thrown around so much.

 

[StreetHawk]

Totally agree with the second part. We don’t know what happened. They could be trying to protect her or themselves, or both. It could be firing for a serious offence or it could be that she quit for some personal or professional reason.

Put yourself in each side’s situation. Canucks now have an opening for the head of their analytics team. Anyone who applies is going to ask what happened to the first person they hired? They want to know what the working conditions are or the culture of the organization and whether they are a fit. They would know RD left after 8 months only so what happened? Is it her call or did the company decided to move on from her. What kind of job security should they expect?

For RD, how will she explain her exit to another organization when she applies for a position? That other organization will ask why did she leave. Would want to find out either directly from the team or side channels why she left. No company wants to bring in people who are out under a year. Especially if they have a track record of leaving rather quickly.

 

[Bubbles]

Reading the comments on social media has me glad I'm not a young woman. Words such as "entitled" and "spoiled" are being thrown around so much.

Look at some of the comments on this thread. Stupid people are everywhere.

 

[Canucker]

Again, there are a multitude of reasons why they haven’t made a statement, especially if there are legal issues management wants buttoned up first (anything from negotiating an exit to more serious stuff). Doerrie was shown for a few seconds in a video about the draft. So what, so we’re a dozen other employees. And a Q&A for the company website is about the most you can point to, but even that isn’t that unusual as she was breaking some ground in an area where there aren’t many women.

None of this means they “used” her or should adjust how they handle her departure if there are good reasons to handle it discreetly. We don’t know what happened and I think it’s a bit premature to point fingers and decide what each party should or shouldn’t have done. The facts will probably come out and then maybe everyone can then get on their horse and decide what how this should have been handled.

I'm not suggesting she was used in some nefarious or negative way, but she was given a higher level of exposure than your average employee in that role because of her gender...it's going to create more scrutiny. And I'm not saying they need to go into great detail about the reasons for dismissal, just put out a generic statement of separation and lean on that...at the very least you've acknowledged the separation and it doesn't appear as if you are hiding from anything.

 

[StreetHawk]

I don’t get the comparison to Brian Burke. Burke was the captain of his college team under Lou Lamoriello. On the advice of others, he went to law school at Harvard and became a player agent. Then he was mentored by Pat Quinn, became GM, and went to work for the league. You think Burke went around disrespecting people?

Burke clearly earned the respect of those he worked with and worked for (with the exception of non-hockey people). He also didn’t stop wearing a tie until he had a Stanley Cup ring?

I don’t know what happened to Rachel and I hope that if she was fired she was fired for cause and not for some BS reasons.

No employee is entitled to a job. You can be terminated at any time. Just a matter of a severance package if it was not for cause.

In this case i would imagine that RD has a term contract. The money she’s making isn’t on the level of the coaching staff or high level executives. So I doubt it’s a situation that the Canucks are going to try to save money in search of finding “cause” to move on from her if that was their decision to move on from her.

Guess that the 2 sides are negotiating the package and what the official reason they are letting her go. Canucks probably agree to not comment other than maybe we mutually agree to move on if that is what both sides agree to.

Potential hires for the Canucks will try to find out from RD what happened to ensure that it’s a good position for them.
Any potential employers will want to know why she left after such a short period of time. Don’t want people who aren’t going to last for at least a year.