The Vancouver Media Thread | Part VII

[Mr. Canucklehead]

Last one was over 1,000. Continue here.

Click to read more...

 

[Petey But Really Jim]

It was like three minutes into his show with Jamie Dodd today and Drance was in full Dave Hodge with the pencil “eff it all right to hell” rant mode. I love it. I hope they never break him.

 

[Jyrki21]

I was quite alarmed by iMac's appearance on Halford and Brough today, because I think it provides a window into ownership's thinking.

• Brough basically asked is it time to tear it down, and iMac went back to the "good young core" talking points of the Benning era, saying you already have these three guys, why wouldn't you want to build around them? No real acknowledgement of how impossible that is to do in the present cap situation, or really any doubt about them. It was very reminiscent of the defenses of Benning we saw here and elsewhere.

• Brough pushed back on the Big Three being good enough [I think this point is less important – obviously any good players contribute to winning and I don't really believe any group of good players "can't" win or improve when supplemented], but iMac once more did the optimistic-fan thing where he referred to the Edmonton bubble (sigh) and basically just assumed each player's best is what he will be (particularly for Demko – because of a gleam in his eye), rather than considering the full body of work, whether they could regress, whether many other teams have comparable "pieces", etc.

• Brough asked whether the Canucks have an explainable plan – iMac said the idea of a tear-down rebuild "has only been a thing in the last 10 years or so". Noting how no one ever talked about tear-downs in Pat Quinn's day, but rather he (and all GMs) simply just tried to make the team better bit by bit, through trades, coaching, development, etc.

I think the last part in particular is very worrisome. Yeah, no sh** in the pre-cap days teams just tried to accumulate as much talent as they could. There was no opportunity cost. The point of management has completely changed now, and the idea that (1) the Canucks can get significantly better without cap flexibility, or (2) this can be accomplished incrementally through Ethan Bear-type trades and better coaching techniques is exactly what I fear ownership thinks. "Ah, just a couple more baby steps." With no concept of the barriers they face. Because that's not how it worked in the '90s. (Hell, iMac even alluded to needing to draft players like Pettersson because you can't get them in trades...)

 

[Petey But Really Jim]

I was quite alarmed by iMac's appearance on Halford and Brough today, because I think it provides a window into ownership's thinking.

• Brough basically asked is it time to tear it down, and iMac went back to the "good young core" talking points of the Benning era, saying you already have these three guys, why wouldn't you want to build around them? No real acknowledgement of how impossible that is to do in the present cap situation, or really any doubt about them. It was very reminiscent of the defenses of Benning we saw here and elsewhere.

• Brough pushed back on the Big Three being good enough [I think this point is less important – obviously any good players contribute to winning and I don't really believe any group of good players "can't" win or improve when supplemented], but iMac once more did the optimistic-fan thing where he referred to the Edmonton bubble (sigh) and basically just assumed each player's best is what he will be (particularly for Demko – because of a gleam in his eye), rather than considering the full body of work, whether they could regress, whether many other teams have comparable "pieces", etc.

• Brough asked whether the Canucks have an explainable plan – iMac said the idea of a tear-down rebuild "has only been a thing in the last 10 years or so". Noting how no one ever talked about tear-downs in Pat Quinn's day, but rather he (and all GMs) simply just tried to make the team better bit by bit, through trades, coaching, development, etc.

I think the last part in particular is very worrisome. Yeah, no sh** in the pre-cap days teams just tried to accumulate as much talent as they could. There was no opportunity cost. The point of management has completely changed now, and the idea that (1) the Canucks can get significantly better without cap flexibility, or (2) this can be accomplished incrementally through Ethan Bear-type trades and better coaching techniques is exactly what I fear ownership thinks. "Ah, just a couple more baby steps." With no concept of the barriers they face. Because that's not how it worked in the '90s. (Hell, iMac even alluded to needing to draft players like Pettersson because you can't get them in trades...)

When I heard this interview I felt a physical response. My stomach felt similar pain to being extremely hungry, which definitely was not the case. Unbelievable.

 

[TruGr1t]

Drance: "Built as an end-of-window contender after having accomplished nothing."

Yes!

 

[RebuildinVan]

650 post game show isnt sugar coating anything tonite

 

[Vector]

I was quite alarmed by iMac's appearance on Halford and Brough today, because I think it provides a window into ownership's thinking.

• Brough basically asked is it time to tear it down, and iMac went back to the "good young core" talking points of the Benning era, saying you already have these three guys, why wouldn't you want to build around them? No real acknowledgement of how impossible that is to do in the present cap situation, or really any doubt about them. It was very reminiscent of the defenses of Benning we saw here and elsewhere.

• Brough pushed back on the Big Three being good enough [I think this point is less important – obviously any good players contribute to winning and I don't really believe any group of good players "can't" win or improve when supplemented], but iMac once more did the optimistic-fan thing where he referred to the Edmonton bubble (sigh) and basically just assumed each player's best is what he will be (particularly for Demko – because of a gleam in his eye), rather than considering the full body of work, whether they could regress, whether many other teams have comparable "pieces", etc.

• Brough asked whether the Canucks have an explainable plan – iMac said the idea of a tear-down rebuild "has only been a thing in the last 10 years or so". Noting how no one ever talked about tear-downs in Pat Quinn's day, but rather he (and all GMs) simply just tried to make the team better bit by bit, through trades, coaching, development, etc.

I think the last part in particular is very worrisome. Yeah, no sh** in the pre-cap days teams just tried to accumulate as much talent as they could. There was no opportunity cost. The point of management has completely changed now, and the idea that (1) the Canucks can get significantly better without cap flexibility, or (2) this can be accomplished incrementally through Ethan Bear-type trades and better coaching techniques is exactly what I fear ownership thinks. "Ah, just a couple more baby steps." With no concept of the barriers they face. Because that's not how it worked in the '90s. (Hell, iMac even alluded to needing to draft players like Pettersson because you can't get them in trades...)

Like I said in the GDT, iMac is a very dumb man. Still surprised me how people can spend their entire careers around the NHL and not understand it at all. Complete inability to grow and learn as the game evolves and gets more complicated.

I’m very curious if there’s a disconnect between what ownership wants and what management is willing to do. You hear Rutherford and Allvin basically give the same mantra about building and their actions have reflected that. If you get rid of everyone but 4 players, is that not a form of a rebuild?

 

[theguardianII]

• Brough asked whether the Canucks have an explainable plan – iMac said the idea of a tear-down rebuild "has only been a thing in the last 10 years or so". Noting how no one ever talked about tear-downs in Pat Quinn's day, but rather he (and all GMs) simply just tried to make the team better bit by bit, through trades, coaching, development, etc.

Which of course it total lie.
Pittsburgh for Lemieux
Tampa for Leclavier
Quebec for Lindros
Tampa for Stamkos and Hedman
Pittsburgh for Crosby and Malkin
Chicago for Seabrooke, Keith, Toews and Kane
LA for Doughty
Colorado for a whole bunch, 112 pts all the way down to 48 pts in a very very short time 3 years but then 5 consecutive years of playoffs leading to the cup. From tanking 8 years with 5 years of playoffs

There were a couple others where the tank worked but the player failed

IMac acts like he just was one of those naïve fans or people that think tanking is cheating. Lived in a cave
Like he has never heard of "playing to see what is in the system" or "they are doing salary dumps" or "they are resting some of the vets because they are out of it"

The NHL media rights in Canada are owned by Rogers, they control the message.
This controlled media is something started by Brian Burke.

Social media is twisting Rogers "Arm" forcing them to ease up the control of the message getting out. As they started losing market share to social media they had to let the airways more open.

During the Benning era the social media started taking off and the complaints started being noted.
Those jerseys being thrown didn't happen because tens of thousands of fans got upset over night.
The controlled media would not even post standings.

Even now they insist the media uses points percentages, a stat not used to determine a tie in the standings.
Wins and losses, simple as that. OT losses count as a loss but some OT wins should not be counted as wins.

Imac, Shorthouse and Garret saying they are only 2 games under .500
Nobody is explaining a few things.
First a .500 point percentage is around 22nd in the league
Second the real percentage is wins and losses and much worse.

Tonight the Canucks have 8 wins in regulation out of 31 games and 5 OT wins.
The rest are losses.
How many can't figure out .500 is supposed to be half?
The loser point is there to suck in the stupid.

13 wins is not half of 31. 18 losses is not half, it is much more.
Divide 13 by 31 and there is your real percentage, the one that breaks ties. 0.419

 

[Jyrki21]

Which of course it total lie.
Pittsburgh for Lemieux
Tampa for Leclavier
Quebec for Lindros
Tampa for Stamkos and Hedman
Pittsburgh for Crosby and Malkin
Chicago for Seabrooke, Keith, Toews and Kane
LA for Doughty
Colorado for a whole bunch, 112 pts all the way down to 48 pts in a very very short time 3 years but then 5 consecutive years of playoffs leading to the cup. From tanking 8 years with 5 years of playoffs

There were a couple others where the tank worked but the player failed

IMac acts like he just was one of those naïve fans or people that think tanking is cheating. Lived in a cave
Like he has never heard of "playing to see what is in the system" or "they are doing salary dumps" or "they are resting some of the vets because they are out of it"

The NHL media rights in Canada are owned by Rogers, they control the message.
This controlled media is something started by Brian Burke.

Social media is twisting Rogers "Arm" forcing them to ease up the control of the message getting out. As they started losing market share to social media they had to let the airways more open.

During the Benning era the social media started taking off and the complaints started being noted.
Those jerseys being thrown didn't happen because tens of thousands of fans got upset over night.
The controlled media would not even post standings.

Even now they insist the media uses points percentages, a stat not used to determine a tie in the standings.
Wins and losses, simple as that. OT losses count as a loss but some OT wins should not be counted as wins.

Imac, Shorthouse and Garret saying they are only 2 games under .500
Nobody is explaining a few things.
First a .500 point percentage is around 22nd in the league
Second the real percentage is wins and losses and much worse.

Tonight the Canucks have 8 wins in regulation out of 31 games and 5 OT wins.
The rest are losses.
How many can't figure out .500 is supposed to be half?
The loser point is there to suck in the stupid.

13 wins is not half of 31. 18 losses is not half, it is much more.
Divide 13 by 31 and there is your real percentage, the one that breaks ties. 0.419

Well I agree with you until you get to OTLs. All OT/shootout results mean you tied the actual hockey game, and judging a team’s performance differently after the fact as a “win” or a “loss” makes no real sense because they played the same game either way.

But I agree the OT mechanism and “NHL .500” is used to suck in morons and create artificial parity. But in large part because the same morons also can’t understand that the game was tied.

 

[m9]

I was quite alarmed by iMac's appearance on Halford and Brough today, because I think it provides a window into ownership's thinking.

• Brough basically asked is it time to tear it down, and iMac went back to the "good young core" talking points of the Benning era, saying you already have these three guys, why wouldn't you want to build around them? No real acknowledgement of how impossible that is to do in the present cap situation, or really any doubt about them. It was very reminiscent of the defenses of Benning we saw here and elsewhere.

• Brough pushed back on the Big Three being good enough [I think this point is less important – obviously any good players contribute to winning and I don't really believe any group of good players "can't" win or improve when supplemented], but iMac once more did the optimistic-fan thing where he referred to the Edmonton bubble (sigh) and basically just assumed each player's best is what he will be (particularly for Demko – because of a gleam in his eye), rather than considering the full body of work, whether they could regress, whether many other teams have comparable "pieces", etc.

• Brough asked whether the Canucks have an explainable plan – iMac said the idea of a tear-down rebuild "has only been a thing in the last 10 years or so". Noting how no one ever talked about tear-downs in Pat Quinn's day, but rather he (and all GMs) simply just tried to make the team better bit by bit, through trades, coaching, development, etc.

I think the last part in particular is very worrisome. Yeah, no sh** in the pre-cap days teams just tried to accumulate as much talent as they could. There was no opportunity cost. The point of management has completely changed now, and the idea that (1) the Canucks can get significantly better without cap flexibility, or (2) this can be accomplished incrementally through Ethan Bear-type trades and better coaching techniques is exactly what I fear ownership thinks. "Ah, just a couple more baby steps." With no concept of the barriers they face. Because that's not how it worked in the '90s. (Hell, iMac even alluded to needing to draft players like Pettersson because you can't get them in trades...)

This interview wasn't surprising to me and I knew Brough was biting his tongue a bit as him and Imac had gotten into some major disagreements in the past about what this team should do. Not too dissimilar to many arguments we've seen around here over the years.

 

[theguardianII]

Well I agree with you until you get to OTLs. All OT/shootout results mean you tied the actual hockey game, and judging a team’s performance differently after the fact as a “win” or a “loss” makes no real sense because they played the same game either way.

But I agree the OT mechanism and “NHL .500” is used to suck in morons and create artificial parity. But in large part because the same morons also can’t understand that the game was tied.

The OT could be much easier understood if there was not a point offered for the OT loss.
It is the loser point that is/was for the US market where .500 is still half way in every other sport except soccer, which is really screwed up for figuring out points in soccer.
IMac apparently has sources on the team, players, and is fighting to keep them.

Ya, IMac definitely goes "stupid" when stating some of his comments without thinking. "Mouth in gear, brain in neutral or reverse"

 

[VanJack]

IMac maybe inadvertently, gave a damning indictment of the Canucks late in last night's post-game show.

He said the Canucks genuinely 'like their coach' and they like each other. They have fun on the ice and enjoy coming to the rink for practices. Apparently this is a tight team, and more than one player has said 'they're a great bunch of guys'.

Except when it comes to playing the games---then they just mostly suck. Hard not to conclude that there's a number of players on this team who are altogether 'too comfortable' playing in Vancouver. Despite all the shrill rhetoric in the marketplace, it's an 'easy' team to play for and lose with.

Bottom line, they may be 'easy' with each other, but they're 'easy to play against' on the ice.

 

[gringo]

Drance was a voice in the wilderness for so long - lmao I remember when the Benning gang tried to run him out of town for being “too negative” or whatever their vapid arguments were.

 

[Just A Bit Outside]

IMac maybe inadvertently, gave a damning indictment of the Canucks late in last night's post-game show.

He said the Canucks genuinely 'like their coach' and they like each other. They have fun on the ice and enjoy coming to the rink for practices. Apparently this is a tight team, and more than one player has said 'they're a great bunch of guys'.

Except when it comes to playing the games---then they just mostly suck. Hard not to conclude that there's a number of players on this team who are altogether 'too comfortable' playing in Vancouver. Despite all the shrill rhetoric in the marketplace, it's an 'easy' team to play for and lose with.

Bottom line, they may be 'easy' with each other, but they're 'easy to play against' on the ice.

Well they definitely play like they are giving each other the reach around.

There’s way too much acceptance regarding losing and mediocrity.

 

[Nucker101]

IMac maybe inadvertently, gave a damning indictment of the Canucks late in last night's post-game show.

He said the Canucks genuinely 'like their coach' and they like each other. They have fun on the ice and enjoy coming to the rink for practices. Apparently this is a tight team, and more than one player has said 'they're a great bunch of guys'.

Except when it comes to playing the games---then they just mostly suck. Hard not to conclude that there's a number of players on this team who are altogether 'too comfortable' playing in Vancouver. Despite all the shrill rhetoric in the marketplace, it's an 'easy' team to play for and lose with.

Bottom line, they may be 'easy' with each other, but they're 'easy to play against' on the ice.

I don't believe him or whoever fed him this info. Usually tight teams care about winning. I have no doubts that they like Bruce and there's a lot of players who have close friends in the locker room so maybe that's what he means, but I really don't think this team as a whole is a tight knit group.

 

[Petey But Really Jim]

I don't believe him or whoever fed him this info. Usually tight teams care about winning. I have no doubts that they like Bruce and there's a lot of players who have close friends in the locker room so maybe that's what he means, but I really don't think this team as a whole is a tight knit group.

There is no “play for one another” evident.

 

[VanJack]

Is it possible for a team to enjoy each other's company; have fun in practices, like their coach and be a tight knit group--and still suck on the ice in games? Of course it is.

We all assume that NHL hockey players go to the rink every day burning with desire to 'win at all costs'. And start getting outwardly frustrated and turning on each other when things go bad.

But this is a business. At this point in their careers, veteran guys like Miller, Horvat, Garland, OEL and Myers are going to get paid big bucks regardless of how the team performs on the ice. I'm sure they care--but only up to a certain point.

On most nights, the only guys who lay on the line and rage against the constant losing are young players like Petterson and Hughes; and some of the depth guys like Lazar, Joshua, Aman, Dries, Burroughs, Martin and Studnicka, who are basically struggling to stay in the league.

It's like 'Pleasantville' in Canuck-land. Everybody gets along; has fun playing; and then get the golf clubs out early every spring for a long off-season in cottage country. Welcome to the Vancouver country-club.

 

[Breakers]

iMac is really pushing this narrative that it would be smart to double down on this core.

Wild thinking when the sample size of them together shows it isn’t sustainable.

He LOVEs that Covid playoff season the most.
Which was fueled entirely by the Powerplay and a technicality on getting into the playoffs.

2nd in PP%
1st in Net PP%
2nd in PP opportunities

 

[Nucker101]

iMac is really pushing this narrative that it would be smart to double down on this core.

Wild thinking when the sample size of them together shows it isn’t sustainable.

He LOVEs that Covid playoff season the most.
Which was fueled entirely by the Powerplay and a technicality on getting into the playoffs.

2nd in PP%
1st in Net PP%
2nd in PP opportunities

IMac is the ownership shill so I think he’s trying to butter up the fanbase for a Bo extension.

Hopefully Bo’s side continues to reject their offers

 

[Just A Bit Outside]

Lol. WTF does anyone keep referring to the bubble as anything?

First, it was an anomaly.

Second, they played a St Louis team on a SC hangover.

3rd, they didn’t even make it out of the second round AND only made it to 7 games because Demko absolutely stood on his head.

Like Jesus f***.

Raise the f***ing bar a little when it comes to acheievements.

 

[TruGr1t]

Is it possible for a team to enjoy each other's company; have fun in practices, like their coach and be a tight knit group--and still suck on the ice in games? Of course it is.

We all assume that NHL hockey players go to the rink every day burning with desire to 'win at all costs'. And start getting outwardly frustrated and turning on each other when things go bad.

But this is a business. At this point in their careers, veteran guys like Miller, Horvat, Garland, OEL and Myers are going to get paid big bucks regardless of how the team performs on the ice. I'm sure they care--but only up to a certain point.

On most nights, the only guys who lay on the line and rage against the constant losing are young players like Petterson and Hughes; and some of the depth guys like Lazar, Joshua, Aman, Dries, Burroughs, Martin and Studnicka, who are basically struggling to stay in the league.

It's like 'Pleasantville' in Canuck-land. Everybody gets along; has fun playing; and then get the golf clubs out early every spring for a long off-season in cottage country. Welcome to the Vancouver country-club.

This has a "Muskoka Five" vibe all over it, even if the players are a bit earlier in their careers. Nice to live in Vancouver and make big bucks I guess, season is a bit of an inconvenience, but really nice to have that lifestyle in the summer.

 

[rypper]

I don't really like the guy but this is worth noting:

 

[m9]

I don't really like the guy but this is worth noting:

Not trying to be a dick, but is this guy even media? Do you usually get credentials for running a couple blogs nobody's heard of?

 

[rypper]

Not trying to be a dick, but is this guy even media? Do you usually get credentials for running a couple blogs nobody's heard of?

He's kind of an independent now but has worked for middle range media companies in the past. I could be off, but I'd say it's the equivalent to the Canucks giving passes to canucksarmy.

 

[StickShift]

He's kind of an independent now but has worked for middle range media companies in the past. I could be off, but I'd say it's the equivalent to the Canucks giving passes to canucksarmy.

I wonder if something else happened farther back.

He was writing articles exclusively about the Canucks since the off-season, then once the season began he abruptly began writing about the Seattle Kraken instead.

There’s been something off about his reporting from the get go. He appeared out of nowhere, had a few weird tweets that he has since deleted, too.