Exactly one year ago, Bruce Boudreau was fired as head coach. How have we (the fans) moved on from that saga?

[Bob Long]

Just now, iinatcc said:

 

Why would anyone walk away from a job though? The whole thing was a mess, I don't blame Rutherford/Allvin for preferring another coach but the way Rutherford there Boudreau under the bus publicly was pretty unprofessional.

 

 

 

because he knew it was short term at best, because he didn't have a good bench, because he knew it was risky to repeat that 10 game run.

 

Instead we had that crap show ending, which I place blame for on all participants. 

[iinatcc]

6 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

because he knew it was short term at best, because he didn't have a good bench, because he knew it was risky to repeat that 10 game run.

 

Instead we had that crap show ending, which I place blame for on all participants. 

 

But then why would he walk away out a job? Especially if he thought he was getting good results? Even if it was short term his results in his first year probably made him confident that he would get another coaching job after his time with the Canucks.

[Bob Long]

1 minute ago, iinatcc said:

 

But then why would he walk away out a job? Especially if he thought he was getting good results? Even if it was short term his results in his first year probably made him confident that he would get another coaching job after his time with the Canucks.

 

but he wasn't really getting good results. You could see how many problems the team had, and he also knew Rutherford wasn't going to extend him. In fact, I think Rutherford didn't know Bruce had an option year until JR got hired. 

 

So assuming Bruce wanted to still coach somewhere, he has one year of some lightning in a bottle and imo could have turned that into a gig somewhere else. 

 

But he went for the option year and it is what it is now, Canucks lore. 

 

[kilgore]

1 minute ago, Miss Korea said:

 

Again, I've largely accepted Jim as a good executive in terms of improving the team.

 

But it's the one-year mark and I felt like it was a good opportunity to reflect back.  And honestly, I'm surprised with the reception here.  Because I think Jim has atoned for some of his mistakes, but others think that he never made any mistakes in the first place and did nothing wrong.  The good he's doing now shouldn't erase the wrongs he did in the past.

 

It seems like the only one that hasn't moved on from the "saga" is you. 

 

My gawd I'm astounded at how much some posters still cry for Bruce, because of a two week lame duck stint as coach here.

 

The poor Bruce narrative was right there set up on the platter for local news media.  Because he was so well loved. Had a song and everything.  JR was in a quandary. The owner had hired BB.  Plus, and big plus, he immediately turned the team around, at least offensively. So JR may have thought he could be wrong, maybe Bruce will work here, at least until his contract is up. He did wonders for that last half season so why wouldn't JR (and Aquiline the one paying the cheques) want to see how it goes into the 22/23 season?   Even while still looking for a replacement if, as his spidey senses were telling him, BB was not the right solution long term. But if BB could continue what he did the season before, then let him run with it, maybe make the playoffs, and go from there.  This is how a GM does his job.

 

But the 22/23 season did not go well  after it was clear to more than just JR that BB was not right for the job, coaching a team that could never keep a lead. They interviewed JR, and as media do, they pushed him and he always answers honestly.  Which I'm damn glad he does. How refreshing.  Did you want him to lie? The team DID need accountability and structure. He was ultimately responsible for that....even more than the coach because the GM is the one responsible for who that is. It seems you wanted him to lie and say everything is fine with the team as its losing games at an historic rate?  Do you understand that JR is his boss and a boss is allowed to criticize?

 

And he never threw BB under the bus in a personal way. He talked about needed structure. After a month into the season and we were basically out of the playoffs already:

 

https://www.sportsnet.ca/nhl/article/rutherford-again-criticizes-canucks-structure-something-has-to-be-fixed/

 

"In order for us to become a better team we have to play with a stronger system and really be more accountable for some of the things that some of the players are struggling with." Rutherford said.

 

"We're at a point now where we have to make players more accountable and we'll have to take the necessary steps to get players' attention. "Asked if he had the right personnel behind the bench — with Boudreau at the helm — to have that accountability and structure, Rutherford did not directly answer nor did he defend his head coach.

 

"When we talk to the coaches, we stress it," Rutherford said. "I do believe that the style that the team played that had success in the second half of last season was a loose style and more on the offensive side and our goaltender played great and really helped win a lot of those games or bail us out in wide open games. And I don't believe that that's the style of play that you could sustain over a long period of time if you want to contend for a playoff spot."

 

 

And the idea that Bruce suffered crippling humiliation by having to stay and coach for two weeks, knowing he was going to be let go, is purely a media driven narrative.   Think about it, wouldn't the humiliation for Bruce be more about how his team is taking a nose dive, and his lack of preparation and system are directly responsible? BB could have just left. But IMO, maybe  just my opinion, but I think he enjoyed coaching so much, that he WANTED to remain as long as  possible. Even if he knew he was gone soon. He was still adored by fans, its not like he was being booed at games.  And in hindsight, he's probably glad he did. If he'd made a quiet exit, taken the night train out of town, he'd have never gotten the teary eyed send off he got in his final game here. 

 

I think most appreciate that Bruce was a much needed shot in the arm.  Especially for a player like Boeser.  (And Horvat and Kuz).  Don't worry about defense.....just score baby!  It worked for awhile but not sustainable. I still love what BB brought at the time.  But I'm not crying tears for him either. Its a ruthless, results driven job. He had an uncomfortable 2 weeks, staying on until Tocchet's job with TNT was done.  All the while raking in millions and hearing his name chanted at games.  Boo Hoo.

 

[tas]

16 minutes ago, iinatcc said:

 

Why would anyone walk away from a job though? The whole thing was a mess, I don't blame Rutherford/Allvin for preferring another coach but the way Rutherford there Boudreau under the bus publicly was pretty unprofessional.

 

 

the honourable thing for bruce to have done was walk away in the summer. 

 

his contract was up. his boss had made it abundantly clear that he wasn't his guy and that he didn't know that bruce had the option year when he agreed to things. he could have walked away, head held high, knowing that he turned that team around and got them damn close. he could have used that as a springboard into a role elsewhere. 

 

instead, he said screw it, if they want me gone I'll make them fire me and pay me out and exercised the option. 

 

so, rutherford let him lay in the bed he made. he let him squirm first. 

Edited January 21 by tas

[Miss Korea]

11 minutes ago, tas said:

the team is entitled to perform their internal process for choosing a new coach. the media decided to dig, made the private process public, and then proceeded to harangue all parties involved until things came to a head, all while trying to shame canucks management for allowing it to happen when it was they themselves who had done it.

 

give me a break. 

 

reporter: asks moronic question that makes bruce cry.

 

also reports: OH MY GOD LOOK WHAT YOU DID YOU MADE BRUCE CRY YOU MONSTERS 

 

This cannot be further from the truth.  Never in the hockey world have we seen a manager openly criticize his own coach repeatedly.  I challenge you to think of even one other instance.

 

Guess what?  If you want to keep a private process a private process, don't fucking talk to the media about it.  If there's a rumour, just say nothing.

 

"Hey are you and your coach doing okay?"  "No."  Well, WTF are you expecting media to do with that?

[Miss Korea]

1 minute ago, tas said:

the honourable thing for bruce to have done was walk away in the summer. 

 

his contract was up. his boss had made it abundantly clear that he wasn't his guy and that he didn't know that bruce had the option year when he agreed to things. he could have walked away, head held high, knowing that he turned that team around and got them damn close. he could have used that as a springboard into a role elsewhere. 

 

instead, he said screw it, if they want me gone I'll make them fire me and pay me out and exercised the option. 

 

so, rutherford let him lay in the bed he made. he let him squirm first. 

 

If that's what you really think happened, then Rutherford should have absolutely been fired.  Give me a break.  You're now suggesting Rutherford kept Boudreau on as some kind of payback or punishment.  You're suggesting he was willing to tank a season just to get back at someone or just to prove a point.  Wow.

[Bob Long]

1 minute ago, Miss Korea said:

 

This cannot be further from the truth.  Never in the hockey world have we seen a manager openly criticize his own coach repeatedly.  I challenge you to think of even one other instance.

 

Guess what?  If you want to keep a private process a private process, don't fucking talk to the media about it.  If there's a rumour, just say nothing.

 

"Hey are you and your coach doing okay?"  "No."  Well, WTF are you expecting media to do with that?

 

it was battle of the old dudes. See the post above this one, it explains it well.

 

I also highly doubt that JR came out with anything that he didn't discuss with Bruce first, and Bruce clearly wasn't listening.

 

But it doesn't matter. All this comes down to how a person views professional treatment. You are upset by it, I'm not, and thats fine. 

 

[tas]

Just now, Miss Korea said:

 

If that's what you really think happened, then Rutherford should have absolutely been fired.  Give me a break.  You're now suggesting Rutherford kept Boudreau on as some kind of payback or punishment.  You're suggesting he was willing to tank a season just to get back at someone or just to prove a point.  Wow.

not at all what I'm suggesting.

 

what I'm saying is, when bruce ignored the writing on the wall, the team had to give him a shot. they did. he failed miserably. but they had no responsibility to soften it for him and they didn't. 

[tas]

6 minutes ago, Miss Korea said:

 

This cannot be further from the truth.  Never in the hockey world have we seen a manager openly criticize his own coach repeatedly.  I challenge you to think of even one other instance.

 

Guess what?  If you want to keep a private process a private process, don't fucking talk to the media about it.  If there's a rumour, just say nothing.

 

"Hey are you and your coach doing okay?"  "No."  Well, WTF are you expecting media to do with that?

don't ask questions you can't handle the answers to. 

[iinatcc]

7 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

but he wasn't really getting good results. You could see how many problems the team had, and he also knew Rutherford wasn't going to extend him. In fact, I think Rutherford didn't know Bruce had an option year until JR got hired. 

 

So assuming Bruce wanted to still coach somewhere, he has one year of some lightning in a bottle and imo could have turned that into a gig somewhere else. 

 

But he went for the option year and it is what it is now, Canucks lore. 

 

 

I don't think the problems weren't as visible as you claim. I agree there were underlying issues with his coaching but when I tried to point that out the season prior I got shot down by people here thinking Boudreau's results were sustainable. Even when Drance brought up the issues with his coaching people here just ripped Drance apart. 

 

So on your first point I disagree that people could easily see the problems because many didn't.

 

Which brings us to Boudreau, of course he's going to be biased and look at the positives of his first year as the Canucks coach, and be confident that he could build on that. What NHL coach wouldn't? So it's only natural he would accept the 2nd year option in his deal 

[tas]

I also really liked the way the little boudreau/doerrie/pj love triangle tried to make more controversy happen around the team a week ago or whatever. 

 

nobody cares about any of you losers. 

[Miss Korea]

5 minutes ago, kilgore said:

 

It seems like the only one that hasn't moved on from the "saga" is you. 

 

My gawd I'm astounded at how much some posters still cry for Bruce, because of a two week lame duck stint as coach here.

 

The poor Bruce narrative was right there set up on the platter for local news media.  Because he was so well loved. Had a song and everything.  JR was in a quandary. The owner had hired BB.  Plus, and big plus, he immediately turned the team around, at least offensively. So JR may have thought he could be wrong, maybe Bruce will work here, at least until his contract is up. He did wonders for that last half season so why wouldn't JR (and Aquiline the one paying the cheques) want to see how it goes into the 22/23 season?   Even while still looking for a replacement if, as his spidey senses were telling him, BB was not the right solution long term. But if BB could continue what he did the season before, then let him run with it, maybe make the playoffs, and go from there.  This is how a GM does his job.

 

But the 22/23 season did not go well  after it was clear to more than just JR that BB was not right for the job, coaching a team that could never keep a lead. They interviewed JR, and as media do, they pushed him and he always answers honestly.  Which I'm damn glad he does. How refreshing.  Did you want him to lie? The team DID need accountability and structure. He was ultimately responsible for that....even more than the coach because the GM is the one responsible for who that is. It seems you wanted him to lie and say everything is fine with the team as its losing games at an historic rate?  Do you understand that JR is his boss and a boss is allowed to criticize?

 

And he never threw BB under the bus in a personal way. He talked about needed structure. After a month into the season and we were basically out of the playoffs already:

 

https://www.sportsnet.ca/nhl/article/rutherford-again-criticizes-canucks-structure-something-has-to-be-fixed/

 

"In order for us to become a better team we have to play with a stronger system and really be more accountable for some of the things that some of the players are struggling with." Rutherford said.

 

"We're at a point now where we have to make players more accountable and we'll have to take the necessary steps to get players' attention. "Asked if he had the right personnel behind the bench — with Boudreau at the helm — to have that accountability and structure, Rutherford did not directly answer nor did he defend his head coach.

 

"When we talk to the coaches, we stress it," Rutherford said. "I do believe that the style that the team played that had success in the second half of last season was a loose style and more on the offensive side and our goaltender played great and really helped win a lot of those games or bail us out in wide open games. And I don't believe that that's the style of play that you could sustain over a long period of time if you want to contend for a playoff spot."

 

And the idea that Bruce suffered crippling humiliation by having to stay and coach for two weeks, knowing he was going to be let go, is purely a media driven narrative.   Think about it, wouldn't the humiliation for Bruce be more about how his team is taking a nose dive, and his lack of preparation and system are directly responsible? BB could have just left. But IMO, maybe  just my opinion, but I think he enjoyed coaching so much, that he WANTED to remain as long as  possible. Even if he knew he was gone soon. He was still adored by fans, its not like he was being booed at games.  And in hindsight, he's probably glad he did. If he'd made a quiet exit, taken the night train out of town, he'd have never gotten the teary eyed send off he got in his final game here. 

 

I think most appreciate that Bruce was a much needed shot in the arm.  Especially for a player like Boeser.  (And Horvat and Kuz).  Don't worry about defense.....just score baby!  It worked for awhile but not sustainable. I still love what BB brought at the time.  But I'm not crying tears for him either. Its a ruthless, results driven job. He had an uncomfortable 2 weeks, staying on until Tocchet's job with TNT was done.  All the while raking in millions and hearing his name chanted at games.  Boo Hoo.

 

You are acting as if Rutherford had no agency and no control over the situation.  Unless you truly believe Aquilini was blocking any personnel movement, Rutherford had the power to do whatever he watned.  When Ron Wilson was FIRED, he was quietly/mercifully swept out after an away game.  When Jay Woodcroft was FIRED, he was quietly/mercifully swept out after an away game.  Hell - when Lane Lambert was FIRED yesterday, he was quietly/mercifully swept out after an away game.  If he didn't think Bruce was the right man for the job, there was no reason to keep him on even a day longer than necessary.  Just get someone to sub in while you conduct the search.  Even Stan Smyl could've suited up as a coach for two weeks if needed.

 

In the interview you posted, Rutherford was directly asked what he thought Bruce Boudreau had to do.  And his response was to criticize the "structure" and "system" of the team.  Anyone with a brain can tell that was a criticism of Bruce Boudreau and their visions did not align.

 

Let me flip the script on you.  If you don't believe your coach can get the job done, just cut him loose and move on.  Don't go crying to the media about structure and changes needed.  You were right that we were out of the playoffs a month into the season.  Rutherford didn't seem to mind, as the team continued to nosedive for over HALF a season.  Boo hoo.  You're the boss.  Make the goddamn change yourself.  Keep in mind that creating a hostile work environment to the point that someone feels compelled to resign is literally ILLEGAL in British Columbia.  Rutherford has been a hockey executive for almost 40 years - he knows how to fire someone.  Nobody resigns in hockey for doing poorly.  They get fired.  That's how it's always been.  Boo hoo for those who didn't get the memo.

 

 

6 minutes ago, tas said:

not at all what I'm suggesting.

 

what I'm saying is, when bruce ignored the writing on the wall, the team had to give him a shot. they did. he failed miserably. but they had no responsibility to soften it for him and they didn't. 

 

The writing was not on the wall.  Bruce's first year went 35-15-10.  We nearly surged into the playoffs that year before running out of gas in late March.  It would've made zero sense for a coach to be let go after that strong of a performance, even if Rutherford didn't like the structure.

[tas]

Just now, Miss Korea said:

 

You are acting as if Rutherford had no agency and no control over the situation.  Unless you truly believe Aquilini was blocking any personnel movement, Rutherford had the power to do whatever he watned.  When Ron Wilson was FIRED, he was quietly/mercifully swept out after an away game.  When Jay Woodcroft was FIRED, he was quietly/mercifully swept out after an away game.  Hell - when Lane Lambert was FIRED yesterday, he was quietly/mercifully swept out after an away game.  If he didn't think Bruce was the right man for the job, there was no reason to keep him on even a day longer than necessary.  Just get someone to sub in while you conduct the search.  Even Stan Smyl could've suited up as a coach for two weeks if needed.

 

In the interview you posted, Rutherford was directly asked what he thought Bruce Boudreau had to do.  And his response was to criticize the "structure" and "system" of the team.  Anyone with a brain can tell that was a criticism of Bruce Boudreau and their visions did not align.

 

Let me flip the script on you.  If you don't believe your coach can get the job done, just cut him loose and move on.  Don't go crying to the media about structure and changes needed.  You were right that we were out of the playoffs a month into the season.  Rutherford didn't seem to mind, as the team continued to nosedive for over HALF a season.  Boo hoo.  You're the boss.  Make the goddamn change yourself.  Keep in mind that creating a hostile work environment to the point that someone feels compelled to resign is literally ILLEGAL in British Columbia.  Rutherford has been a hockey executive for almost 40 years - he knows how to fire someone.  Nobody resigns in hockey for doing poorly.  They get fired.  That's how it's always been.  Boo hoo for those who didn't get the memo.

 

 

 

The writing was not on the wall.  Bruce's first year went 35-15-10.  We nearly surged into the playoffs that year before running out of gas in late March.  It would've made zero sense for a coach to be let go after that strong of a performance, even if Rutherford didn't like the structure.

the writing that his boss didn't want him was very much on the wall. 

[Alflives]

1 minute ago, Miss Korea said:

 

You are acting as if Rutherford had no agency and no control over the situation.  Unless you truly believe Aquilini was blocking any personnel movement, Rutherford had the power to do whatever he watned.  When Ron Wilson was FIRED, he was quietly/mercifully swept out after an away game.  When Jay Woodcroft was FIRED, he was quietly/mercifully swept out after an away game.  Hell - when Lane Lambert was FIRED yesterday, he was quietly/mercifully swept out after an away game.  If he didn't think Bruce was the right man for the job, there was no reason to keep him on even a day longer than necessary.  Just get someone to sub in while you conduct the search.  Even Stan Smyl could've suited up as a coach for two weeks if needed.

 

In the interview you posted, Rutherford was directly asked what he thought Bruce Boudreau had to do.  And his response was to criticize the "structure" and "system" of the team.  Anyone with a brain can tell that was a criticism of Bruce Boudreau and their visions did not align.

 

Let me flip the script on you.  If you don't believe your coach can get the job done, just cut him loose and move on.  Don't go crying to the media about structure and changes needed.  You were right that we were out of the playoffs a month into the season.  Rutherford didn't seem to mind, as the team continued to nosedive for over HALF a season.  Boo hoo.  You're the boss.  Make the goddamn change yourself.  Keep in mind that creating a hostile work environment to the point that someone feels compelled to resign is literally ILLEGAL in British Columbia.  Rutherford has been a hockey executive for almost 40 years - he knows how to fire someone.  Nobody resigns in hockey for doing poorly.  They get fired.  That's how it's always been.  Boo hoo for those who didn't get the memo.

 

 

 

The writing was not on the wall.  Bruce's first year went 35-15-10.  We nearly surged into the playoffs that year before running out of gas in late March.  It would've made zero sense for a coach to be let go after that strong of a performance, even if Rutherford didn't like the structure.

Can’t remember the reporter’s name, but he said JR went to ownership to fire BB in the summer after the first year. The reporter said ownership said no. I think it was that Seravelli guy? 

[Miss Korea]

3 minutes ago, tas said:

the writing that his boss didn't want him was very much on the wall. 

Then be a BOSS and do your job.  Don't drag it out and "make him squirm".

[tas]

1 minute ago, Miss Korea said:

Then be a BOSS and do your job.  Don't drag it out and "make him squirm".

how? guy re-ups his option and you just immediately fire him? he forced their hand to give him a chance, and when he messed the bed catastrophically, he further forced their hand to make a mid-season change that they didn't want to make. they weren't going to have their hand forced to choose someone other than the guy they wanted, who wasn't available, even as an interim, because interims are messy.

 

if yeo is your interim, what happens if the team does well under him? he's still not your guy, you know you don't want him, but now you're forced to give him an interview for the sake of optics? how does that go down?

 

bruce made his bed and the media turned it into a giant public mess. 

[gwarrior]

I didn't, and still don't like how it was handled. Especially publicly saying they were looking for a replacement for Bruce. That was handled so badly. But I think we all knew he wasn't going to be a long term solution. That said, I'm loving the job Tocchet has done. 

[Junkyard Dog]

I didn’t like how it was handled but I like how the team has progressed since. 

[Miss Korea]

12 minutes ago, tas said:

how? guy re-ups his option and you just immediately fire him? he forced their hand to give him a chance, and when he messed the bed catastrophically, he further forced their hand to make a mid-season change that they didn't want to make. they weren't going to have their hand forced to choose someone other than the guy they wanted, who wasn't available, even as an interim, because interims are messy.

 

if yeo is your interim, what happens if the team does well under him? he's still not your guy, you know you don't want him, but now you're forced to give him an interview for the sake of optics? how does that go down?

 

bruce made his bed and the media turned it into a giant public mess. 

 

Suddenly you're concerned about optics.

 

So what you're really saying here is that Bruce Boudreau had all the power, and the one who eventually fired him was powerless to do anything while his team continued to tank.

 

Nobody fires their coach with optimism.  They do whatever has to be done, and Rutherford waited an extra 3 months before making the necessary moves.

[4petesake]

5 minutes ago, gwarrior said:

I didn't, and still don't like how it was handled. Especially publicly saying they were looking for a replacement for Bruce. That was handled so badly. But I think we all knew he wasn't going to be a long term solution. That said, I'm loving the job Tocchet has done. 

 

2 minutes ago, Junkyard Dog said:

I didn’t like how it was handled but I like how the team has progressed since. 

 

This.

 

Most of us seem to agree that at worst it was handled poorly by JR and will be a check mark on the wrong side of his legacy here. The way things are going now it won’t be a big deal.
 

Win a cup and it’s just a couple sentences in his biography that no Vancouver fan will care about.

[tas]

2 minutes ago, Miss Korea said:

 

Suddenly you're concerned about optics.

 

So what you're really saying here is that Bruce Boudreau had all the power, and the one who eventually fired him was powerless to do anything while his team continued to tank.

 

Nobody fires their coach with optimism.  They do whatever has to be done, and Rutherford waited an extra 3 months before making the necessary moves.

you can't just turn around fire someone who literally just accepted their option year. that's absurd. he had to give him a fair chance. he did. and it was squandered. and it made everything messier than it needed to be. 

[King Heffy]

13 minutes ago, tas said:

you can't just turn around fire someone who literally just accepted their option year. that's absurd. he had to give him a fair chance. he did. and it was squandered. and it made everything messier than it needed to be. 

He doesn't get a fair chance as he was thrown under the bus immediately by a management group that was intent on creating a toxic work environment in order to get rid of him.  Rutherford is lucky he didn't get yet another court case for violating BC labour regulations with his misconduct.

[NewbieCanuckFan]

Like Jim Benning when he was hired as GM, he was needed *at the time* to help revamp the drafting department.  "Bruce" was the needed 'stop gap' hiring.  But both served their purpose & needed to be replaced.  Harsh but true (as in these kinds of positions, you're hired to be fired).

[dannydog]

Was never a Bruce fan. Wasn’t upset a bit when he was fired. Van didn’t need a players coach they needed a systems coach with the balls to call out stronger minded players. Miller has benefited hugely under RT a man who says it as it is and calls out bullshit.