Grub's Canucks & NHL News, Rumours, and & Fantasy GM | Early Trade Deadline

[sting101]

Gourde interest is just a smoke screen for Oleksiak

 

[Nopefully]

Not going to lie, I’ve had a lot of conversations about this same topic. Wait, that’s the other one I responded. Guardian, I’m pretty sure is real.

Interesting times we live in

 

[VanillaCoke]

Gourde interest is just a smoke screen for Oleksiak

Hope not oleksiak is not a good target

 

[SeawaterOnIce]

Not going to lie, I’ve had a lot of conversations about this same topic. Wait, that’s the other one I responded. Guardian, I’m pretty sure is real.

My @valkynax is not a bot. He may be a liar, a pig, an idiot, a bot, but he is NOT a porn star!

 

[valkynax]

My @valkynax is not a bot. He may be a liar, a pig, an idiot, a bot, but he is NOT a porn star!

Joke's on YOU for omitting the fact that I may or may not be a communist!

 

[LemonSauceD]

Worst or best blunt rotation:

TheguardianII, Oba, Vanjack?

Acid rotation tbh.

i love everyone of you tbh. Go Canucks baby.

 

[Chairman Maouth]

 

[CalderSchmalder]

Big if true

 

[Just A Bit Outside]

Big if true

Rick needs help.

 

[Nuckles]

Big if true

what being in Toronto for one hour does to a MF



Edit: the deleted insider scoop

 

[quat]

I'm not sure what you mean by "improvements" or "quality"? What does improved writing or questions look/sound like? I mean, these guys are just asking what's being discussed around the team/radio/internet...I'm not sure what people are looking for? If there are rumors of discord amongst teammates they're not doing their jobs if they don't raise the questions to try and get to the bottom of it, if the players get bitchy about it they must be hitting a nerve. I really don't understand what people are looking for with the media, confirmation bias? Happy water cooler talk? Breaking down individual plays into boring minutiae? I'm happy to have the media, here in Texas you barely get any hockey media...they'd rather talk about high school volleyball than hockey.

You're right, asking questions about personal or team chemistry is reasonable given the situation, but personally I'd rather hear some discussion about the actual game we just watched before diving back into your feelings about another player. I think good "reporters" know how to do that.

I think the NHL sports writers are the equal in quality to the NHL reffing.

Generally, on the whole, the product is bad. There's probably a number of contributing factors, but I think they can do a much better job.

For example, whatever you think of Bieksa as a personality, his opinions on the game are interesting and he presents them in a succinct and well articulated manner.

I'd say Ferraro is in that same vein as well. Heck, even Yannick Hansen, just a hockey guy is far more interesting to listen to than the majority of paid reporters. So many writers seem more proud of "being sports dudes" than actually being good at the job. Like raise the bar a bit.

Again, speaking for myself as I do hear you saying you're satisfied with the product. I don't know, maybe it's over saturated?

 

[Delocatedfan]

K'andre Miller would be a solid target but Drury drives a hard bargain trade wise. Isn't he currently out injured as well or has he returned?

Sucks being middling this year & wasting another good season of the Hughes bargain.

Perhaps this off season he can recommend a ufa defenseman to Allvin

 

[David71]

brian dumolin ?

 

[LemonSauceD]

Rick needs help.

 

[Bourne Endeavor]

Not sure I get the Gourde thing outside maybe Pettersson being out for a while. Blueger and Suter aren’t really one of our problems.

Even if he is injured, I just don't see the fit. Gourde is a pretty average player at this point while being paid more than Garland. I guess at 50% for like a 4th is fine but he's not someone I'd be overly excited about.

 

[MarkusNaslund19]

View attachment 951873 Haha.

Really just insert any one of these clowns in here.

I mean look at the scrum with Miller the other day where he was just wasting everyone's time answering the same stupid questions. Once again the reporter just goes right at him accusing him and Petey of being in a rift like a 5 year making up questions for his cute little pseudo interview. Like c'mon there has to be something of substance you can think of and not just the lowest hanging fruit imaginable. What crap coverage in every aspect. There is more to the Canucks then that. Much more I would be interested in hearing about like relative and unique player information that isn't just regurgitated from blowhards online.



I'm looking at the NFL or even premier league/pro soccer where their coverage and quality is just through the roof compared to this stuff. They don't even have to be positive, but at the end of the day it helps if at least some of the media is on the teams side. They also report on things that you've never heard of before and you can tell it took more than 15 minutes to whip up a report or interview. Something they've put effort into. I don't need positive but intelligent, informative, and thoughtful substance. Yeah, I'd like some of that please. Not the menage of crap mundane reporting we have.

You think it's funny that fans want to read positive things about the team? Well yeah I guess if you don't then this stuff is right up your alley. I think that's a little odd though. Ideally most people like positive reports about things they value.

Drance sucks. He's not a stupid person, but he thinks he's a hell of a lot smarter than he is. He also thinks that because he's fairly literate and decently educated that his opinions on hockey are driven by knowledge, they aren't. I'd be shocked if he can skate without a rollbar, and he clearly doesn't understand the minutiae of the game.

But I think some of this media conversation illustrates that people seek different things from their sports coverage. I think people like yourself and I love the game at its core and so we wish we had a media who understood the game well enough to actually break it down and ask questions that lead to illumination from the team and the coaches. Like, "Hey I noticed this about the forecheck and wondered if this is why you did it this way?" Like, elicit an interesting answer.

Hearing Bieksa or Ferraro explain certain little things about the game that haven't occurred to me over 30 years playing and following the game is incredibly gratifying.
Having our shitty local media bang on about manufactured (or over-exposed) drama, or ask banal questions with banal answers is just dull.

Our media vacillates from, "Nice to score after scoreless streak?"
To which the player offers boilerplate 'yeah, any way I can help the team blah blah".

Or creating absolute straw men, 'I'm not saying it's happened, but IF it happened you would have to trade everyone. We will be back after 4 gambling commercials to continue to beat this straw man to death".

Or they create pointless drama where they want to self-insert. I'm sure half of our media wants to ask the question that makes Miller or Petey storm out of a press conference so that THEIR name will be mentioned in the stories.

-
I saw a post by a person saying, "This is better than seeing them get into pointless boring hockey minutiae", and it's like, if you find drilling down into the game boring, what are you watching it for? I'm not saying you're being a bad fan. If it brings you happiness, by all means. But I'm confused by those who find the craft itself dull.

I saw a post in another thread where a poster said, "The problem is that some people become huge fans of a player and then give them the benefit of the doubt". And it's like, why do you follow hockey? It's a hobby. Nobody will give you a prize because you 'objectively' hated your team the best.
Like, have the best takes you can, but why the f*** would I watch the Canucks if I wasn't hoping for them and enjoying their victories more than their failures?
When you become an adult, there are challenging parts of reality that you have to accept and act according to. Sports is one of the nice pastimes where we can afford to be a little whimsical and hopeful. Doesn't mean putting being pollyannaish and putting on blinders. But my God, some of the posters' relationship with this team seems masochistic.
-

Even the characterizations I see from those defending our 'press'. None of it suggest there's anything illuminating.

It's all, "well, when it's bad they say it how it is. YOU just want it to be positive".

No, we want it to be illuminating and balanced.

When is the last time our media reported something that felt like it came from behind closed doors and wasn't just parroting a national 'insider'?

Dhaliwal is a tool used by agents sometimes, and I appreciate that part of his contribution. But his independent hockey takes are facebook tier.

I want honest assessment that remembers that these are elite, elite athletes doing their best and also human beings.

I find that so many people put their impotent anger about life onto sports, or movies, or video games and rationalize it as 'well, they are public figures and they make millions so..."


Like, if Myers has three brutal giveaways, don't pull punches, mention it. But also mention why you think it might have happened. Did he overstay his shift and get heavy legs? Did he miss an easy outlet pass and make a mistake?
Either way, players aren't making mistakes because they're bad people.

Feels like some posters want character hit pieces. "Myers makes bad play because he's scum. Also, Petey and MIller are bad people, or one is good and one is bad, whatever makes you happy".

But our media can't assess the game, don't know what a player could/should have done, don't respect how hard the game is or how fast it happens. So we get mealy mouthed ' frustrating to lose a game you held a lead in?' or we get 'what if they all hate each other?'.

And being clear, I'm not saying they shouldn't have reported about Petey and Miller at all. But the self-inserts like that garbage article by Patrick Johnson, or the banging the same drum hoping to upset them and have a viral moment. It's just clickbait trash.

Even if he is injured, I just don't see the fit. Gourde is a pretty average player at this point while being paid more than Garland. I guess at 50% for like a 4th is fine but he's not someone I'd be overly excited about.

I'm not saying this is the time to go for Gourde, or that I would pay a top price.

But Gourde is an absolute buzz saw swiss army knife who, by all accounts is good in the room, and can be a good part of a strong second line, or a centerpiece of a great 3rd line. He's also won the cup before and knows what it takes, which was deeply overrated in the 90's and early 2000's, but often gets underrated now.

He works his bag off and sets a good example.

If a team needs a decent 2nd liner, amazing 3rd liner and thinks this is the year to go all-in. I think he's a fantastic acquisition.

I think we need to save our assets for a Dman, or possibly keep our powder dry this year so he may not be our target. But I wouldn't denigrate his use as a strong target for what he is.

 

[theguardianII]

Not going to lie, I’ve had a lot of conversations about this same topic. Wait, that’s the other one I responded. Guardian, I’m pretty sure is real.

 

[Nick Lang]

Drance wasn't even at that scrum.

And the night before you have the coach and captain openly discussing there's an issue between the two. Miller was requested after that game and went MIA. You think he's not going to be asked about it?

We have soft media.

No he wasn't but someone asked for an example of crap negative reporting. He's one of many. They are soft and also poor at creating interesting media topics.

Drance sucks. He's not a stupid person, but he thinks he's a hell of a lot smarter than he is. He also thinks that because he's fairly literate and decently educated that his opinions on hockey are driven by knowledge, they aren't. I'd be shocked if he can skate without a rollbar, and he clearly doesn't understand the minutiae of the game.

But I think some of this media conversation illustrates that people seek different things from their sports coverage. I think people like yourself and I love the game at its core and so we wish we had a media who understood the game well enough to actually break it down and ask questions that lead to illumination from the team and the coaches. Like, "Hey I noticed this about the forecheck and wondered if this is why you did it this way?" Like, elicit an interesting answer.

Hearing Bieksa or Ferraro explain certain little things about the game that haven't occurred to me over 30 years playing and following the game is incredibly gratifying.
Having our shitty local media bang on about manufactured (or over-exposed) drama, or ask banal questions with banal answers is just dull.

Our media vacillates from, "Nice to score after scoreless streak?"
To which the player offers boilerplate 'yeah, any way I can help the team blah blah".

Or creating absolute straw men, 'I'm not saying it's happened, but IF it happened you would have to trade everyone. We will be back after 4 gambling commercials to continue to beat this straw man to death".

Or they create pointless drama where they want to self-insert. I'm sure half of our media wants to ask the question that makes Miller or Petey storm out of a press conference so that THEIR name will be mentioned in the stories.

-
I saw a post by a person saying, "This is better than seeing them get into pointless boring hockey minutiae", and it's like, if you find drilling down into the game boring, what are you watching it for? I'm not saying you're being a bad fan. If it brings you happiness, by all means. But I'm confused by those who find the craft itself dull.

I saw a post in another thread where a poster said, "The problem is that some people become huge fans of a player and then give them the benefit of the doubt". And it's like, why do you follow hockey? It's a hobby. Nobody will give you a prize because you 'objectively' hated your team the best.
Like, have the best takes you can, but why the f*** would I watch the Canucks if I wasn't hoping for them and enjoying their victories more than their failures?
When you become an adult, there are challenging parts of reality that you have to accept and act according to. Sports is one of the nice pastimes where we can afford to be a little whimsical and hopeful. Doesn't mean putting being pollyannaish and putting on blinders. But my God, some of the posters' relationship with this team seems masochistic.
-

Even the characterizations I see from those defending our 'press'. None of it suggest there's anything illuminating.

It's all, "well, when it's bad they say it how it is. YOU just want it to be positive".

No, we want it to be illuminating and balanced.

When is the last time our media reported something that felt like it came from behind closed doors and wasn't just parroting a national 'insider'?

Dhaliwal is a tool used by agents sometimes, and I appreciate that part of his contribution. But his independent hockey takes are facebook tier.

I want honest assessment that remembers that these are elite, elite athletes doing their best and also human beings.

I find that so many people put their impotent anger about life onto sports, or movies, or video games and rationalize it as 'well, they are public figures and they make millions so..."


Like, if Myers has three brutal giveaways, don't pull punches, mention it. But also mention why you think it might have happened. Did he overstay his shift and get heavy legs? Did he miss an easy outlet pass and make a mistake?
Either way, players aren't making mistakes because they're bad people.

Feels like some posters want character hit pieces. "Myers makes bad play because he's scum. Also, Petey and MIller are bad people, or one is good and one is bad, whatever makes you happy".

But our media can't assess the game, don't know what a player could/should have done, don't respect how hard the game is or how fast it happens. So we get mealy mouthed ' frustrating to lose a game you held a lead in?' or we get 'what if they all hate each other?'.

And being clear, I'm not saying they shouldn't have reported about Petey and Miller at all. But the self-inserts like that garbage article by Patrick Johnson, or the banging the same drum hoping to upset them and have a viral moment. It's just clickbait trash.


I'm not saying this is the time to go for Gourde, or that I would pay a top price.

But Gourde is an absolute buzz saw swiss army knife who, by all accounts is good in the room, and can be a good part of a strong second line, or a centerpiece of a great 3rd line. He's also won the cup before and knows what it takes, which was deeply overrated in the 90's and early 2000's, but often gets underrated now.

He works his bag off and sets a good example.

If a team needs a decent 2nd liner, amazing 3rd liner and thinks this is the year to go all-in. I think he's a fantastic acquisition.

I think we need to save our assets for a Dman, or possibly keep our powder dry this year so he may not be our target. But I wouldn't denigrate his use as a strong target for what he is.

Awesome post, exactly captures my feelings on the matter. Drance is a media grad with zero hockey background. No way that guy can tie his own skates, stickhandle, or shoot a hard puck. Like you said he's smart enough to read up on stuff and "report on things", but he doesn't know the game well. He didn't grow up with it. He is good at gathering data and waiting for his time to pounce and look smart by insulting the team, management, and players. It's was old and tired when he first started and I just completely ignore him now.

Maybe it's because I know the game of hockey better but I love watching NFL and when I listen to these guys I'm drawn to everything they say, and I'm continually learning about the nuances of the sport and players. They are bringing forth new knowledge and questions almost everyday. It's almost like their job is reporting on interesting NFL topics to inform the viewer and keep them engaged.

Like with the Canucks our next report [yaaaaawn] is going to be on 1) Petey and Miller don't like each other, or how about 2) The Canucks defence is not good, or 3) Hughes is good at hockey. Aww thanks guys, that was a great segment. Didn't know any of that.

The x's and o's of NFL is out of this world compared to these guys. Like you stated I love hearing Ferraro talk about how you get to pucks as a smaller player in the paint. How the defence is attempting to box you out, or plays used to draw them out of position. But what do we usually get, drama, drama, drama, and snide comments. Watch NFL reporting where they respect everyone from colleagues, to players, coaches, and even garbage teams. These hockey guys are better suited to pop music flings, scandal, and Hollywood dating drama. At least there their skillset matches the job. Honestly, Jennifer Botterhill absolutely blows our media away when it comes to hockey knowledge.

I think it would be the holy grail for these guys to get one of Petey or Miller to crack or storm out of the room. You're right about different types of fans as you can see here the drama is eaten up by a large portion of fans. There are a great number of posters that just love this stuff and spend all day concentrated on it. Like you stated these questions and reporting is alright in itself but it's banal, and the problem is that's all there is. None of them can come up with anything better. Clickbait trash for people to ponder and scapegoat on the internet is so "en vogue" right now.

 

[theguardianII]

Drance sucks. He's not a stupid person, but he thinks he's a hell of a lot smarter than he is. He also thinks that because he's fairly literate and decently educated that his opinions on hockey are driven by knowledge, they aren't. I'd be shocked if he can skate without a rollbar, and he clearly doesn't understand the minutiae of the game.

I see what you are saying but hockey knowledge isn't limited to hockey players or those that did play at high levels. Over the course of my life I have seen more than a thousand games played hundreds, coached hundreds, scouted hundreds but haven't found a test for knowledge.

But I think some of this media conversation illustrates that people seek different things from their sports coverage. I think people like yourself and I love the game at its core and so we wish we had a media who understood the game well enough to actually break it down and ask questions that lead to illumination from the team and the coaches. Like, "Hey I noticed this about the forecheck and wondered if this is why you did it this way?" Like, elicit an interesting answer.

Media has changed or my perception of it has. IMO media has become a marketing arm for an entertainment industry in Canada. The NHL, Rogers and teams now pretty much totally control all public information in Canada, a monopoly. They can't or won't do that in the States either due to laws, the market or gambling partners no.

Explaining the left side lock might be interesting questioning a coach about a play or plays might be taken as an insult by a coach.

Hearing Bieksa or Ferraro explain certain little things about the game that haven't occurred to me over 30 years playing and following the game is incredibly gratifying.
Having our shitty local media bang on about manufactured (or over-exposed) drama, or ask banal questions with banal answers is just dull.

Bieksa/Ferraro explanations can be interesting.
Canned answers, why are they even asked? I doubt there will be answers like;
"Thats a Mickey Mouse operation over there"
"If they had a good goalie they would be a good team"
"He better keep his head up next game"
"Go eat another donut you fat F***"
etc ....

No negativity, might as well get "I am here so I don't get fined"

Our media vacillates from, "Nice to score after scoreless streak?"
To which the player offers boilerplate 'yeah, any way I can help the team blah blah".

Lots of "Captain Obvious" statements eliciting similar answers.
So often now the media are giving asked and answered questions, "Was X because of Y"?

Or creating absolute straw men, 'I'm not saying it's happened, but IF it happened you would have to trade everyone. We will be back after 4 gambling commercials to continue to beat this straw man to death".

Or they create pointless drama where they want to self-insert. I'm sure half of our media wants to ask the question that makes Miller or Petey storm out of a press conference so that THEIR name will be mentioned in the stories.

The advent of millionaires. Players feeling they are above public scrutiny and forgetting ultimately it is the fans that pay them.

-
I saw a post by a person saying, "This is better than seeing them get into pointless boring hockey minutiae", and it's like, if you find drilling down into the game boring, what are you watching it for? I'm not saying you're being a bad fan. If it brings you happiness, by all means. But I'm confused by those who find the craft itself dull.

I saw a post in another thread where a poster said, "The problem is that some people become huge fans of a player and then give them the benefit of the doubt". And it's like, why do you follow hockey? It's a hobby. Nobody will give you a prize because you 'objectively' hated your team the best.
Like, have the best takes you can, but why the f*** would I watch the Canucks if I wasn't hoping for them and enjoying their victories more than their failures?
When you become an adult, there are challenging parts of reality that you have to accept and act according to. Sports is one of the nice pastimes where we can afford to be a little whimsical and hopeful. Doesn't mean putting being pollyannaish and putting on blinders. But my God, some of the posters' relationship with this team seems masochistic.

Many people identify and live vicariously through their chosen venue. Larger than life.
I posted years ago that sports can be an escape from the realities of life, nobody dies from a missed pass. A distraction from "pain" as I am doing right now. I just endured the worst Christmas of my life, the first after I killed my son, had to tell them to stop. Now a distraction for me and I will assume other folks with lesser need of these distractions. Father's Day will never be the same.

-

Even the characterizations I see from those defending our 'press'. None of it suggest there's anything illuminating.

It's all, "well, when it's bad they say it how it is. YOU just want it to be positive".

No, we want it to be illuminating and balanced.

When is the last time our media reported something that felt like it came from behind closed doors and wasn't just parroting a national 'insider'?

Dhaliwal is a tool used by agents sometimes, and I appreciate that part of his contribution. But his independent hockey takes are facebook tier.

I want honest assessment that remembers that these are elite, elite athletes doing their best and also human beings.

I find that so many people put their impotent anger about life onto sports, or movies, or video games and rationalize it as 'well, they are public figures and they make millions so..."

Internal team rifts have always been around but most often the antagonists are dealt. Everyone pulling on the same side of the rope in the room as well as the ice.
if anything it is some managements that are guilty of ignoring harmony in the room. "We pay you, you will perform and you will be happy"
Are the fans guilty or the team's?
What is good for the goose is good for the gander, isn't it?

Like, if Myers has three brutal giveaways, don't pull punches, mention it. But also mention why you think it might have happened. Did he overstay his shift and get heavy legs? Did he miss an easy outlet pass and make a mistake?
Either way, players aren't making mistakes because they're bad people.

One of my pet peeves.
Ferraro/Bieska should explain that the game of hockey is a game of mistakes and all players make them.
Favoritism or popularity clouds perceptions.
eg: The Canuck defence is not good BUT Huggy Bear plays half the game. He has numerous giveaways too but his role in the game is not the same as Myers. Hughes is a rover and Myers is there to do what a rover doesn't d well, defend. He also is over used.

Feels like some posters want character hit pieces. "Myers makes bad play because he's scum. Also, Petey and MIller are bad people, or one is good and one is bad, whatever makes you happy".

But our media can't assess the game, don't know what a player could/should have done, don't respect how hard the game is or how fast it happens. So we get mealy mouthed ' frustrating to lose a game you held a lead in?' or we get 'what if they all hate each other?'.

And being clear, I'm not saying they shouldn't have reported about Petey and Miller at all. But the self-inserts like that garbage article by Patrick Johnson, or the banging the same drum hoping to upset them and have a viral moment. It's just clickbait trash.

This EP/JTM stuff has been talked about for years but they weren't equals now they are so the conflict has escalated. In the past this happened mostly kept quiet by the choice of an independent media but now a strangles and manipulated "owned" media has tried to make the game different. These players are NOT priests, preachers, saints or sometimes even good people. These conflicts were eliminated by good teams. The players are human but to listen to the current bought media they are sacrosanct idols and should not be held to a higher standard, just paid that way though
Fans say leave them alone, they are people with real problems. Team's say you are under contract and will ignore your feelings. They are owned, bought and paid for by teams, their contracts are almost an indenture. They can't say what they want to and they can't move where they want to.
And fans in their ignorance and led by the owned media help pressure these "humans" into complying with their indenture of servitude their contract. Forcing them into accepting what could e "bullying", "demeaning", "threatening environment" Wake up, the news getting out might be the best for the "health" of the players, help them get out of an untenable situation that the tema will not let them out of, did anyone think of that?

If a team needs a decent 2nd liner, amazing 3rd liner and thinks this is the year to go all-in. I think he's a fantastic acquisition.

I think we need to save our assets for a Dman, or possibly keep our powder dry this year so he may not be our target. But I wouldn't denigrate his use as a strong target for what he is.

This management group missed the boat.
Once again I hear they spent too much time trying to get a player and waited too long to sign what they had, Zadorov. Doesn't that sound an awful lot like "We ran out of time"?
4 GM's and Rutherford and they couldn't get it done or at least set up to be done?

Now there is a chance the top pairing could be AHL players.
Any trade could be, all most has to be for a rental because of those stupid buyouts of Euro players Tocchet didn't like.

Be worried about the prospect Willander, he doesn't look like a game changer. In these WJC games his value might be going down.

 

[credulous]

i think a lot of the complaints about the vancouver media should be directed at the canucks media relations group personally. the reason there's no interesting reporting in the vancouver market is because the team has a stranglehold on what gets out and anyone with access is just reporting the party line

 

[Mr. Canucklehead]

i think a lot of the complaints about the vancouver media should be directed at the canucks media relations group personally. the reason there's no interesting reporting in the vancouver market is because the team has a stranglehold on what gets out and anyone with access is just reporting the party line

I think a few things are true simultaneously.

The Canucks, historically, have tried to restrict team access to reporters that don’t rock the boat - or at least not much. People like iMac get lots of access, but usually just for softball questions and stories.

The Canucks’ PR department doesn’t seem to do a terrific job - now or in the past - of prepping players for potentially uncomfortable situations.

The Canucks media, for the most part, has only two modes of question - puff questions designed to evoke cliche answers, or awkwardly repeating the same uncomfortable question over and over again.

There are a couple of historical exceptions to the media rule - Gallagher and Botchford come to mind - but by and large, the media landscape here is just plain bad.

 

[LemonSauceD]

McCann interests me as a cheaper 1LW option.

 

[credulous]

I think a few things are true simultaneously.

The Canucks, historically, have tried to restrict team access to reporters that don’t rock the boat - or at least not much. People like iMac get lots of access, but usually just for softball questions and stories.

The Canucks’ PR department doesn’t seem to do a terrific job - now or in the past - of prepping players for potentially uncomfortable situations.

The Canucks media, for the most part, has only two modes of question - puff questions designed to evoke cliche answers, or awkwardly repeating the same uncomfortable question over and over again.

There are a couple of historical exceptions to the media rule - Gallagher and Botchford come to mind - but by and large, the media landscape here is just plain bad.

i don't really know what you should expect given the team is so media hostile. like what kind of reporting are you expecting if the media is restricted to just putting out what the team hands them? you're never going to see an extended interview from anyone in the organization that isn't done by a house cat like patrick johnson or ian macintyre. the media here is bad because it's either neutered or because there's no interesting work to be done so the talent goes elsewhere

 

[Diversification]

i don't really know what you should expect given the team is so media hostile. like what kind of reporting are you expecting if the media is restricted to just putting out what the team hands them? you're never going to see an extended interview from anyone in the organization that isn't done by a house cat like patrick johnson or ian macintyre. the media here is bad because it's either neutered or because there's no interesting work to be done so the talent goes elsewhere

Agreed. At the end of the day, Canucks as an organization is just conservative and risk averse. They see the downsides to opening things up and refuse to see the potential upsides. They figure they're in the business of winning hockey games while neglecting the human interest/entertainment aspects of adding color to their product that could could go a long ways to padding their bottom line. It also makes them clunky and slow moving when managing a crisis because people are afraid they'll be blamed for taking initiative.

They are correct that the on ice product will ultimately speak for itself. But it just seems like a lost opportunity to be so defensive and stodgy.

 

[Mr. Canucklehead]

i don't really know what you should expect given the team is so media hostile. like what kind of reporting are you expecting if the media is restricted to just putting out what the team hands them? you're never going to see an extended interview from anyone in the organization that isn't done by a house cat like patrick johnson or ian macintyre. the media here is bad because it's either neutered or because there's no interesting work to be done so the talent goes elsewhere

It’s a fair point, and again, not many exceptions to it. The only guys who managed to balance doing it, having access, and having success were Gallagher and Botchford. So it can be done. But the Canucks being a tough nut to crack is indeed a part of the challenge, but so to is the fact that we just don’t have a local reporter who’s up to that level at this time.