News Article: Rachel Doerrie has left the Canucks

[shottasasa]

Wasn't this basically just common knowledge? I am surprised this is controversial. I thought everyone was under the impression that Pettersson had healed but that there wasn't any real need to bring him back into the lineup at that stage.

that was my impression as well. I thought he could have come back for the last half dozen or so games if they were pushing for the playoffs, but we all remember how that season ended. Or maybe not, I understand if some people have wiped that from their memory

 

[Vector]

Gen Z + woman??
Cue the meltdown

Just read the athletic article and she actually has some mental health issues. She's also well aware of her role as the youngest person in any NHL club when she was hired and her position as one of the few women on staff.

Here's a good quote about her life after being let go by the Devils:

"The first NHL team reached out to Doerrie about two hours after the news of her departure from the Devils landed on social media. Several others have followed suit, in addition to a few soccer clubs, but she is not in a hurry to take the next step in her career.

“I owe it to myself to take a break,” she said. “I went from high school to university a year early. I finished university in three years, and I went right into working. Considering everything that has happened, I’m due for a reset. I’m really fortunate because I feel like this whole experience has broken me down to a point where I now get to choose the person I want to build to be. I like that. Am I happy that I’ve been broken down to this point? No. But I get to rebuild the person I want to be. I’m going to focus on that for the next couple months.”

 

[Peen]

They obviously hired her because of/despite with the knowledge of things she has said.

It's especially likely considering how conscious the canucks ownership/people close to ownership have constantly followed what has been said in the media under Benning.

There is no world where they were not aware of everything Doerrie has publicized.

I wonder if any local media member has the balls to bring up some of Doerrie's previous statements in an article or if this just gets fully swept under the rug.

 

[tradervik]

Her position was eliminated with a management change.

To be fair, that can often be HR-speak to disguise a dismissal without cause. I had something similar happen to me and the real reason I was let go wasn't because they brought in a new VP.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

-Miller is fully vaxxed how could he be an antivaxxer
-Rutherford has said Miller is a leader in the room, definitely a cancer
-Petey didnt start shooting by until June how could he just hold out because he was just unhappy. That timeline makes no sense

Yeah..she was obviously wrong on all that..Having said that,if she’s good at analytics,..then she’s a good hire..

 

[F A N]

That one was 100% proven wrong considering Petey didn't start shooting pucks until July. He was nowhere close to ready to play in May.

Canucks' Elias Pettersson resumes shooting pucks after wrist injury

So we hired a person who made up a story about Petey essentially being a prima donna and who assassinated the character of Quinn Hughes' youngest brother?

 

[Reverend Mayhem]

Damn. She’s only 25 years old.
I’m 26. I feel very underaccomplished now

I'm 28. Honestly? Good for her. I definitely joke but everyone grows at different rates. When you are that young and get to where she is, she's probably scratched and clawed her way in. I think the front office needs some of that. I wish her the best and hope in her role she can help the team get back to where we all want it to be.

 

[Melvin]

It's especially likely considering how conscious the canucks ownership/people close to ownership have constantly followed what has been said in the media under Benning.

There is no world where they were not aware of everything Doerrie has publicized.

I wonder if any local media member has the balls to bring up some of Doerrie's previous statements in an article or if this just gets fully swept under the rug.

considering she’s been hired into an analyst role and no kind of executive position where there is any expectation of public interaction, it would be very dickish for anyone to make a big deal of any of it. Leave her alone.

 

[shottasasa]

That one was 100% proven wrong considering Petey didn't start shooting pucks until July. He was nowhere close to ready to play in May.

Canucks' Elias Pettersson resumes shooting pucks after wrist injury

That doesn’t prove anything wrong. The Canucks were clearly out of the playoffs. If the decision was made to shelf Petey for the rest of the season to give him more time to make sure he was fully healed, why wouldn’t he rest it until the summer. Players come back early from injury for a playoff push all the time.

 

[cc]

I remember listening to some of her podcasts including her discussion with Bruce Boudreau. I think at the time, she did some work for Eliteprospects site but I'm not sure what she did there. She did talk about her time with the Devils until there was an overhaul of staff and she was let go. She seems to be at least familiar with a lot of players and prospects and I have no doubt she'll be doing her homework on a lot of teams and players. Anyway, that's all I know about her. I might go back and revisit some of her podcasts to check out her opinions are some of the players and teams

 

[MS]

So we hired a person who made up a story about Petey essentially being a prima donna and who assassinated the character of Quinn Hughes' youngest brother?

... and still going with the made-up stories.

Whether it's true or not, there is no way that she wasn't reporting what a source she believed credible had told her.

She clearly had a pretty deep source given she had inside numbers on the team's ticket sales situation.

 

[Just A Bit Outside]

Waiting for a Tom Hanks gif of “There’s no crying in hockey”

I could care less that’s she’s female, mid 20’s and potentially abrasive.

Has anyone ever met a millennial? Most (men and women) act the same way.

She’s hired as an analyst and as long as she is good at her job, she fills a desperate need for the club.

Just don’t stick her in the basement like Milton.

 

[F A N]

... and still going with the made-up stories.

Whether it's true or not, there is no way that she wasn't reporting what a source she believed credible had told her.

She clearly had a pretty deep source given she had inside numbers on the team's ticket sales situation.

And why are you so sure that she was reporting what a source told her. Seems like you just drank the kool-aid and think everyone who is skeptical is wrong.

 

[BrentSopelsHair]

Stoked for this. One of the factors is definitely that this hire is such a dramatic shift away from the last few years, as others have said I definitely take this as an indication of a major directional change.

As well for the comments mentioned on her podcast, people who are calling her a liar must understand that those comments absolutely would have come up in the interviews and the vetting process. If they were completely baseless and made up, I cannot see how that would not have been an immediately invalidating factor for her candidacy.

Therefore, the only reasonable possibilities are either:
1. This is the most incompetent interview process of all time, where the recruiting group failed to consider her social media presence or comments on a podcast that was absolutely incendiary in Vancouver when it came out; or

2. That the information was pretty much true, and the new regime has no reason to be bending over backwards to protect the last regime and so they hired the qualified person. [Or she was reporting what she believed to be true at that point in time from a trusted source]

I feel as though it is likely the latter!

 

[Peen]

considering she’s been hired into an analyst role and no kind of executive position where there is any expectation of public interaction, it would be very dickish for anyone to make a big deal of any of it. Leave her alone.

I don't know. I think it would be the inverse of dickish. Maybe I wasn't being clear, but I think it would be good for people locally to corroborate it because people will continue to assess Rachel based significantly on the validity of those reports which is disappointing.

But also, you're right. It should just be a "in the past" sort of thing.

 

[Peter Griffin]

It’s quite striking how upsetting some people still find the idea of women in the workplace.

“broads”

 

[Melvin]

Stoked for this. One of the factors is definitely that this hire is such a dramatic shift away from the last few years, as others have said I definitely take this as an indication of a major directional change.

As well for the comments mentioned on her podcast, people who are calling her a liar must understand that those comments absolutely would have come up in the interviews and the vetting process. If they were completely baseless and made up, I cannot see how that would not have been an immediately invalidating factor for her candidacy.

Therefore, the only reasonable possibilities are either:
1. This is the most incompetent interview process of all time, where the recruiting group failed to consider her social media presence or comments on a podcast that was absolutely incendiary in Vancouver when it came out; or

2. That the information was pretty much true, and the new regime has no reason to be bending over backwards to protect the last regime and so they hired the qualified person.

I feel as though it is likely the latter!

i don’t really know why you think this, to be honest.

 

[vancityluongo]

I think it's fine to claim that media is sometimes incentivized to stir things up - but it's usually house media that do that on the direction of the team as propaganda (see: MacIntyre v Lack which was resolved). There's also shit like this from HHOF journos:

But that shit happens when you're firmly in the "club". It makes no sense for a young woman, clearly outside of that club to make stuff up.

Of course, Doerrie was as popular as she was as an analyst for saying shit like this:



Which is wholly true, but the sort of thing that most media members shy away from in order to maintain "neutral" (ie. Drance) in case of future employment opportunities.

 

[Melvin]

I don't know. I think it would be the inverse of dickish. Maybe I wasn't being clear, but I think it would be good for people locally to corroborate it because people will continue to assess Rachel based significantly on the validity of those reports which is disappointing.

But also, you're right. It should just be a "in the past" sort of thing.

there’s no reason for anyone to “assess” Rachel. She’s been hired into an analyst role. She’s not the Gm or Agm or any kind of public high level job where I would consider this stuff fair game. There’s no reason for anyone to care about what someone in essentially an entry level front office position said in Twitter.

people in these sorts of positions should be basically off limits for journalists to write about, imo. If she gets elevated to higher positions, I will think differently.

 

[D0ctorCool]

Love the hire. I am slowly dipping my toes back in to the Canucks swimming pool.

 

[MS]

And why are you so sure that she was reporting what a source told her. Seems like you just drank the kool-aid and think everyone who is skeptical is wrong.

Because I'm assuming she's not a sociopath?

The notion that she would just invent a story out of thin air is ludicrous. Same with Sekeres and the IV thing.

These are professionals who care about their reputation and care about relationships they build in their industry. They aren't out there just intentionally destroying their careers and credibility by inventing nonsense.

Again : sloppy reporting is a thing. There is a lot of pressure to be 'first' to a scoop and absolutely people run with stories without vetting them well enough or flushing them out well enough. Things can get reported which are wrong as a result.

Making up stories is not a thing. And it's absolutely f***ing bizarre that people think it is a thing.

There is nothing wrong with being skeptical of a story if the evidence suggests that it might not be true or not the full story. However, a story can be wrong without the reporter maliciously inventing nonsense. You can believe you're getting it right and your chain of evidence just might not be what you thought it was.

 

[canuckking1]

Although I disagree with her reporting. One thing I remember is her saying on Twitter is that Canucks should've targeted Toews instead of Schmidt and that Toews was the better player (before he broke out). If she can help management pick out these undervalued players I'm fine with it.

 

[Peen]

there’s no reason for anyone to “assess” Rachel. She’s been hired into an analyst role. She’s not the Gm or Agm or any kind of public high level job where I would consider this stuff fair game. There’s no reason for anyone to care about what someone in essentially an entry level front office position said in Twitter.

I agree with the bolded.

My point is that there are people who do care, and maybe the media corroborating would quell the criticisms people who do care have.

 

[F A N]

Stoked for this. One of the factors is definitely that this hire is such a dramatic shift away from the last few years, as others have said I definitely take this as an indication of a major directional change.

Is it a dramatic shift away from the last few years because we hired a woman or because we added someone to the analytics department?

As well for the comments mentioned on her podcast, people who are calling her a liar must understand that those comments absolutely would have come up in the interviews and the vetting process. If they were completely baseless and made up, I cannot see how that would not have been an immediately invalidating factor for her candidacy.

It's easy to dismiss them though. She could have claimed that she heard from sources she trusts or even talk about her age and how she has learned to choose her words more carefully.

1. This is the most incompetent interview process of all time, where the recruiting group failed to consider her social media presence or comments on a podcast that was absolutely incendiary in Vancouver when it came out; or

It doesn't have to be. We've seen on other teams that social media presences don't get vetted closely. Rutherford might not even care. She has scrubbed her twitter account. The arguments she got into with Devils fans over Hynes, for example, are no longer there. Just this past offseason the Leafs hired a goalie consultant and then fired him for liking posts considered to be racist and pushing conspiracy theories so don't assume her online activities were thoroughly vetted.

 

[Reverend Mayhem]

There is nothing wrong with being skeptical of a story if the evidence suggests that it might not be true or not the full story. However, a story can be wrong without the reporter maliciously inventing nonsense. You can believe you're getting it right and your chain of evidence just might not be what you thought it was.

See: Iginla to the Bruins/Penguins in 2013.