News Article: Rachel Doerrie has left the Canucks

[F A N]

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..

That was the point I made in my initial post but of course it's the "concerning" parts that gets debated on here.

 

[canuckking1]

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.

Disagree. Pettersson himself said had the Canucks made the playoffs he'd likely have had to play on Pain Killers.

"If Vancouver had advanced to the playoffs, I could have played, but then it would have been on painkillers," Pettersson said. "I am practicing full time now, I have moved to Stockholm and have been practicing hard all summer."

Pettersson 'hungry for revenge' with Canucks after injury

 

[Peen]

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.

I think it's totally unfair to equate the reporting of someone who constantly works in NHL circles and has previously worked in front offices to a moron like Sekeres.

Why would Doerrie need to say she's going to learn to choose her words more carefully if she is just passing on information she's being fed by people she feels are ITK? This isn't sekeres with some dumb whisper that he doesn't bother corroborating.

 

[Melvin]

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.

There are like 5 people who care.

Hirings of people at this level are almost never even part of the public discourse. The next time they hire an analyst you probably won't even hear about it.

 

[Reverend Mayhem]

There are like 5 people who care.

Hirings of people at this level are almost never even part of the public discourse. The next time they hire an analyst you probably won't even hear about it.

We all know what the big deal is.

 

[vancityluongo]

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.

Although they didn't really act like it for the last 7 years, the Canucks are an $800m organization with numerous HR professionals lol. 72 year old Jim Rutherford is not going through the Twitter account of an incoming Analyst lol.

The Leafs situation is different in that the guy wasn't nearly as public facing as Doerrie is. We're all aware within minutes of her being hired what she has said publicly.

Ryan Biech used to have some pretty spicy (but more muted in tone) takes alongside his buddy JD Burke (who got all of the heat) before he scrubbed his Twitter account when he got hired by an OHL team. No one cared then.

 

[Peen]

There are like 5 people who care.

Hirings of people at this level are almost never even part of the public discourse. The next time they hire an analyst you probably won't even hear about it.

Well, it's definitely more than 5. It's a strong vocal minority - that I'm with you on - but it isn't just FAN and Gstank when you add up everything across every medium.

I don't think it's odd that this is getting a lot of discussion. There's been very few people within NHL circles that have been as overtly critical of the Canucks as Doerrie (rightfully so.)

Like I think if we hired Ray Ferraro, who isn't as qualified as Rachel is, there would be pages of discussion and rehashing of some of the reports or statements he's made about Canucks management. Or, if we hired JD Burke in some role (who again is not as qualified as Rachel), you'd see a bunch of similar discourse about the things he's said.

 

[Josepho]

It's probably a fair point to wonder about the potential fallback of firing Weisbrod (a family friend) and hiring someone who basically claimed Luke Hughes was a cancer.

 

[Leviathan899]

“Broad”.
What year is it?

Okay, lady. Woman. Broad was a bad remark, I know. But the rest still stands. I find it odd fans are cheering on an analytics hire as if your current analytics department isn’t apart of the failures. Nothing is going to change lol

 

[Reverend Mayhem]

Well, it's definitely more than 5. It's a strong vocal minority - that I'm with you on - but it isn't just FAN and Gstank when you add up everything across every medium.

I don't think it's odd that this is getting a lot of discussion. There's been very few people within NHL circles that have been as overtly critical of the Canucks as Doerrie (rightfully so.)

Like I think if we hired Ray Ferraro, who isn't as qualified as Rachel is, there would be pages of discussion and rehashing of some of the reports or statements he's made about Canucks management. Or, if we hired JD Burke in some role (who again is not as qualified as Rachel), you'd see a bunch of similar discourse about the things he's said.

Why does it matter? They were all correct and that regime got the axe. Perhaps we should "stop the paperwork"?

 

[Melvin]

We all know what the big deal is.

Aside from that, it does seem like she is somewhat of a public figure. I had never heard of her before today, but apparently a lot of people are familiar with her from podcasts and such. All of which contributes to this getting more publicity than your typical hiring of a low-level analyst.

Like I can assure you all that when I was hired into a similar-level of position at a different sports team, they weren't going through my twitter to make sure I said nothing about them or making news releases and such. Nobody cares.

 

[RealGudbranson]

Although they didn't really act like it for the last 7 years, the Canucks are an $800m organization with numerous HR professionals lol. 72 year old Jim Rutherford is not going through the Twitter account of an incoming Analyst lol.

The Leafs situation is different in that the guy wasn't nearly as public facing as Doerrie is. We're all aware within minutes of her being hired what she has said publicly.

Ryan Biech used to have some pretty spicy (but more muted in tone) takes alongside his buddy JD Burke (who got all of the heat) before he scrubbed his Twitter account when he got hired by an OHL team. No one cared then.

Wasnt Biech directly hired into the Nucks, where he now shares a department with Doerrie?

 

[Reverend Mayhem]

Okay, lady. Woman. Broad was a bad remark, I know. But the rest still stands. I find it odd fans are cheering on an analytics hire as if your current analytics department isn’t apart of the failures. Nothing is going to change lol

You are angry that people are happy?

 

[mriswith]

I think it's fair to be critical of bringing in someone who takes this massive of a dump on the org. Some of those takes in the podcast were genuine nukes.

I think it's also fair to say that the org deserved every ounce of the dump that they received and more. A lot of the stuff she was saying was almost perfectly in line with what we've been talking about for years on the boards here.

She'll probably get a talking to about having a cleaner public image and not being as open publicly with her criticism, but she sounds smart and it's refreshing to hear someone who sounds smart be associated with our team.

 

[Peen]

Okay, lady. Woman. Broad was a bad remark, I know. But the rest still stands. I find it odd fans are cheering on an analytics hire as if your current analytics department isn’t apart of the failures. Nothing is going to change lol

Outside of the obvious issue of seeing those terms as interchangeable, I think you and the Devils board have this wrong.

I crept over there and saw "Oh em gee canucks suck this is why they have had so many problems" - this is a completely new management. The previous analytics department reported to the same two f***ing morons who made every decision and ignored everything else unless it confirmed their own suspicions. We could have had the best analytics department under John and Jim and I guarantee you it would have made f*** all difference on the whole.

 

[Peen]

Why does it matter? They were all correct and that regime got the axe. Perhaps we should "stop the paperwork"?

Rachel was 100% correct on everything she said about how stupid everything the Canucks have done the past 8 years is. You have no disagreement with me there. I'm 110% pro adding smart people.

 

[Melvin]

Well, it's definitely more than 5. It's a strong vocal minority - that I'm with you on - but it isn't just FAN and Gstank when you add up everything across every medium.

I don't think it's odd that this is getting a lot of discussion. There's been very few people within NHL circles that have been as overtly critical of the Canucks as Doerrie (rightfully so.)

Like I think if we hired Ray Ferraro, who isn't as qualified as Rachel is, there would be pages of discussion and rehashing of some of the reports or statements he's made about Canucks management. Or, if we hired JD Burke in some role (who again is not as qualified as Rachel), you'd see a bunch of similar discourse about the things he's said.

If Ray Ferraro is hired as the GM, then yeah. Of course. If Ray Ferraro is hired as the guy who sells popcorn, then I wouldn't expect a scathing article from iMac about all those times he dissed Benning.

Different positions with different levels of power and public interaction have different expectations in terms of what is or isn't fair game for the media to cover, is all I'm saying.

Publicly skewering people who are not in executive level positions is not a usual thing for the media to do.

 

[MS]

Explain to me why Brian Williams (a respected journalist and newscaster at the time) told and retold the story about how the chopper he was on was forced down by enemy fire or Hillary Clinton (a favourite to win the Presidency at the time) telling a story of dodging sniper fire in Bosnia when she was filmed being greeted on the tarmac with flowers.

Because people don't invent stories? It's really bizarre that you believe this.

Exaggerating a story about yourself (basically resume-padding) is not the same thing as inventing stories about others. And one of the people you're listing isn't even a media member.

The fact that someone somewhere once lied about something doesn't mean that there is an epidemic of people in the local sports media acting like total sociopaths and inventing stories.

Like, when a report doesn't appear to be true, these are the options :

1) Reporter believed they were reporting something correct but there was a breakdown in the chain of information.

2) Story is true but the parties involved have done a good job issuing a denial.

3) REPORTER IS A SOCIOPATH INVENTING AND PUBLISHING NONSENSE THAT THEY MADE UP!

It's absolutely f***ing insane that people default to (3) instead of the much more obvious and logical alternatives.

 

[Reverend Mayhem]

Aside from that, it does seem like she is somewhat of a public figure. I had never heard of her before today, but apparently a lot of people are familiar with her from podcasts and such. All of which contributes to this getting more publicity than your typical hiring of a low-level analyst.

Like I can assure you all that when I was hired into a similar-level of position at a different sports team, they weren't going through my twitter to make sure I said nothing about them or making news releases and such. Nobody cares.

Exactly. It's not like she played the Chelsea Dagger during a game or something where one of the players still on the team from 2009 might have a panic attack about it.

 

[Reverend Mayhem]

If Ray Ferraro is hired as the GM, then yeah. Of course. If Ray Ferraro is hired as the guy who sells popcorn, then I wouldn't expect a scathing article from iMac about all those times he dissed Benning.

Different positions with different levels of power and public interaction have different expectations in terms of what is or isn't fair game for the media to cover, is all I'm saying.

Also, I bet my left nut she does 1 or 2 interviews in the next 2 weeks and that's the last we hear from her. She's not TC Carling.

 

[vancityluongo]

Wasnt Biech directly hired into the Nucks, where he now shares a department with Doerrie?

I could've sworn he worked for an OHL team (North Bay??) doing analytics but I can't find it anywhere and it isn't on his LinkedIn. Might be confusing that with someone else.

If he did get hired directly, there definitely wasn't this level of discourse about his past tweets (which again, to be fair, were more muted in tone)

 

[BrentSopelsHair]

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?

Moreso the fact that she's been openly critical in the past, and this shows there might be some thicker skin developing.

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.

I mean yeah that's quite fair, can't really fight that point.

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.

I think there are enough internal people here at play that these things get flagged. For the Leafs consultant the issues were his likes on twitter, Doerrie's possible flags were public posts and podcast appearances. Even a not-very-tech-savvy person can find those kinds of things.

 

[Reverend Mayhem]

Rachel was 100% correct on everything she said about how stupid everything the Canucks have done the past 8 years is. You have no disagreement with me there. I'm 110% pro adding smart people.

This alone is why I see no issue, in fact, her comments on Benning put me further in her camp. That regime deserved a lot more criticism than they got.

 

[Peen]

If Ray Ferraro is hired as the GM, then yeah. Of course. If Ray Ferraro is hired as the guy who sells popcorn, then I wouldn't expect a scathing article from iMac about all those times he dissed Benning.

Different positions with different levels of power and public interaction have different expectations in terms of what is or isn't fair game for the media to cover, is all I'm saying.

Publicly skewering people who are not in executive level positions is not a usual thing for the media to do.

Funny, I would expect it lol

 

[Reverend Mayhem]

It's absolutely f***ing insane that people default to (3) instead of the much more obvious and logical alternatives.

This is the age of disinformation. The world is scary, everyone is out to get everyone. Puppet masters and strings, logic has no place here. Hanlon's razor is extinct. Your world view is periphery.