Sportsnet: Elliotte Friedman and Jeff Marek on the 32 Thoughts: The Podcast – Everything but the Waffles, with Marek asking, where to the Canucks go?
** NHLRumors.com transcription
Friedman: “You know what Jeff, I think I can answer this question better if we use some of the audio (of Jim Rutherford after their game on Saturday).
Marek: “Okay, so let’s get to that then.”
Friedman: “First of all, I want to credit Scott Oake. I think Scott did an unbelievable job. Rutherford, he said at the end. Rutherford could have walked away and said look, I’m not doing it and I did appreciate from a Sportsnet point of view, that Rutherford sat in there and did it. Cause you could tell from the look on his face, he would have rather been anywhere but there.
Marek: “There are plenty of general managers, and we know who they are Elliotte, who will only do interviews after a win. Whether it’s on radio or television. We all sort of rather roll our eyes or laugh about it in the media, but those ones are pretty obvious. The teams won three in a row and all of sudden the general manager wants to talk but on a five-game losing streak, to tied up, can’t do the interview, apologies, raincheck.
Have to give full credit to Jim Rutherford.”
Friedman: “Yep”
Marek: “What Vancouver is going through is awful right now. Jim showed up. Good on him. Jim Rutherford showed up to do the interview with Scott Oake.”
Friedman: “And by the way, before we play the first clip Jeff, I believe that Rutherford addressed the players on Sunday.”
Marek: “That’s rare.”
Friedman: “Well it happened last year too. Stan Smyl did it when they made the coaching and GM change on that same day. Stan Smyl addressed the team, and I believe it happened again on Sunday.
And so, before we play the clip, I think the first thing you have to say is, ‘we’re not going to have efforts where we look like we gave up anymore. That’s the first thing you can do. Say we’re not giving up. So that’s before we get to the bigger changes.
Marek: “Okay, let’s get to some actualities from Rutherford, beginning with the bad camp. We’ll start there.”
Friedman: “Now, I think everybody who listened to After Hours, probably had one or two clips, one or two things that he said that really jumped out at you. Everybody would look at it differently. I know that there were some people who were struck by the rebuild comment, and we’ll get to that. I know some people were struck by Rutherford saying he didn’t know exactly what it said in Bruce Boudreau‘s contract, and we’ll get to that.
But the thing that really struck me was, and I know it struck some other people I talked to, was when he talked about them having a bad camp.”
- Rutherford on After Hours: “We didn’t have a really good camp and it’s carried over into the season. We have a lot of bad habits, and I thought the last two road games we were starting to cut down on those and start to trend in the right way, but when you’re losing, you find ways to lose. And that’s what we’re doing.”
Friedman: “And what struck people about was, it’s not something you’d like to admit. Camps are supposed to be good. Camps are supposed to be, it’s a fresh start. Everybody shows up in a good mood. You’re optimistic. You’ve had a good summer. Your business is taken care of, and if you have a bad camp, it’s a horrible omen for A) how your summer was, B) how you prepared and C) where you’re going.
And we’ve talked about, Jeff, if you fire a coach four or five games into a season, it’s a failure for your organization. When you admit after camp that your camp was really bad, that’s the kind of thing that other people would say, is a failure in your organization. You never want to admit that. You never want to, and Kudos to Rutherford for being honest, but I know people you say that and said, ‘oooh, that’s, that’s a really bad one.’
And the last time I really remember anyone coming out this early and saying it, was in Philadelphia when Peter Laviolette was fired. I remember he was fired early in the season and Paul Holmgren came out and said, ‘we had a really terrible camp and it kind of made us aware that this had to happen.
I just think for a lot of people in the sport or a lot of people in sports, that is a five-alarm bell. When you hear something like that, for example, you know what someone said to me, ‘you know where you can say you had a bad camp, when you have Erik Johnson, who injures himself for St. Louis in the team golf tournament right before training camp.’ That is when you can say when you have a bad camp.
But when you don’t have anything like that, and you feel like you had a bad camp, that’s really, really bad for your organization. And a couple people said to me, they bet it really would have hurt Rutherford to admit that. But when you’re low, you’re low.”
Marek: “I always wonder, what do these comments set up for? I’m not a 100 percent sure where I’m at, we’re going to talk about next, maybe might wink at where we’re at. When I heard Rutherford say that I wondered, okay, what is that setting up for? Because Jim Rutherford has been around hockey, Elliotte, forever and I don’t think Jim Rutherford says anything frivolously. I don’t think he just fires off. I really don’t. I always wonder, okay, Jim Rutherford is putting this out here, what is he setting up for? That’s what I wonder.
Because it could be a couple of things. One, it can be, and we’re all looking at this and saying, ‘is he talking about Boudreau here? Or could it be, is he saying we don’t have enough quality hockey players yet? Where is he going to point his finger at with this one? Composition or coach? We always have that debate.”
Friedman: “I don’t think it’s composition. I think that’s about the way they’re playing. Like when they traded Jason Dickinson, one of the reasons they got Riley Stillman in that deal was, first of all, Chicago was a team willing to take the contract, but they were looking for a player like Stillman because they thought they got pushed around a lot. I know that’s one thing they were really unhappy with in the preseason, is they got pushed around a lot.
But I think that was directed at the players and the coach. I do. That’s what I think that is. That this team wasn’t as ready to play from the drop of the puck as it should have been. That’s what I interrupt that as.
Marek: “The quote that stuck out to me was…”
- Rutherford: “We may very well be in a rebuild in the direction we’re going but ideally we’d like to transition this team on the fly.”
Marek: “The rebuild question Elliotte.”
Friedman: “That’s a big one. There’s a lot of ways to look at this. There have been times in the last few years, and Canucks fans know this, where the idea of a rebuild has been suggested.
Mike Gillis did it once. Trevor Linden did it once. Trevor Linden lost the power struggle with Jim Benning because he suggested a rebuild or they weren’t as close as Benning thought. I’m not sure the exact term was rebuild. I had said to me that it was just that Benning thought they were closer than Linden did, and Benning’s vision won out.”
Marek: “As a quick aside, why is everyone so scared to use that term. It’s almost like stepping on the logo in the dressing room. Nobody wants to say rebuild. No managers want to say rebuild. Rebuilds can be a number of different things. It doesn’t have to look like, tear it all down. There are ways to rebuild without taking everything down to the nuts and bolts.”
Friedman: “Here’s what I think, the fans there clearly blame this on ownership. They say ownership doesn’t want the rebuild and I would agree, I think that’s true.
Now, here’s the question, why? Rebuilds, in the NHL, and the perfect example is the team that they played night, Buffalo has been rebuilding for a decade.
Marek: “It’s actually been two rebuilds. It’s true. There was the Eichel rebuild and now this post-Eichel rebuild.”
Friedman: “And now this one is off to a good start. It looks like it’s working but when you still have a long way to go. Hears the thing Jeff, how many teams in the NHL have rebuilt and won?
Marek: “Pittsburgh Penguins have. It took a long time but they bottomed out and won. Washington Capitals bottomed out and won. There are teams.”
Friedman: “That’s true.”
Marek: “Chicago Blackhawks.”
Friedman: “Chicago kind of a weird situation because they were a completely dysfunctional franchise and then Bill Wirtz died and then all of sudden they became a model franchise. So, it’s a little bit different I think.
Pittsburgh won the ultimate lottery. The ultimate lottery and it single handly changed their franchise.
Washington, yes. Ovechkin, and I think Washington is a good comparison here for the reason I going to suggest in a second. Ovechkin changed their franchise but remember they had to find the right coach that kind of put them off in the right, who happens to be the guy in Vancouver, that put them in the right direction. And even then it didn’t always go in a straight line.
Like it increased the value in their franchise. The fans loved watching them play but how long did it really take until they found success?”
Marek: “What about Colorado? What about Colorado? The last Cup.”
Friedman: “And it was a trade. And how much pain did they have? Like Rutherford does has a point here. There are a lot of rebuilds in this league that take a long-time and don’t go anywhere.
So I don’t think he’s completely wrong. However, there comes to be a time where you have to understand and say, ‘what you have isn’t working.’ And in Vancouver, look at what you have up and down your roster. Horvat, Pettersson, Miller, Hughes, Demko to start. Mikheyev, Boeser, Garland, Kuzmenko. Pick which other players you want. This team should be better than it is.
And this goes beyond one coach. This goes into two coaches. So, are they upset with their structure? Yes. Does coaching usually take the blame for that structure? Yes, but were on the second coach and it looks like pretty soon we’re going to be three.
You look at all that talent Jeff, and you’ve got to be asking yourself, do we have the wrong mix?
Marek: “The one thing that I wondered about when Rutherford and Allvin took over was, whose timeline are they going to do it on. I think that’s what makes so many of these Vancouver conversations come back to J.T. Miller, but that’s what makes the J.T. Miller signing so interesting I think to this entire conversation. Because it seemed as if, did it not feel to you like they were going to do this on the Horvat, Pettersson, Hughes, Demko timeline? If you complimented that, you were on the team. If you didn’t, we’re going to move you to trade for assets that put us on that timeline.
Because you’re right, there’s no reason for Vancouver to start from scratch. Like you can kind of look at it in a way like the New York Rangers like when they said they were rebuilding but the really weren’t.
Friedman: “Well they were and then Panarin dropped on their laps and changed everything.
Marek: “But they still kept Kreider. They still kept a lot of players. There’s still some really good players. Like did Panarin end up in their laps? Absolutely, but this was not scorched earth with the Rangers, nor should it be with the Vancouver Canucks.
You have elite players at every single position. Every single position, including down the middle. There’s not reason why this has to be a take it right down. No, you don’t need to do that.
I think the only thing here is, to your point, is there something wrong in the room and whose timeline is this going to be on.”
Friedman: “I want to take it a little bit further. We talked about Washington. If there’s a year for Vancouver to tank, it’s this one cause it’s Connor Bedard. Right?
I have to say, if I ran the Vancouver Canucks right now, I would be sitting there and saying, ‘Do we just mail this one in and go for Bedard?’
Now, here’s the thing, that is rife with a lot of things. First of all, Bedard is a Vancouver guy. He loves the Canucks. Apparently, he likes their Instagram posts all the time. That’s what someone said to me today. It’s a sensible play.
Here’s the thing Jeff, in the analytic world, going back to Billy Bean and Moneyball, he talks about the playoffs as luck, right? Well nothing is more lucky than the draft lottery. Nothing.
You talked about Pittsburgh rebuilding and winning. Yes, but they won the ultimate draft lottery. Toronto that year they got Matthews, they won the ultimate lottery. Edmonton won McDavid, they won the ultimate lottery. Although they didn’t have as much lottery luck before.
I think if you are Vancouver, you take the chance now cause odds are you aren’t going to make the playoffs but you could still have the worst record in the league and not get the guy.
Now what I think you can do if you are Vancouver though, is say, ‘we’re going to go for the best pick we can this year, and hopefully add a young talented player to our group. Because to me the number one thing right now is, why this group on paper, which looks really talented and has more young talent than several other teams, can’t get going? That’s the question I’m asking. What’s wrong here? And maybe it is cliques. I don’t know but they’re just not as good as the sum of their parts.
Marek: “Just as a side, other teams have had cliques and have been successful.”
Friedman: “Oh, of course.”
Marek: “This isn’t like I know this isn’t an easy answer as you have to break it up if you have cliques in the room, I hate to break the news to ya about most dressing rooms, they’re kind of cliquey. They tend to be that way.
Even if you don’t get Connor Bedard, this is a deep draft. I don’t know how much Adam Fantili you’re watched this year, but holy smokes does he look great at Michigan. I know Matvei Michkov’s going to take a while to get there, but what a supreme talent and go all the way down. That Benson kid in Winnipeg, he looks great. Ritchie in Oshawa is fantastic. I like the defenseman in Guelph, Cam Allen. Like, there’s players. Even if you don’t get Connor Bedard the ultimate, you still get really good players.
Friedman: “That’s what I think you’re doing now Jeff, if you’re righting off the year and you might have to, the odds are you’re not making the playoffs now. But I think that’s what you’re doing. I think you’re saying look, we’re looking to add the best possible player we can in the draft this year and then go from there.
But the other thing we have to figure out is why this talented group can’t get going.
The other thing that’s problematic with Vancouver historically, and I remember Brian Burke talking about his, a guy who knows Vancouver really well, the Canucks tend to not sell well, historically, when they’re not winning, and I would guarantee to you that looms large over the organization.
However, if you get Bedard, it solves your problem but you got to think that’s a factor here too.”
** NHLRumors.com transcription