Out of curiosity...

Having heard about Don Cherry's segment tonight, I'm now curious if anyone in the hockey world (ie. players, management types, media) has actually come out in favour of this move?

I don't care what your opinion is on Nonis, or your own opinion on the firing: I'm just curious if any Bob Mackenzie, Kelly Hrudey types have written or stated anything in favour of this, because I'd be interested in reading or hearing it.

I believe Pierre McGuire was based on the circumstances - he saw it either as a you fire Nonis now or you give him an extension situation. Since Aquilini didn't feel comfortable about the latter he did the former.

Having heard about Don Cherry's segment tonight, I'm now curious if anyone in the hockey world (ie. players, management types, media) has actually come out in favour of this move?

I don't care what your opinion is on Nonis, or your own opinion on the firing: I'm just curious if any Bob Mackenzie, Kelly Hrudey types have written or stated anything in favour of this, because I'd be interested in reading or hearing it.

Gallagher's been pretty pro-firing.

Gallagher's been pretty pro-firing.

I haven't read anything from him yet (to be honest, I try to avoid him), but I would expect that, yeah.

I wonder how long until Team 1040 gets the gag order. They've been extremely vocal in their support for Nonis and very critical of Aquillini. Can't be long until a Burke-esque order makes it's way through the ranks.

Neil McRae has been very supportive of the firing.

I think Dave Nonis is a nice guy, and a good man. I think he has earned a lot of respect from many in the hockey world, and so I don't expect to hear much public support for the firing.

It's never nice to see somebody lose a job, but the facts are what they are, and it's really not all that difficult to justify the firing.

Is this in better shape than it was before Nonis was hired? I would argue no. I will admit it looks as though the prospect pool is likely deeper, but time will tell.

If Nonis had two years left instead of one, he's likely still the GM. I don't think Nonis did enough to earn an extension, and I don't think anybody wants a lame duck general manager.

Despite the vocal opposition to the firing, one could argue that it was actually a no-brainer.

I've always been one of those patient Canuck fans - and I understand those who feel that Nonis should have been given a chance to see his "plan" through. But I don't understand how anyone can call this a bad move, or at least an unjustified one.

As I say, let's see who the replacement is.

Neil McRae has been very supportive of the firing.

So Gallagher and McRae, the career devil's advocates. That's fairly telling.

... But I don't understand how anyone can call this a bad move, or at least an unjustified one.

As I say, let's see who the replacement is.

At this point in time I am calling it a reactionary move, just because it seems as if there is no plan. Although, as you say, it does depend on the replacement before you can truly judge it.

The simple fact that most hockey people think that it wasn't the best move makes me nervous as well. Even those that said it is understandable (ie McGuire) don't necessarily seem to think that it was the most prudent decision, but a understandable one. The only people in the media that support the move seem to be those with a vested interest in the Canucks failing.

And I will maintain it is a bad move if the plan is to pursue Brian Burke after the Ducks are eliminated or win the cup.

Basically this move stinks of a rookie owner making a rookie owner mistake. But both John McKaw and Frank and Arthur Griffiths made those mistakes as well, I just hope it doesn't take as long to recover from this one as it did from the McKaw fiasco. I am hopeful that after a day or two Aqualini has got the smarts to realize he needs a GM that is going to think longer term then just make the playoffs every year and he makes it clear during the interview and hiring process that he wants a GM with a long term plan.

Bob McKenzie blogged that he thought it was the wrong move.

I believe Pierre McGuire was based on the circumstances - he saw it either as a you fire Nonis now or you give him an extension situation. Since Aquilini didn't feel comfortable about the latter he did the former.

My thoughts also. Ive not seen much media other than some on NHL network and Don Taylor the night of.

Lame duck year was a bad idea. Either extend or fire. Those were the options that ownership had to choose from. Not extending and keeping Nonis was a bad idea.

Gallagher's been pretty pro-firing.

So was Elliot Pap, for what it's worth (read: not much). I think Iain McIntyre was anti-firing.

Listening to Dan Russell and Elliot Pap tonight on that awful radio show made me ill. Very ill. So much bitterness, way more than MacRae and Gallagher.

It would be very surprising if any management or players openly supported the firing of Dave Nonis. The NHL, like all pro leagues, recycles its personnel. It would be quite foolish to say anything other than that Dave did a good job, it's a shock, etc., because you never know who you'll be working with if you stay in the sport.

Media, that's different. I'm, I guess, a little surprised at the vehement tone at Team 1040, but I suppose Nonis treated them well, and they don't really know this Aquilini.

My thoughts also. Ive not seen much media other than some on NHL network and Don Taylor the night of.

Lame duck year was a bad idea. Either extend or fire. Those were the options that ownership had to choose from. Not extending and keeping Nonis was a bad idea.

I feel like this is being overblown. How does knowing your contract expires in one year make you unable to effectively do your job?

It would be very surprising if any management or players openly supported the firing of Dave Nonis. The NHL, like all pro leagues, recycles its personnel. It would be quite foolish to say anything other than that Dave did a good job, it's a shock, etc., because you never know who you'll be working with if you stay in the sport.

Media, that's different. I'm, I guess, a little surprised at the vehement tone at Team 1040, but I suppose Nonis treated them well, and they don't really know this Aquilini.

Yeah -- he actually went on their station, something the previous era of management wouldn't do.

Media, that's different. I'm, I guess, a little surprised at the vehement tone at Team 1040, but I suppose Nonis treated them well, and they don't really know this Aquilini.

Would it not, though, also be in 1040's interest to support Aquilini? I really think that, yes, they have reasons to be pro-Nonis, as he was generally good to Nonis, but I think that would be cancelled out by the obvious benefits of staying on ownership's good side.

Having heard about Don Cherry's segment tonight, I'm now curious if anyone in the hockey world (ie. players, management types, media) has actually come out in favour of this move?

I don't care what your opinion is on Nonis, or your own opinion on the firing: I'm just curious if any Bob Mackenzie, Kelly Hrudey types have written or stated anything in favour of this, because I'd be interested in reading or hearing it.

What did Cherry say?

What did Cherry say?

I believe he said something to the effect of it being a horrible firing, etc. with all the typical Cherry-ness. I heard about it second-hand, as I wasn't in the room at the time.

I believe he said something to the effect of it being a horrible firing, etc. with all the typical Cherry-ness. I heard about it second-hand, as I wasn't in the room at the time.

Yep. Cherry basically said the Canucks had to deal with a lot of adversity from all the injuries to the defense and that it wasn't really fair to fire Nonis.

What did Cherry say?

Something along the lines of "the worst GM firing in a long time"

Something along the lines of "the worst GM firing in a long time"
Why would he say that without knowing who is going to replace Nonis? Who knows, maybe we are getting Holland.

Why would he say that without knowing who is going to replace Nonis? Who knows, maybe we are getting Holland.

Because this isn't about whether the Canucks would be able to get a "better" GM, but about whether Nonis's performance was worthy of a pink slip.

Why would he say that without knowing who is going to replace Nonis? Who knows, maybe we are getting Holland.

I think it was more because he felt that Nonis didn't get a fair shake. He thought it was a bad move by ownership who panicked at missing the playoffs.

I feel like this is being overblown. How does knowing your contract expires in one year make you unable to effectively do your job?

1. nonis might try to save his job by making short-sighted trades. ex: young prospect for old washed up vets, just to get into the playoff and get bounced in the first round.
2. other GMs might sense the pressure nonis is under, and raise their asking price in trades.
3. GM is supposed to be the leader of the team and gives direction. if your GM don't know whether he'll be here at the end of the year, there is no stability or direction, or at least the player may percieved so, and the locker room will be filled with uncertainty and chaos.
4. hard to attract free agents if they don't know who they will be dealing with next summer. ex: brunnstrom.

i'm sure there are more reasons, but i those are the 4 that i can come up with off the top of my head.

So Gallagher and McRae, the career devil's advocates. That's fairly telling.

I agree with Gallagher and McRae. I want to put a shotgun in my mouth

Nobody in the media is gonna come and kick a guy when he's down, but Ferraro, Garrett, Shorty and Hughson - all guys close to the team have gone as far as saying their "not surprised". Garrett went the furthest in saying that the players all thought that help would come at the deadline and were very disappointed that it never did.

Why would he say that without knowing who is going to replace Nonis? Who knows, maybe we are getting Holland.

Its pretty simple.
Aquadood does not have full control over who he can get as the next Canucks GM.
Just the fact that he is willing to risk it is a bad move when it is unnecessary.

What happens if he can't get even a half decent GM to replace Nonis?
The problem is we don't know. And Dave Nonis, no matter how much you hate him,
has not been bad enough to take this risk.

1. nonis might try to save his job by making short-sighted trades. ex: young prospect for old washed up vets, just to get into the playoff and get bounced in the first round.
2. other GMs might sense the pressure nonis is under, and raise their asking price in trades.
3. GM is supposed to be the leader of the team and gives direction. if your GM don't know whether he'll be here at the end of the year, there is no stability or direction, or at least the player may percieved so, and the locker room will be filled with uncertainty and chaos.
4. hard to attract free agents if they don't know who they will be dealing with next summer. ex: brunnstrom.


1. Nonis made it awfully clear that he wasn't the sort to do that. In fact, his reluctance to make such moves seems to have contributed to his getting fired.

3. Do you really believe that the players' performance on the ice is affected by the GM's contract status? I don't. But even if I did, it's quite a stretch to suggest that the Canucks are going into this season with more "stability" and "leadership" now that Nonis has been fired. Even once the new guy is hired -- even if it's Ken Holland -- there will be more uncertainty in the locker room going into this season than if had Nonis remained.

4. I've never heard of any player or agent ever expressing any reluctance whatsoever about signing with a team whose GM is under contract for another year. Brunnstrom only proves the point -- he was happy to sign with the so called "lame duck" Nonis.

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/sports/story.html?id=67c0ce38-12ee-4022-9aeb-63ac2fed26b6&k=89907&p=1

Iain MacIntyre came down squarely against the firing in today's Sun.

Nobody in the media is gonna come and kick a guy when he's down.
Dan Russell would - but he has own agenda/personal vendetta against the Canucks. Even if was Ken Holland (or however you think is a good GM) getting fired - he'd be in favor of it.

Who knows, maybe we are getting Holland.
Either one of us has a better chance of winning the lotto than that happening I'm afraid. I see us getting possibly an assistant GM or a former GM that was been fired (either currently unemployed - or any ones that might get fired after their team bows out in the playoffs); or one of those "other types" that have been mentioned (ie., Lawton, etc.,).

1. nonis might try to save his job by making short-sighted trades. ex: young prospect for old washed up vets, just to get into the playoff and get bounced in the first round.
2. other GMs might sense the pressure nonis is under, and raise their asking price in trades.
3. GM is supposed to be the leader of the team and gives direction. if your GM don't know whether he'll be here at the end of the year, there is no stability or direction, or at least the player may percieved so, and the locker room will be filled with uncertainty and chaos.
4. hard to attract free agents if they don't know who they will be dealing with next summer. ex: brunnstrom.

i'm sure there are more reasons, but i those are the 4 that i can come up with off the top of my head.

I doubt any of these reasons really apply to Nonis. His heart was with the future success of the team.

IMO, this firing causes far more turmoil and uncertainty than if he stayed

if these are the reasons for his termination, they sound extremely thin

I feel like this is being overblown. How does knowing your contract expires in one year make you unable to effectively do your job?
I agree. We had Burke in the same situation for his last season. He still was able to make deadline moves etc.

Neil McRae has been very supportive of the firing.
What the hell, Neil McRae is still alive?

What the hell, Neil McRae is still alive?Apparently.
And it seems that The Pauser is listening.

What the hell, Neil McRae is still alive?

I laughed.

1. Nonis made it awfully clear that he wasn't the sort to do that. In fact, his reluctance to make such moves seems to have contributed to his getting fired.

3. Do you really believe that the players' performance on the ice is affected by the GM's contract status? I don't. But even if I did, it's quite a stretch to suggest that the Canucks are going into this season with more "stability" and "leadership" now that Nonis has been fired. Even once the new guy is hired -- even if it's Ken Holland -- there will be more uncertainty in the locker room going into this season than if had Nonis remained.

4. I've never heard of any player or agent ever expressing any reluctance whatsoever about signing with a team whose GM is under contract for another year. Brunnstrom only proves the point -- he was happy to sign with the so called "lame duck" Nonis.

1. nonis may be saying that now, but you never know what he'll do next year if he knows for sure its playoff or get fired. i really believe part of the reason nonis stand pat this deadline is because he really thought he'd be back next season.
3. absolutely. if i signed a contract with the canucks under nonis' watch, i know he wants me here. a different GM might not feel the same and ship me out. players (just like the coaching staff) signed by nonis might not fit into the new GM's plan, so everybodys at risk of getting moved. how can there be stability in the dressing room when nobody knows if they'll be here next season? firing nonis now and having the new GM make all the changes in the summer at least gives the players an idea what kind of team is being built and who will fit in the new system.
4. if he was happy to signed with a lame duck GM, he would've signed by now. his agent said they were about to sign until there were rumblings about nonis getting axed. you think sundin and hossa would want to sign here knowing a new GM might come in the next summer and trade everybody away? no way!

Neil McRae has been very supportive of the firing.

Neil McRae is a total non-entity on the Vancouver sports scene. He knows next to nothing about hockey or the Canucks so if he supports the firing of Nonis it's totally out ignorance.