CanucksCorner.com Forums

Hockey Widow wrote: ↑Sun Aug 03, 2025 3:37 am Stories now emerging that the problem at the end with JT was between him and Tocchet and unnamed members of the coaching staff. So it seems that management and coaches efforts to control/correct the JT/ Pettersson situation exploded with JT not being able to handle the feedback he was getting about locker room culture etc. The season starts shitty. JT's behaviour becomes more pronounced. Coaches have to step in with the tough love approach. JT does not take kindly to it. Confrontation with Tocchet. Leave of absence. Both parties agree he needs a fresh start. His agent works with Allvin to find a fit. JT provides a short list of east coast teams he will consider with NYR number one on his list but he does not ask for a trade and does not give just one team. He has a preferred destination and 2-3 other teams he would consider. Best offer Allvin got was NYR. Allvin also wanted to get JT to his preferred destination for agreeing to waive.

Tocchet's frustration was in that he would have preferred the Canucks traded Pettersson the year before to resolve the issue. Felt it put him in a tough position. He was told a deal with Pettersson was imminent and when it failed to materialize he told management the situation was untenable going into another year.

One of my old sources popped up over the weekend and shared what he believes went down. Takeout or leave it.

And it wasn't just his bullying of Pettersson, bullying was how it was described. He was like that to a number of younger players. But he also created a torn room. Most players like Pettersson and felt in the middle because they also like JT. In the end his teammates could not reach him any longer as he shut down and shut out a lot of players. It was gut wrenching for a number of them who loved playing with JT. But they also love playing with Pettersson. More so new leadership, ie Hughes, saw the impact he was having on younger guys coming into the team.

I think JT just burnt his bridges and I still feel its too bad because he was one of my favourites. He plays old school hockey and is an alpha male. But man he could carry this team his back on any given night.

When JT was on, he was a beast that any fan would love on their team. I appreciate that he wanted to take a leadership role on the team but, judging from what your source said about how he was with the younger players and Pettersson, needed to have his head pulled out of his ass and learn proper leadership techniques. The fact that he clashed with coaching staff trying to do that tells me it was the wiser risk to move him vice Pettersson. Not to say the rift couldn't have been patched-up, but this was a headache that management figured a relatively young and seemingly quieter Captain didn't need to contend with. I wouldn't be surprised if Hughes wasn't consulted about what he thought of the situation. JT got toxic; coaching couldn't solve him anymore; so management acted. Say what you will of Petey, but it seems the majority of the room likes him and he wasn't as toxic in the room as it appears JT was.

Management and coaching staff decided years ago to manage the problem instead of solving it. It worked, until it didn't. Sometimes these issues can be managed and the team succeed. Allvin and Co. rolled the dice and it blew up in their faces. It led them to a bad trading position, and they made the best of it. Where all their rolls came up 7s the season before, their luck dried up before it was over - before they even knew it.

Canuck luck.

Hopefully the room will be a bit more cohesive coming into the next season. As Rutherford implied, winning tends to do that. Petey coming back ready to make up for last season should help.

Hockey Widow wrote: ↑Sun Aug 03, 2025 3:37 am Stories now emerging that the problem at the end with JT was between him and Tocchet and unnamed members of the coaching staff [etc.]

This is all quite believable.

The EP40 or JT dichotomy always struck me as a very unsophisticated analysis and understanding of in-organization personality, and the more that we know, the more the "dichotomy" analysis is confirmed to be wrong (allowing for the fact there will always be a gap between what we know and what is just speculation).

JT's problems were not confined to EP40 -- and they rarely are for a person who projects like JT. If it isn't EP40, it will be replaced by antagonism to someone or something else. These personality types are rarely only triggered by EP40 types; they are triggered by any type they perceive isn't pulling weight, and it is double when a personality also expresses oppositional defiance (EP40s failings then are the coaches or captain's failure for being unable to break EP40 out and solve that problem). JT's own play was terrible last year, yet he likely thought "my play is their fault for not pulling their weight" or maybe even less moored to reality, "I'm the only one who cares." (Which is self-deceiving propaganda half this board appeared to buy).

This is why moving EP40 wouldn't have a long term effect on the ticking time bomb that was JT. No doubt, it wasn't inevitable because JT could always figure out a way not to be such a snowflake triggered by the failures of others. With or without EP40, JT could make personal adjustments that would allow him to be a consistently effective player regardless of the externalities.

And this isn't to say EP40 shouldn't have been moved or be moved in the future. But the reasons for moving ion the past shouldn't have weighed JT's contentment, because that would be temporary only -- or JT would figure out being content with or without EP40. For as much as I think JR and Allvin miss, I don't think they missed that the EP40 question is independent of the JT question except insofar as it matters as a hockey proposition & lineup construction (you need centers, you need scorers and playmakers). I believe they were open to moving BOTH, not just either, but also obviously aware of the extraordinary hole that had to be filled if both centers were moved.

Hindsight being what it is, I think we are all concerned EP40's wet noodle is going to be the player going forward -- 60 points when healthy, and not all that dynamic while doing it. With pretty good two way play and the ability to play all special teams, that's what, a $7.5-8M player in today's cap world? And I think we all see what the return might have been if he were traded after that 100+ point season or even this past offseason. It would have been Rantanaanian. And today, since other teams have the same concerns we have, moving EP40 even without the NTC might be a challenge, and many think it will take sweetners. JR and Allvin likely floated trades hoping that some team with cap room would value him as the Benning valued OEL or the Blackhawks valued Seth Jones years ago (ignoring their most recent performances and thinking the past would be recovered), but they didn't find the sucker or a team needing EP40's upside with no other available options.

UWSaint wrote: ↑Thu Aug 07, 2025 10:07 am JT's problems were not confined to EP40 -- and they rarely are for a person who projects like JT. If it isn't EP40, it will be replaced by antagonism to someone or something else. These personality types are rarely only triggered by EP40 types; they are triggered by any type they perceive isn't pulling weight, and it is double when a personality also expresses oppositional defiance (EP40s failings then are the coaches or captain's failure for being unable to break EP40 out and solve that problem). JT's own play was terrible last year, yet he likely thought "my play is their fault for not pulling their weight" or maybe even less moored to reality, "I'm the only one who cares." (Which is self-deceiving propaganda half this board appeared to buy).

This is why moving EP40 wouldn't have a long term effect on the ticking time bomb that was JT. No doubt, it wasn't inevitable because JT could always figure out a way not to be such a snowflake triggered by the failures of others. With or without EP40, JT could make personal adjustments that would allow him to be a consistently effective player regardless of the externalities.

And this isn't to say EP40 shouldn't have been moved or be moved in the future. But the reasons for moving ion the past shouldn't have weighed JT's contentment, because that would be temporary only -- or JT would figure out being content with or without EP40. For as much as I think JR and Allvin miss, I don't think they missed that the EP40 question is independent of the JT question except insofar as it matters as a hockey proposition & lineup construction (you need centers, you need scorers and playmakers). I believe they were open to moving BOTH, not just either, but also obviously aware of the extraordinary hole that had to be filled if both centers were moved.

Bad enough to trade away one top-6 Centre, but I couldn't imagine management trading away BOTH of their top two centres unless they were getting a 1st-line centre back. The last chance they would have been able to do that was last summer before Petey signed his contract. Once he signed that contract, Petey's trade worth was capped. Even if he scored 100+ points last season with an ongoing rift with Miller, that's a lot of cap space for a manager to take on - especially if he's parting with a 1st or 1nd line centre in the trade. Put it another way, if you were Treliving in Toronto last summer pre-contract (or even post-contract) and Allvin proposed a trade that would see Petey go to Toronto for Marner, would you do it even then? Pretty sure the ask would be Miller before Petey.

You're right about JT's narrative arc in Vancouver not being inevitable. He pulled his head out of his ass once before. That said, if he got to the point where he was fighting with coaches, the writing was on the wall. I appreciate that management was not going to bet on JT getting his head screwed back on straight and it staying that way long-term - regardless of his relationship with Petey.

I find it curious, that tidbit about Tocchet's frustration that management didn't trade Petey - with the insinuation that hat may have played in Tocchet's decision to bolt for Philadephia. Tocchet likes his warriors, but who doesn't? There appears to be a bit of a trend of skilled Euros and players like them being shipped out (ironically, not long after they were signed): Sprong, Kuzmenko, and Mikheyev which you could argue were instigated by Tocchet. Can't argue with that season he won the Adams, but Tocchet has his roster archetypes - and if players don't fit his archetypes, they get gone quick - traded out or sent down to Abby. The fact he essentially threw his hands up at Petey and wanted him gone reveals a shortcoming even from an Adams-winner (so was Tortorella, so what does that say?). No small feat to turn Petey from a shrinking violet in the corners into something more Barkov-esque, but throwing your hands up because your star player can't play through an injury and needs kid gloves is not exactly a great look from an Adams-winner.

We'll see what Foote can do, but if Tocchet left over that and the practice facility issue then best for al parties that he left. Regardless whether how one feels about Tocchet's position, that tenuous relationship with management couldn't last, nor lead to good outcomes.

Well, as fans - we can only hope EP40 takes onus of his past play and shows up going forward.

Van will never be the team they were with both EP40 and JT in the lineup. JT was a clutch scorer, dragged the team into the fight and provided exactly what they are now missing. In spades.

Simple Canuck luck, that their star players turn out to have the dedication/discipline and mental awareness of a Lindros, Subban or Hoffman - instead of a Crosby, Yzerman or Beliveau...

At least we have Hughes.

I find it interesting that Pettersson has come out publicly praising the acquisition of Kane, a player in a similar mold to JT. Albeit one who was on the receiving end of the bullying. But he recognizes the need for those type of warriors. He seems to hope to have a chance to play with Kane on his wing. Which might highlight a frustration of his. He needs top six wingers, not top six wanna be's. I think he missed Kuzmenko last season.

On another note, I always thought Kravtsov was a LW but they have him listed as a RW. If he can crack the line up he makes Hoglander expendable, who has often been moved to play RW. I say that only if we need to free up another 3m in cap. He also has a history with Chytle. They were in the system with the NYR together and he has some time playing on his wing, albeit a small sample size.

Hockey Widow wrote: ↑Thu Aug 07, 2025 1:58 pm I find it interesting that Pettersson has come out publicly praising the acquisition of Kane, a player in a similar mold to JT. Albeit one who was on the receiving end of the bullying. But he recognizes the need for those type of warriors. He seems to hope to have a chance to play with Kane on his wing. Which might highlight a frustration of his. He needs top six wingers, not top six wanna be's. I think he missed Kuzmenko last season.

Tocchet's handling of Kuzmenko was one of the things that soured me to him as head coach.

theman wrote: ↑Thu Aug 07, 2025 5:17 pm Tocchet's handling of Kuzmenko was one of the things that soured me to him as head coach.

Winning has a way of papering over all kinds of warts on a Jack Adams season.

Lancer wrote: ↑Thu Aug 07, 2025 6:40 pm

theman wrote: ↑Thu Aug 07, 2025 5:17 pm Tocchet's handling of Kuzmenko was one of the things that soured me to him as head coach.

Winning has a way of papering over all kinds of warts on a Jack Adams season.

That was just a new coach bounce, you and I could have gotten the same results while keeping Kuz and Petey happy together.

Hockey Widow wrote: ↑Thu Aug 07, 2025 1:58 pm Kane, a player in a similar mold to JT. Albeit one who was on the receiving end of the bullying.

Who got bullied?

Blob Mckenzie wrote: ↑Thu Aug 07, 2025 7:41 pm

Hockey Widow wrote: ↑Thu Aug 07, 2025 1:58 pm Kane, a player in a similar mold to JT. Albeit one who was on the receiving end of the bullying.

Who got bullied?

Ah, Buttfuglian. Another player I would have loved to have seen in a Van uni.

theman wrote: ↑Thu Aug 07, 2025 5:17 pm

Hockey Widow wrote: ↑Thu Aug 07, 2025 1:58 pm I find it interesting that Pettersson has come out publicly praising the acquisition of Kane, a player in a similar mold to JT. Albeit one who was on the receiving end of the bullying. But he recognizes the need for those type of warriors. He seems to hope to have a chance to play with Kane on his wing. Which might highlight a frustration of his. He needs top six wingers, not top six wanna be's. I think he missed Kuzmenko last season.

Tocchet's handling of Kuzmenko was one of the things that soured me to him as head coach.

His handling of Kuzmenko was bad, though Kuzmenko did himself no favors by Kyle Wellwooding himself into camp.

At the time, "Free Kuzmenko" was a tag line of mine, but it wasn't necessarily that Tochett should change his approach, but that Kuzmenko should get dealt so that he might be free. Thing is, "building an identity" and "letting players what they do best to get wins" are concepts that are in tension. With a collective identity, you can sometimes have the product be more than the sum of its parts, even where those parts are individually maximized. And so good players who do things different get lost.

If Kuzmenko was the only casualty of the Tochett approach, it was a tradeoff worth making because who could deny that the team looked better overall playing to his ethic. But the problem is that Tochett ended up squeezing too tight on approach -- he started to coach as the way he wanted his players to be able to play (dump, forecheck, straight ahead) was the way that plays should be designed. To illustrate, my belief is that controlled possession is the preferred zone entry, the second preference is to chip to space where your teammate has better than a 50% of winning the race, and the least desirable entry (unless facilitating a line change) is to dump the puck in with the knowledge there's a greater than 50% chance the opponent will gain full possession but you are going to aim to disrupt that possession with hard forechecking. My belief is further that a team "wins" O to D transition when they create a turnover, "wins" when they force a dump in, and "loses" when the opposition is entering the zone with full possession. (The chip to space is a stalemate).

It makes total sense that a coach might see a team that isn't hard on that forecheck being too easy to play against, and therefore demand that each player be able to be effective F1s, F2s, etc. It is another thing altogether to use this as a preferred strategy. If gives the opposition an unearned transition win (though it reduces the risk of dangerous turnovers). It saps the creativity out of skilled players and it taxes those who play "reserved" (picking and choosing their spots and counterattacks) to expend their shift energies on the high event low reward activity of chasing after dumps. The reason why the Canucks looked offensively dangerous when Hughes was on the ice and no other time is that Hughes is exceptional at controlled entries and that Hughes didn't have F1 or F2 responsibilities that the forwards were thinking Tochett was preferencing.

To his credit, about halfway through the season last year, Tochett started admitting that his system/coaching approach was partly responsible for the decreased offense, and tried to get his players to carry the puck more. But the strategies he first enforced were becoming habits, and it is hard to unlearn habits. When Chytl arrived, he didn't put up great numbers, but his line looked more dangerous than others because he wasn't habituated to Tockey Hockey and he was often entering the zone with full possession and speed. EP40 deserves the vast majority of the blame for his play last season, but I think there is some correlation between Tockey Hockey and EP40 not playing with possession and speed through the neutral zone (which we saw a lot of when EP40 came into the league) and EP40's attention to playing more physically -- something he perceived Tockey wanted and something he got fairly good at but is never going to be the thing that separates him as a player. Like Green, Tockey focused too much on getting players to do better what they did poorly (or mediocrely) and paid too little attention to benefits that come from getting a player to do great what they currently do well.

Now, the great irony is that the team is currently assembled more in a manner where Tockey Hockey is the system that could maximize wins. It makes more sense now to play that way than ever -- and that's not a surprise as Allvin was trying to build a team for Tochett. We will see what Foote can do with it.

UWSaint wrote: ↑Fri Aug 08, 2025 8:09 am Like Green, Tockey focused too much on getting players to do better what they did poorly (or mediocrely) and paid too little attention to benefits that come from getting a player to do great what they currently do well.

Bang on. It's been said that we can only improve any skill by 2 points. But, this world doesn't reward average. So, having Petey go from a 3 to a 5 as a hitter isn't as important as him going from an 8 to a 10 as a shooter, or playmaker. Or, Forbert can go from a 3 to a 5 as a shooter, if he ignores his physical roles. Outside of meeting the skill minimums in core areas like defense (cought sprong cough) and skating, players should be focusing on their strengths, and coaches have to let them use their strengths and adjust their coaching style to the player's skill sets. I haven't seen Green, Tockey or Boudreau really excel at this. I give all 3 only a 6/10, but all 3 coulda been 8/10

UWSaint wrote: ↑Fri Aug 08, 2025 8:09 am To his credit, about halfway through the season last year, Tochett started admitting that his system/coaching approach was partly responsible for the decreased offense, and tried to get his players to carry the puck more. But the strategies he first enforced were becoming habits, and it is hard to unlearn habits. When Chytl arrived, he didn't put up great numbers, but his line looked more dangerous than others because he wasn't habituated to Tockey Hockey and he was often entering the zone with full possession and speed. EP40 deserves the vast majority of the blame for his play last season, but I think there is some correlation between Tockey Hockey and EP40 not playing with possession and speed through the neutral zone (which we saw a lot of when EP40 came into the league) and EP40's attention to playing more physically -- something he perceived Tockey wanted and something he got fairly good at but is never going to be the thing that separates him as a player. Like Green, Tockey focused too much on getting players to do better what they did poorly (or mediocrely) and paid too little attention to benefits that come from getting a player to do great what they currently do well.

Now, the great irony is that the team is currently assembled more in a manner where Tockey Hockey is the system that could maximize wins. It makes more sense now to play that way than ever -- and that's not a surprise as Allvin was trying to build a team for Tochett. We will see what Foote can do with it.

Chytl helped his case by being a good puck-handler who can succeed in controlled entries more often than not. Hard to shit on a guy getting controlled entries that lead to time in the O-zone with the puck instead of chasing. If only he could do something more than controlled entries on a consistent basis. You're right, though. He hadn't had Tockey-hockey drilled into him yet.

I think you may be on to something about Petey las season playing it safe vice trying to stickhandle and skate into the O-zone. If the coaches get on his case about not creating enough offensively, he could point to what he's doing and say he's doing what they told him to do. Almost as if he was telling them that he will work on what they (and likely Miller as well) want him to improve, but that's all he'll do out there. Didn't help that he was physically not his normal self. That's the problem with strictly enforcing players to play one way, regardless of the player: they will revert to doing what you told them to do, even if it isn't working, because it's the safe move. They can't tell you you're playing badly when you are doing what they told you to do.

We'll see which way Foote goes. At least he will have seen the results of Tocchet's approach. Hopefully he draws similar conclusions and modifies his approach in that regard.

Who the FUCK is Tochey or Tocky?