Just What Do the Sedins Do?

[Meds]

Fucking Sharks.

Fucking every team that’s had a 1 OA.

Especially the last 2 ffs.

Just once you’d like to see something come our way!

Knowing our luck we’d end up with Alexandre Daigle 2.0 or the reincarnation of Yakupov.

[UWSaint]

Somethings UW mentioned, the nudge nudge wink wink discussions to vet FAs that may see a later role in head office for coming to town, this was addressed in the lead up to Free Agency this year. The issue came up regarding Tanev rumoured to take a very long term (final years on LTIR and bumped to head office later) deal to maximize overall dollars while reducing annual cap hit. An article I read reported the league had responded by saying they would be taking a close look at those later years as they play out and reiterated that promises of later office jobs was prohibited. The LTIR is policed with doctors reports, I'm not naive enough to think the nudge nudge wink wink have a look at this corner office discussions don't take place. This occurs with long term players, mainly career guys, Sedin or returning Linden prodigal sons, not as an enticement to lure FAs.

I agree it's most often used for long term players. But it was been used as an enticement (or the facts line up with the theory) in the case of Spezza. And I think if a player knows they want to get into management or coaching, working with great coaches, connected management, or getting a bump for the next step to build a resume for a job coaching in juniors (or wherever) is something that is enticing.

And yet I feel that for the Sedins, neither are fully committed to anything. Not yet, and they might not ever be. And since they are motivated by competition, until they get committed, they are unlikely to give what it takes to make a successful post-playing career out of anything. It is something to do that keeps them attached to the team and the sport without being exhausting. Like a hobby that pays a bit. But if they get the bug to be, say, NHL coaches, then I think you'd see them working much harder at it and eventually pushing the point to get a coaching job in the organization or to leave it.

As for the resumes of former players that get into scouting, coaching, and managing, Donny you are right that the Sedins have none of it. But understand that few had any significant experience in these things during their player career. Linden as a player rep certainly got a deeper side of business issues, players who run camps get a bit of experience skills coaching, etc. These are things you learn by doing, you find out if you are good at it by doing -- but first you need to be put in the right place.

As far as player fitness goes, I don't fit coaches/dudes in the organization have any more responsibility over such things than anyone else who it doesn't fall within their portfolio. Tochett and the Sedins strike me as very fit. But take the Sedins -- these guys were extremely disciplined and probably never had a big problem putting in the hours (in part because they competed with each other). I'm not even sure they could relate to players that don't have this mentality. Ultimately, the coach sets the expectations. The team employees has trainers to execute. The players have their personal trainers. The team hasn't played 100 games in a long time. They know a lot more about what it takes now.

[donlever]

And yet I feel that for the Sedins, neither are fully committed to anything.

...which begs a question (if true).

2 of the first individuals our youngsters interact with are not fully committed?

This perhaps speaks efficiently (in a microcosm) to a portion of Toppers overall point.

[2Fingers]

This might be too simple of an answer but to me it is more about marketing.

Just having them still affiliated with the team has many fans more connected to the team. Why did they bring Linder back at all, again IMO it was for the fans and the connection he has had with the team.

[Topper]

And yet I feel that for the Sedins, neither are fully committed to anything.

...which begs a question (if true).

2 of the first individuals our youngsters interact with are not fully committed?

This perhaps speaks efficiently (in a microcosm) to a portion of Toppers overall point.

The root of the topic.

I believe the only league approved LTIR office positions are in Department of Player Safety.

[UWSaint]

And yet I feel that for the Sedins, neither are fully committed to anything.

...which begs a question (if true).

2 of the first individuals our youngsters interact with are not fully committed?

This perhaps speaks efficiently (in a microcosm) to a portion of Toppers overall point.

I believe the only league approved LTIR office positions are in Department of Player Safety.

Good one, Topper....

Donny, when I say "fully committed," I mean fully committed to the coaching profession, the apex of which is an NHL head coach. They don't seem to have (or haven't observably behaved like) that's what they want. There's no reason to think that because they don't want that doesn't mean they can't provide some value to the AHL and NHL (and prospect camp players) they interact with. I expect "development" coaches are primarily skills coaches, with a little bit of psychology. You don't have to want to be an NHL coach to be able to impart knowledge and wisdom in these areas.

We've all had jobs where there are good employees who don't do the things it takes to get into management. They might work well and smart, but they insist on a work-life balance, they are jealous about their weekends at the cottage, they aren't much for volunteering for extra hours (unless they have a cottage improvement project planned that they need some extra scratch for), they are good with their own assigned tasks but wouldn't be the ones conceptualizing new solutions, they can be technically proficient but not have an interest in seeing or being responsible for the bigger picture (and may just not want to all of the non-technical things it takes to build internal and external relationships for uncertain organizational and/or personal payoffs). At the same time, this employee doesn't run down the employer, he just does his job, and pretty well. When a new employee is assigned to that work area, you aren't terribly worried about that the effect of this "non-committed to personal advancement or organizational advancement outside the portfolio" guy is going to have on the new employee when the new employee is learning the technical area.

Similarly, I don't think having the Sedins as a "sometimes" skills coach who spread a little "development" wisdom is going to have any negative effect on a new player. Just like the hockey camp you might have gone to as a kid gave you some technique about skating or positioning or shooting might have stuck with you throughout your playing days -- and yet the guys coaching at the camp are certainly doing so as a side gig they aren't committed to (unless they are running the camp and that's their main job). But they like interacting with the campers and they have some knowledge to share and can put together a decent plan and stay in the 90% world without tripling their time invested to get into the 95% world.

It is a bit strange to think of driven people, as the Sedins surely are, as converting to these type of employees that are shielding parts of their life from their professional ambitions. At the same time, part of retiring (I am sure) was to commit more to their families and to enjoy a little bit of what their hard work provided.

Last bit -- query whether a "committed" Sedin is better for the organization than a "we'll help here and there" Sedin. Ambition can be disruptive and good or disruptive and bad, because there's usually some competition within the organization going on unless they are demonstrating great acumen in an area where the incumbent us moving on to something better or the incumbent failed on their own accord. Being good but not clearly better than what's there just means they move along somewhere else to give it a go.

And one thing to worry about in an organization like this one is when ownership starts making calls about core elements of a coaching staff that the head coach or GM or President isn't on board with. We know the owner is perfectly hiring a head coach without a GM.... So the *best* place and head space for the Sedins to be in right now might very well be the one they appear to be in -- a true support role, in areas that are not threatening or challenging to current coaches, and in areas that are not likely to undermine a system. If they don't want more, then its far less likely the owner jumps over management and says, you know, I think Danny would be a great replacement for Mike Yeo, I am sure you'd agree.... But if they were in the owner's ear? (And surely they have it).

[rikster]

And yet I feel that for the Sedins, neither are fully committed to anything.

...which begs a question (if true).

2 of the first individuals our youngsters interact with are not fully committed?

This perhaps speaks efficiently (in a microcosm) to a portion of Toppers overall point.

I believe the only league approved LTIR office positions are in Department of Player Safety.

Good one, Topper....

Donny, when I say "fully committed," I mean fully committed to the coaching profession, the apex of which is an NHL head coach. They don't seem to have (or haven't observably behaved like) that's what they want. There's no reason to think that because they don't want that doesn't mean they can't provide some value to the AHL and NHL (and prospect camp players) they interact with. I expect "development" coaches are primarily skills coaches, with a little bit of psychology. You don't have to want to be an NHL coach to be able to impart knowledge and wisdom in these areas.

We've all had jobs where there are good employees who don't do the things it takes to get into management. They might work well and smart, but they insist on a work-life balance, they are jealous about their weekends at the cottage, they aren't much for volunteering for extra hours (unless they have a cottage improvement project planned that they need some extra scratch for), they are good with their own assigned tasks but wouldn't be the ones conceptualizing new solutions, they can be technically proficient but not have an interest in seeing or being responsible for the bigger picture (and may just not want to all of the non-technical things it takes to build internal and external relationships for uncertain organizational and/or personal payoffs). At the same time, this employee doesn't run down the employer, he just does his job, and pretty well. When a new employee is assigned to that work area, you aren't terribly worried about that the effect of this "non-committed to personal advancement or organizational advancement outside the portfolio" guy is going to have on the new employee when the new employee is learning the technical area.

Similarly, I don't think having the Sedins as a "sometimes" skills coach who spread a little "development" wisdom is going to have any negative effect on a new player. Just like the hockey camp you might have gone to as a kid gave you some technique about skating or positioning or shooting might have stuck with you throughout your playing days -- and yet the guys coaching at the camp are certainly doing so as a side gig they aren't committed to (unless they are running the camp and that's their main job). But they like interacting with the campers and they have some knowledge to share and can put together a decent plan and stay in the 90% world without tripling their time invested to get into the 95% world.

It is a bit strange to think of driven people, as the Sedins surely are, as converting to these type of employees that are shielding parts of their life from their professional ambitions. At the same time, part of retiring (I am sure) was to commit more to their families and to enjoy a little bit of what their hard work provided.

Last bit -- query whether a "committed" Sedin is better for the organization than a "we'll help here and there" Sedin. Ambition can be disruptive and good or disruptive and bad, because there's usually some competition within the organization going on unless they are demonstrating great acumen in an area where the incumbent us moving on to something better or the incumbent failed on their own accord. Being good but not clearly better than what's there just means they move along somewhere else to give it a go.

And one thing to worry about in an organization like this one is when ownership starts making calls about core elements of a coaching staff that the head coach or GM or President isn't on board with. We know the owner is perfectly hiring a head coach without a GM.... So the *best* place and head space for the Sedins to be in right now might very well be the one they appear to be in -- a true support role, in areas that are not threatening or challenging to current coaches, and in areas that are not likely to undermine a system. If they don't want more, then its far less likely the owner jumps over management and says, you know, I think Danny would be a great replacement for Mike Yeo, I am sure you'd agree.... But if they were in the owner's ear? (And surely they have it).

What started out as ignorance has deteriorated into feelings...

You feel that they are holding back based on what?

When you attack the character of 2 of the most respected individuals and Hall of Famers, you better bring more than a gut feeling...

Is there anywhere or anything in their past which would lead you to think that they are dogging it and not committing fully to the various roles they have had within the organization?...

And according to the man in charge of the Canucks top minor league affiliate, the Sedins deserve plenty of credit for the time they have put in and the work they have done to help develop the next wave of prospects in Abbotsford


The Sedins entered into a fast track management program when they felt ready to commit to the organization, where you draw such goofy conclusions to the contrary from is a head scratcher...

A real head scratcher...

[UWSaint]

What started out as ignorance has deteriorated into feelings...

You feel that they are holding back based on what?

When you attack the character of 2 of the most respected individuals and Hall of Famers, you better bring more than a gut feeling...

Is there anywhere or anything in their past which would lead you to think that they are dogging it and not committing fully to the various roles they have had within the organization?...

And according to the man in charge of the Canucks top minor league affiliate, the Sedins deserve plenty of credit for the time they have put in and the work they have done to help develop the next wave of prospects in Abbotsford


The Sedins entered into a fast track management program when they felt ready to commit to the organization, where you draw such goofy conclusions to the contrary from is a head scratcher...

A real head scratcher...

I haven't attacked their character at all. I've merely stated they don't seem driven to take over operating a club or a team. That's not a character flaw.

Nor is helping where you can to the extent you are comfortable managing all of life's priorities "dogging" it. I'm not saying they are doing the jobs they've had poorly or without any effort, only that they don't seem to have pushed for greater responsibility (possibly they did and were rebuffed). Half my post was how that's not necessarily a bad thing for them or the club.

They may be inching up in responsibility now -- perhaps they know more about what they want; perhaps the team knows more -- but there are plenty of former players who establish themselves more quickly in their chosen area, in part I think -- feel -- speculate -- whatever -- because the Sedins did not have a firm idea of what they wanted to do when they started working for the club. I think -- feel -- speculate that they may be putting the club first and not their post-hockey ambitions first, for whatever that's worth. They want to be in Vancouver, working for the Canucks, doing what the club thinks has utility. And that -- city of Vancouver, Canucks hockey organization -- is the thing that is the central priority, as opposed to the task to be performed. That interest could be born of loyalty, and it could be born of "this is where our life is and that's more important than what we do." Location first...a sentiment shared by many (most?) people (doggers and hard workers), especially were there are wives and kids and roots.

As for the bold, underline, italic bits, who wouldn't say this about people assisting their part of the organization when they are going to continue to be around -- whether you want them to be or whether Canucks ownership wants them to be? I'm not saying they haven't done good things for Abbotsford--I don't know, none of us (likely) know, I have lots of respect for the Sedins so I'd like to believe they are great teachers and influences--but I know that kind of statement has many audiences and what kind of fool runs an organization and says, "you know, I can't figure out why the people I partner with/report to insist on having these guys around." Hey, maybe there's a competition in the organization to have their time; we don't know that.

You think they entered a fast track management program because they were identified for management; I think the evidence is that they were identified as talent the club wanted to keep around and they've been exposed to different things to see if something clicks for them and for the club. And what clicked most is player development -- which is a low cost, low risk, nondisruptive interest. Stepping stone to more? Maybe. Or maybe its just the thing in itself.

And yes, I don't know for certain that they aren't ambitious in their post-hockey lives in terms of running an organization or being a head coach. I'm just sharing my two cents to the OP based on what I think is the best available evidence.

[rikster]

What started out as ignorance has deteriorated into feelings...

You feel that they are holding back based on what?

When you attack the character of 2 of the most respected individuals and Hall of Famers, you better bring more than a gut feeling...

Is there anywhere or anything in their past which would lead you to think that they are dogging it and not committing fully to the various roles they have had within the organization?...

And according to the man in charge of the Canucks top minor league affiliate, the Sedins deserve plenty of credit for the time they have put in and the work they have done to help develop the next wave of prospects in Abbotsford


The Sedins entered into a fast track management program when they felt ready to commit to the organization, where you draw such goofy conclusions to the contrary from is a head scratcher...

A real head scratcher...

I haven't attacked their character at all. I've merely stated they don't seem driven to take over operating a club or a team. That's not a character flaw.

Nor is helping where you can to the extent you are comfortable managing all of life's priorities "dogging" it. I'm not saying they are doing the jobs they've had poorly or without any effort, only that they don't seem to have pushed for greater responsibility (possibly they did and were rebuffed). Half my post was how that's not necessarily a bad thing for them or the club.

They may be inching up in responsibility now -- perhaps they know more about what they want; perhaps the team knows more -- but there are plenty of former players who establish themselves more quickly in their chosen area, in part I think -- feel -- speculate -- whatever -- because the Sedins did not have a firm idea of what they wanted to do when they started working for the club. I think -- feel -- speculate that they may be putting the club first and not their post-hockey ambitions first, for whatever that's worth. They want to be in Vancouver, working for the Canucks, doing what the club thinks has utility. And that -- city of Vancouver, Canucks hockey organization -- is the thing that is the central priority, as opposed to the task to be performed. That interest could be born of loyalty, and it could be born of "this is where our life is and that's more important than what we do." Location first...a sentiment shared by many (most?) people (doggers and hard workers), especially were there are wives and kids and roots.

As for the bold, underline, italic bits, who wouldn't say this about people assisting their part of the organization when they are going to continue to be around -- whether you want them to be or whether Canucks ownership wants them to be? I'm not saying they haven't done good things for Abbotsford--I don't know, none of us (likely) know, I have lots of respect for the Sedins so I'd like to believe they are great teachers and influences--but I know that kind of statement has many audiences and what kind of fool runs an organization and says, "you know, I can't figure out why the people I partner with/report to insist on having these guys around." Hey, maybe there's a competition in the organization to have their time; we don't know that.

You think they entered a fast track management program because they were identified for management; I think the evidence is that they were identified as talent the club wanted to keep around and they've been exposed to different things to see if something clicks for them and for the club. And what clicked most is player development -- which is a low cost, low risk, nondisruptive interest. Stepping stone to more? Maybe. Or maybe its just the thing in itself.

And yes, I don't know for certain that they aren't ambitious in their post-hockey lives in terms of running an organization or being a head coach. I'm just sharing my two cents to the OP based on what I think is the best available evidence.

The fast track managment program is a common practise in both the corporate world and in the NHL...there are a number of former players who have risen to managment positions who were trained under this program...

Understanding how it works might put to rest some of your concerns over their "lack of ambition" or "dogging it"...

What evidence have you found to the contrary?

[UWSaint]

The fast track managment program is a common practise in both the corporate world and in the NHL...there are a number of former players who have risen to managment positions who were trained under this program...

Understanding how it works might put to rest some of your concerns over their "lack of ambition" or "dogging it"...

What evidence have you found to the contrary?

I don’t have concern over them dogging it. I never said they were.

The evidence I have for my working theories is in each of my posts. It isn’t conclusive. Attack it on its merits, if you wish, provide a better explanation based on the little we know. (We don’t know that much about the inner workings of the organization and we know less about the motivations of the individuals involved). I know you can make claims and support them with arguments without resorting to mischaracterizing what I said or resorting to “if you were smart like me” arguments. News flash—informed people can come to different conclusions (here, less than conclusion, like theories) based on the same set of know facts.

I know how fast track management theory works. Fart. It’s another in a long line of trendy leadership development theories. And it starts exactly as I described as the alternative view of what’s going on—take a talented person, expose them to multiple elements of an organization. The theory is that this hands on 360 exposure can made better leaders for the organization as a whole.

And yet if the end goal isn’t met—do you think they are being groomed for Rutherford’s job when he retires?—the breadth exposure can also identify smaller subject matches.

[rikster]

It’s another in a long line of trendy leadership development theories.

Trendy? it was how I made my way up the managment ladder in the 80's and back then was a program modeled after a UK program...

Years later, I used scaled down versions of the program to promote within my companies...

What is trendy is that some today do not want to learn from the ground up and would rather begin their careers at the highest floor...

I consider this another example of the Sedins character, I'm sure that they could have leveraged their legacy into executive positions rather than hands on learning ...

Who would have thought that this would be turned around to accuse them of not trying or dogging it or being ineffective?

[UWSaint]

It’s another in a long line of trendy leadership development theories.

Trendy? it was how I made my way up the management ladder in the 80's and back then was a program modeled after a UK program...

Years later, I used scaled down versions of the program to promote within my companies...

What is trendy is that some today do not want to learn from the ground up and would rather begin their careers at the highest floor...

I consider this another example of the Sedins character, I'm sure that they could have leveraged their legacy into executive positions rather than hands on learning ...

Who would have thought that this would be turned around to accuse them of not trying or dogging it or being ineffective?

Yes. Trendy. Its something that comes in and out of fashion, like nearly all management theories. Like hockey teams thinking they need to get bigger. Then getting beat by a faster team. So thinking they need to be faster. But then getting beat by a more skilled team. So thinking they need to be more skilled and offensive minded. But then getting beat by a deeper team playing team defense. So thinking they need to be deeper and more disciplined. And then getting beat by a faster team. So thinking they need to be faster. And then getting beat by a bigger team. Recycle.

That you've been trained and then trained others with this technique doesn't make it a universally admired, deployed, and effective technique. It doesn't mean it works for all personalities, for all organizations, or in all situations.

Rather than just invoking the management theory, Rikster, why don't you offer what you think the *end* of this theory's application is for the Sedins and argue why what we've seen supports that position. If you are correct, then the Canucks are running them through a program for a purpose, there has to be *to an end* for the organization (and the Sedins). Grooming them to take over as co-Presidents? If so, share with us why you think that is a good idea for the Canucks (or the Sedins). Is it something else?

All I've said on this is that the 360 exposure is more designed to find a fit for their talent and interests than anything else. Its a theory that may be right, it may be wrong, but it fits the known facts.

And for the 3rd time, I am not accusing the Sedins of dogging it or not trying. I've questioned whether they know what they want with their post-hockey career -- to my knowledge, they haven't announced what that is. I've speculated they are balancing life's priorities (geography and organization, for example, as a potentially non-negotiable limiting factor on career ambition). And I've said a great deal of their success comes from their competitive nature, and question how that attribute translates with an uncertain goal or end. (I'd also question how it translates in a world where "Canucks organization" is a non-negotiable, because competition is internal (hence potentially disruptive), and along with being competitive, they also paradoxically appear to have a cooperative personality attribute).

Ultimately, the debate comes down to this:

Claim 1
The Sedins are being groomed for upper management.
(My evidence for this is X, this is good because Y (or this is bad because Z)).

Claim 2
The Canucks wish to keep the Sedins in the fold in an assistant capacity, doing things they want to do so long as its not a negative for the organization, looking for the right fit.
(My evidence for this is X, this is good because Y (or this is bad because Z)).

Claims 1 and 2 can have variants depending on what the Sedins want. Their interests might be aligned with the Canucks initial interest or not. They might want to be co-Presidents and the Canucks might see that as disruptive and the Sedins are slow playing. Alternatively, they might not want to be groomed, but they are being recruited because the Canucks see the talent and they are banking that the interest will follow. In that scenario, the Canucks are slow playing. See the possibilities, without responsibility, and then offer the responsibility when they want to take it. And interests of both the Sedins and the Canucks are dynamic. Its very likely that what they wanted in 2019 is different than today, and it becomes different as the organization evolves, as there is more exposure, as kids grow up, etc.