Satyar Shah

I don't think it changes anything for Rutherford long-term in terms of how he's viewed across the league because he's a Hall of Famer.

He's one of Stanley Cups.

So I don't think this is going to be a blemish.

And I think the way that he's gone towards the end here where he gets to kind of go out on his own accord to some degree takes away the whole idea of he got fired in Vancouver or whatever it happened.

So he gets to have a graceful exit.

But the tenure here in Vancouver, you can't view it as being successful because the man he picked as GM is gone.

Now you're looking at a completely different regime that's going to be taken over.

Right?

Yeah.

Yeah, and we have a lot of reaction on this on the Dunbar Lumber text inbox.

This one says, JR Era was a fail.

He was brought in to take the team out of the rebuild.

They're worse now than the Keenan comparison is a bad one.

That team was not as young as this one that they had to dismantle.

And fair point overall.

And like I said, I think the only way you can look at it as being a positive is the way we look at it and say, hey...

Those players that came in, whether it's a Wielander, hopefully, whether it's a DPD, whether it's the trade that brought Rossi, Booyum, and the first round pick in Orgrin in, they would look back and say, hey, that nucleus was at least formed and that allowed the team to move forward.

But that's something that also is dependent on that being successful down the road.

And that actually turns into a better era of Canucks hockey in many ways.

And I think the question now is...