Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
- - - - -

Prepare For Another Lockout


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
74 replies to this topic

#1 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,975 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 30 May 2012 - 09:47 AM

THE BAD NEWS
-Firstly, the two sides haven't even talked about any of the issues yet, which is insane in itself.
-The last lockout resulted in many errors with the cba. Errors that need correcting, according to the owners.
-The players feel that they've already given up far too much.
-The owners feel that another lockout wouldn't kill off fan interest, as shown by even-growing revenues since the last lockout. ie. Prepare for more rules changes that will kill off the slow and interference-filled hockey that we've seen for most of this season. (Hey was it a coincidence that this pre-lockout season was slow and interference-filled? No. The easiest way for the league to get fans back again is to open up the game again.)
-The NHL has issued an official statement to the NHLPA that they would like the current CBA terminated.
-GM's have cancelled rookie camps.
-The KHL has opened their arms to all returning Russians, excluding their salaries from cap hits.
-Rumblings from other European teams signing UFAs like Pahlsson.

OWNERS
-The owners want a 50-50 revenue split with the players. It's currently 57% for the players.
-There are still too many teams bleeding money under the current cba. A team has moved (Atlanta), and a team may still have to move imminently (Phoenix).
-The salary cap floor is too high for a lot of teams.
-Owners want a contract term limit.
-They also want to be rid of contracts they don't want anymore, restructuring current buyout rules.
-The owners need to settle their own problems regarding revenue sharing. Rich teams are tired of bailing out poor ones, but poor ones don't like the high cap floor and the withering away of their competitiveness compared to the initial post-2005 lockout seasons. That internal battle will likely be taken out on the players again.


PLAYERS
-The players hired a bulldog to replace their bending-over rep from the previous lockout.
-The players' rejection of the NHL's proposed re-alignment was an indication that they're prepared to stand their ground this time.
-Players are concerned that too much of their earnings is going to escrow in order to prop-up lame duck teams. Currently, up to 12.5% of their paycheck goes to escrow, then that money gets divided among the players and teams to ensure the proper revenue split is met.


THE GOOD NEWS
-League revenues continue to reach record highs, almost doubling the last pre-lockout season.
-The cap continues to rise. Good news for owners.
-The league will continue to prosper, no matter how many labour disputes they have, because we as fans are suckers. At least that's the thinking by the league.
-Hey, now Kesler will have all the time he needs to heal.
-The problems are fewer than in 2005, so in theory the lockout will be shorter. In theory. Cheers.


TOML

"We are being played for suckers."
Posted Image

#2 Shift-4

Shift-4

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,452 posts
  • Joined: 11-August 06

Posted 30 May 2012 - 09:55 AM

Bring it on

I have stopped giving a crap about hockey anyways
Hockey is the only sport, the rest are just games.

#3 goalie13

goalie13

    Osgoodian One

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,097 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 07

Posted 30 May 2012 - 09:59 AM

Funny, as much as the players felt they lost in the last CBA, they are making far more money than they ever have.

-Players are concerned that too much of their earnings is going to escrow in order to prop-up lame duck teams. Currently, up to 12.5% of their paycheck goes to escrow, then that money gets divided among the players and teams to ensure the proper revenue split is met.


If this last bit is correct, then I totally misunderstood escrow.

I thought it was money withheld from the players until the end of the year when it would be determined if the league met its revenue targets. The cap is based on projections of what the league would earn in the coming season, and the cap is a percentage of those revenues, so if the league didn't take in what it predicted, then the withheld money (or portion of) would not be returned to the players. If the league did hit its revenue predictions, then the players would get all of the money they paid into escrow back.
Posted Image

#4 avelanch

avelanch

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 33,339 posts
  • Joined: 23-March 07

Posted 30 May 2012 - 10:00 AM

after this joke of a year changes are clearly needed. I've become somewhat jaded, to be honest, I think I'll stick to the AHL and junior leagues if there really is a lockout.

#5 Spotted Zebra

Spotted Zebra

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,998 posts
  • Joined: 07-January 07

Posted 30 May 2012 - 10:05 AM

They can't afford a whole season lost.

WORST case scenario has to be 1 or two months gone.
With the NBA and NFL surving a lockout scare the NHL needs to have a season to stay relevent in the US.

Just look at the kings, the joke is that they're the 9th most popular team in LA
Posted Image
Thanks Vintage Canuck!

#6 Brother Power

Brother Power

    K-Wing Regular

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 45 posts
  • Joined: 18-November 11

Posted 30 May 2012 - 10:07 AM

1 st thing:
no way the NHLPA lets the owners disolve say 1 contract per team without that player becoming UFA. So lets say that you don't like Louie's contract and want to erase it, be prepaired for him to walk for nothing.


2nd:
If I was an Edmonton fan I'd be praying for a strike to start the day after this years draft and running until the day before next years draft, Nail and MacKinnen and everyones current contract staying the same but the players 1 year older(and better).

#7 terrible.dee

terrible.dee

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,168 posts
  • Joined: 23-September 09

Posted 30 May 2012 - 10:07 AM

The biggest problem facing this league is the incredibly BORING style of hockey they allow teams to play. These playoffs have been hard for real fans to watch, I can only imagine what casual sports fans think.

It's time for drastic rule changes that insure we never have to watch crap like this again.

I also find it funny that the Devils, who brought boring hockey to the NHL all those years ago (The NHL has never really recovered from since thier win in 95) are about to win the cup.

#8 BoKnows53

BoKnows53

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 609 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 11

Posted 30 May 2012 - 10:12 AM

How aboUt calling the game the same way in the playoffs as the regular season.

#9 TheCammer

TheCammer

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,597 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 08

Posted 30 May 2012 - 10:16 AM

Another lockout this soon after the last one would be disastrous for hockey.
Posted Image

#10 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,975 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 30 May 2012 - 10:19 AM

POSSIBLE IMPLICATIONS:

1. The inevitable rules changes means that teams who bring a lot of offense to the table will benefit the most from the post 2012-13 lockout. So Gillis was right in that the league changes in that regard.

(On the other hand, a team that traded Hodgson for Kassian might not benefit as much.) But a team that promotes a much speedier and flashier Jordan Schroeder might benefit more. Hmmm...

'Wide-open hockey' teams like and TO & Edmonton may see their performance improve dramatically from their current 'god-awful' performance level. Esp. Edmonton, who has a few young stars ready for a significant breakout.

Detroit, Philly, Chicago and Pittsburgh will all reap large benefits.


2. Still, the rich teams will get richer after the lockout. TO, Boston, Detroit, NYR and Philly will continue to flourish, money-wise.

3. Poor teams will get poorer. While the Coyotes might be saved, nobody will want to see a team that still can't compete without league assistance. Nashville will likely continue to lose their stars. Florida, Carolina and TB might have their futures dimmed unless the league steps in.

4. Teams hampered by the cap will be able to ditch bad contracts. Montreal and perhaps Tampa Bay come to mind. NYR has Redden's contract, but they've already buried it.

5. Slowish, clutch 'n grab teams will take a hit, performance-wise. Good-bye, NYR inflated record. See ya, Nashville success. Sayonara, Minnesota Wild. And even the Zdeno Chara-led Bruins may see a dip.

6. Cast-off players like Alex Semin may see their value increase quite a bit. That's if he doesn't bolt to Russia.

7. For the short-term, i can see Tampa Bay being the team to push the hardest for a post-lockout cup. They have some aging stars combined with a young superstar. They've made it to round three just recently and they could go all the way with a couple tweaks.

8. Where does Vancouver fit? Well, that depends on what Gillis does to improve his team during all this time off. The cap will go up, yes, but it goes up for ALL teams. Freeing up the Sedins will be nice, but Crosby, Datsyuk, Toews and Giroux will be freed up as well.

Perhaps Vancouver should maintain it's two-headed goaltending advantage for now. It could be a difference-maker. Cheers.


TOML
Posted Image

#11 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,092 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 30 May 2012 - 10:49 AM

The moment the Cup is handed out, they'd be wise to buck up and get it done asap - taking their fan base for granted is arrogant and bad business, particularly in a tough economic climate.

#12 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,975 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 30 May 2012 - 10:50 AM

You'd also think that a 'loosening-up' of the game would see Ballard's and Gragnani's value go up. As well as Raymond's, Booth's, etc. At least for the short term.

But how about Kassian? The kid has some speed and hands for his size. Maybe if he can find his legs for a whole season then his value will climb high.

In the playoffs you're still going to need some bangers. Esp. speedy, top-6 bangers. That's why the biggest acquisition by a team in the prolonged off-season might not even be Parise, Weber or Suter. It might be Rick Nash. Lord knows Kassian isn't there yet and he never will be. Cheers.


TOML
Posted Image

#13 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,975 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 30 May 2012 - 10:57 AM

If this last bit is correct, then I totally misunderstood escrow.

I thought it was money withheld from the players until the end of the year when it would be determined if the league met its revenue targets. The cap is based on projections of what the league would earn in the coming season, and the cap is a percentage of those revenues, so if the league didn't take in what it predicted, then the withheld money (or portion of) would not be returned to the players. If the league did hit its revenue predictions, then the players would get all of the money they paid into escrow back.

Yeah, i stopped reading about yawn-inducing escrow after a few sentences, so my understanding of it is sheepish at best. Basically, the players don't like their take-home pay being cut to benefit some crap league-owned team in the desert? But yeah they'll get their money back if whatever is determined. Something like that? I dunno.

Something for the players to complain about.
Posted Image

#14 Heretic

Heretic

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,510 posts
  • Joined: 08-April 07

Posted 30 May 2012 - 11:01 AM

I could care less what millionaire players want.
If there's a lockout - shame on them.

McCoy: We were speculating. Is God really out there?
Kirk: Maybe he's not out there, Bones. Maybe he's right here. [points to his heart]

Posted Image


#15 Spotted Zebra

Spotted Zebra

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,998 posts
  • Joined: 07-January 07

Posted 30 May 2012 - 11:07 AM

Pointing out how much atheletes make is the weakest excuse.
If they make 50,000, would a lockout be acceptable?
Posted Image
Thanks Vintage Canuck!

#16 Snake Doctor

Snake Doctor

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,760 posts
  • Joined: 30-September 08

Posted 30 May 2012 - 11:12 AM

I don't think they will come to an agreement any time soon or before next season. I think they will just keep the same agreement in place for another year and fight it out while the regular season is played.
Posted Image


#17 goalie13

goalie13

    Osgoodian One

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,097 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 07

Posted 30 May 2012 - 11:15 AM

I think they will just keep the same agreement in place for another year and fight it out while the regular season is played.


The NHL has already passed on that option. I don't think there is any turning back now.
Posted Image

#18 Lonny_Bohonos_14

Lonny_Bohonos_14

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,007 posts
  • Joined: 20-January 09

Posted 30 May 2012 - 11:20 AM

I could care less what millionaire players want.
If there's a lockout - shame on them.


Because it's all on them. Unlike those innocent owners <_<

Posted Image

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#19 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,975 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 30 May 2012 - 11:25 AM

I could care less what millionaire players want.
If there's a lockout - shame on them.

Lockout: By the owners.
Strike: By the players.

No talk of a player strike since '92. But the 94-95 lockout resulted in the players 'winning' (ie. certain owners gave up) and the result was the end of the Winnipeg Jets and Quebec Nordiques.

The owners who broke away from the league during that lockout and gave up were from rich franchises who could care less where the Jets and Nords played. The major player there was TO, who stood to draw in more Canada-wide revenue for themselves is the Jets and Nords moved down south. NYR, Philly and Detroit were the other major teams who decided to give that labour win to the players.

The players meanwhile, got their wish and sacrificed 'doomed' small franchises to reap major cash rewards. Joe Sakic, Keith Tkachuk and Pavel Bure, to name a few.

The league, disgusted by the players' victory, seemed to let the game regress into an interferece-filled trap fest that was brutal to watch as a fan and insanely frustrating to skate in as a player. Part of the reasoning might be that with less offensive stats, the salaries may be kept artificially lower. Another reason is that small market teams like Minnesota can be more effective if they can trap talented teams to death.

If that pattern keeps up, then if the league loses this lockout coming up we will see more of the same crap-style hockey we're seeing today. At least it's not late-90's level now, but it could become that way fairly soon. If the owners lose.


Bottomline is the players and the owners don't really care about the fans as much as they care about money. The players will gladly kill-off teams and their respective fanbases to line their pockets and the owners will gladly kill-off a season to line theirs even more later on. Cheers.


TOML
Posted Image

#20 Heretic

Heretic

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,510 posts
  • Joined: 08-April 07

Posted 30 May 2012 - 11:30 AM

Because it's all on them. Unlike those innocent owners <_<


I never said the owners were innocent of anything - I said it's the players fault if there's a lockout.

Please tell me you're not feeling sorry for those that make over $4 million a year yet score less than 20 goals?

I said it before and I'll say it again - there needs to be a pay for performance system - not just an outright "pay the players whatever they want" or what some rich arbitrator decides....

McCoy: We were speculating. Is God really out there?
Kirk: Maybe he's not out there, Bones. Maybe he's right here. [points to his heart]

Posted Image


#21 Lonny_Bohonos_14

Lonny_Bohonos_14

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,007 posts
  • Joined: 20-January 09

Posted 30 May 2012 - 11:33 AM

I never said the owners were innocent of anything - I said it's the players fault if there's a lockout.

Please tell me you're not feeling sorry for those that make over $4 million a year yet score less than 20 goals?

I said it before and I'll say it again - there needs to be a pay for performance system - not just an outright "pay the players whatever they want" or what some rich arbitrator decides....


Pretty sure it was the owners who decided to terminate this CBA in September.

Lockout: By the owners.
Strike: By the players.

No talk of a player strike since '92. But the 94-95 lockout resulted in the players 'winning' (ie. certain owners gave up) and the result was the end of the Winnipeg Jets and Quebec Nordiques.

The owners who broke away from the league during that lockout and gave up were from rich franchises who could care less where the Jets and Nords played. The major player there was TO, who stood to draw in more Canada-wide revenue for themselves is the Jets and Nords moved down south. NYR, Philly and Detroit were the other major teams who decided to give that labour win to the players.

The players meanwhile, got their wish and sacrificed 'doomed' small franchises to reap major cash rewards. Joe Sakic, Keith Tkachuk and Pavel Bure, to name a few.

The league, disgusted by the players' victory, seemed to let the game regress into an interferece-filled trap fest that was brutal to watch as a fan and insanely frustrating to skate in as a player. Part of the reasoning might be that with less offensive stats, the salaries may be kept artificially lower. Another reason is that small market teams like Minnesota can be more effective if they can trap talented teams to death.

If that pattern keeps up, then if the league loses this lockout coming up we will see more of the same crap-style hockey we're seeing today. At least it's not late-90's level now, but it could become that way fairly soon. If the owners lose.


Bottomline is the players and the owners don't really care about the fans as much as they care about money. The players will gladly kill-off teams and their respective fanbases to line their pockets and the owners will gladly kill-off a season to line theirs even more later on. Cheers.


TOML


This

Posted Image

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#22 Heretic

Heretic

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,510 posts
  • Joined: 08-April 07

Posted 30 May 2012 - 11:37 AM

Pretty sure it was the owners who decided to terminate this CBA in September.



This


And why would they terminate it?

McCoy: We were speculating. Is God really out there?
Kirk: Maybe he's not out there, Bones. Maybe he's right here. [points to his heart]

Posted Image


#23 Ṣpiderman

Ṣpiderman

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,455 posts
  • Joined: 18-September 11

Posted 30 May 2012 - 11:54 AM

Some of you guys find this kind of hockey boring because teams can actually play defense?

Our team can't play defense and everyone is complaining? If we were capable of playing tight defensive hockey, would anyone complain?

Exciting hockey is just a game filled with mistakes. Seems like some people still have trouble understanding the game. Sure watching 6-7 goals a game is nice, but the defense looks like a joke.

Posted Image


#24 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,975 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 30 May 2012 - 11:58 AM

http://www.thehockey...e-to-NHLPA.html

May 16, 2012. NHL files CBA termination notice to NHLPA



While the playoffs have been going on, the league has quietly been going about it's business to essentially start the beginnings of a lockout. They could've extended the current CBA by another year, but chose not to. They must feel they're going to get what they want. Cheers.


TOML


Posted Image

#25 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,975 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 30 May 2012 - 12:00 PM

Some of you guys find this kind of hockey boring because teams can actually play defense?

Our team can't play defense and everyone is complaining? If we were capable of playing tight defensive hockey, would anyone complain?

Exciting hockey is just a game filled with mistakes. Seems like some people still have trouble understanding the game. Sure watching 6-7 goals a game is nice, but the defense looks like a joke.

Maybe, but would you be willing to kill off a chunk of a season to see more of that, but way worse, later on?

btw We won the Jennings recently. That involves what? Defense?
Posted Image

#26 realnucksfan2010

realnucksfan2010

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 238 posts
  • Joined: 22-November 10

Posted 30 May 2012 - 12:22 PM

I hope there is a lock out, mabey the owners will wake up a get rid of Peewee.................oops I mean betman! There is reason why the NBA fired this guy and now the hockey world is also seeing why, wake up owners and can this idiot!!!!!
All of the rule changes are a joke, put the game back to the pre betman era and everything will level out and be fine. Just my opinion.

#27 Provost

Provost

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,805 posts
  • Joined: 05-September 03

Posted 30 May 2012 - 12:29 PM

The players are still unhappy with the cap... even though it has done pretty darn well for them in the end. I don't see them being particularly interested in reducing their percentage to fix the league's problems.

They will very reasonably say that the league needs to figure out some revenue sharing if they want parity, and it isn't all on the players to make it happen in spite of bad decisions by the league and individual teams.

An interesting note about the health of the league is that both teams in the SCF are reported to be for sale.... never mind the other half a dozen teams that are losing money/for sale.

It is currently not a sustainable model, the small market and poorly located teams keep having to spend more for the cap floor. Moving the worst revenue teams to higher revenue markets only makes it worse as that makes the overall league revenue increase and bump the cap floor up even more.

Revenue sharing is the only real way to fix things. There are some ridiculously rich teams that can afford this with no issue.
Protons have mass? I didn't even know they were Catholic!

#28 Ṣpiderman

Ṣpiderman

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,455 posts
  • Joined: 18-September 11

Posted 30 May 2012 - 12:55 PM

Maybe, but would you be willing to kill off a chunk of a season to see more of that, but way worse, later on?

btw We won the Jennings recently. That involves what? Defense?


It doesn't matter to me. I enjoy the game anyhow it's played. The strategy is proven effective.

We won the Jennings but that's because we spent a majority of the season in the offensive zone dominating the opposition. We ran teams to the ground. Our team's defensive system has always been "poor".

Ehrhoff was poor defensively getting beat from the outside with speed and Bieksa was always caught fishing for the puck instead of taking the body/stick of the player.

Posted Image


#29 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,306 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 30 May 2012 - 12:58 PM

I think goalie13 is right Tom, the escrow is there to make sure the owners meet their revenue share. The players may or may not get the money back.

The other thing about your OP that struck me was the mention of the hiring of Donald Fehr. I agree that he won't be pushed around, but I don't agree that Goodenough "bent over". From what I can tell, he was advising the PA to "stay the course", but it was various factions within the PA that caved.

Of course, you're correct in that another work stoppage is a definite possibility, but one would hope that with the Cap projected at about double what was agreed on in the last go 'round, that common sense will prevail.

Unfortunately, common sense doesn't seem to be all that common between these two sides....
Orland Kurtenbach and Dennis Kearns had just been torched 8-1 by the Habs, but they still took time to come out to meet us, some fellow BC boys who were playing hockey in Montreal. THAT"S what being a Canuck is!

#30 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,975 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 30 May 2012 - 01:24 PM

It doesn't matter to me. I enjoy the game anyhow it's played. The strategy is proven effective.

We won the Jennings but that's because we spent a majority of the season in the offensive zone dominating the opposition. We ran teams to the ground. Our team's defensive system has always been "poor".

Ehrhoff was poor defensively getting beat from the outside with speed and Bieksa was always caught fishing for the puck instead of taking the body/stick of the player

Hey that's nice, but nevertheless the NHL followed it's last lockout with a barrage of goals for a couple of seasons. It's pretty safe to say that will happen again. Probably to a lesser degree this time, but it's going to happen. If the owners win.

If the owners lose (doubtful), then we could see your wish of dull-looking hockey granted. Cheers.


TOML
Posted Image




Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.