Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

Luongo Trade Theory 101


  • Please log in to reply
418 replies to this topic

#361 Pears

Pears

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,218 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 11

Posted 19 December 2012 - 10:27 PM

And I believe if either Florida played for the Canucks, they would /could have done as well as Lou and would Lou have had success with Florida. We each have our own opinion.

I think with our system Theodore might put up numbers similar to Schneider's 2010-11 season, Clemmensen a tad worse.
  • 0

In my eyes drouin is overrated he can score in the qmjhl but did nothing in last two gold medal games that canada lost. Fox will be better pro than him talk to me in five yrs

Gaudreau has one NHL goal whereas all your "prized" prospects have none.

   ryan kesler is going to the chicago blackhawks ...       quote me on it


#362 Riviera82

Riviera82

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,555 posts
  • Joined: 15-February 11

Posted 20 December 2012 - 08:58 AM

Who's better? Luongo, Clemmensen or Theodore? Which one of those is a proven, star #1 goalie, and which other 2 are average starters/backups.


That's hard to say. On one hand, Theodore and Clemmensen backstopped the Panthers into the playoffs, something which Luongo couldn't do. On the other hand, Luongo has far more impressive regular season stats in his career.
Theodore is past his prime and Clemmenson is pretty much a career backup. I think Luongo is better than both of them but Theodore has a much more impressive trophy case. If Theodore played for the Canucks over the last couple of years I think he could post Luongoesque statistics, and maybe better in the playoffs.
  • 0

#363 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 20 December 2012 - 09:44 AM

Once again, if Luongo has a bad contract, how would getting him for even a low grade prospect (a contract for a contract trade) do anything to off-set all of these negatives? You acknowledge that Luongo is a good player, but that is not the point to which I am seeking an answer from you.

You talk about the cap hit, the actual salary payments, the term remaining on the deal, Luongo's age, heck, we could even toss in that he got the Canucks to game 7 of the finals and didn't win the Cup. All of that stuff makes Luongo not a desirable guy to pick up.

Assume Tallon said he'd give a guy who was the Panthers 9th round pick from 4 years ago for Luongo, and Gillis said yes. Does Luongo's term get shorter? Does his cap hit go down? Does Luongo get younger? Does his take home pay shrink?

How does Tallon trying to get Luongo at a fire sale price reduce the impact of all of these negatives? And frankly, just because they wouldn't have to give up much of anything to get him isn't a very good answer. Do you have any others?


Because there's a price at which anybody becomes valuable. Simple. Florida has made it clear that at a cost of Nick Bjugstad, Roberto Luongo has low value, and they're thus not willing to trade.

Edited by King of the ES, 20 December 2012 - 09:47 AM.

  • 0

#364 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 20 December 2012 - 09:45 AM

On the other hand, you talk about how viable these guys are - Florida has Theodore and Clemmenson - they don't really need Luongo - so clearly a guy who is 36 years old is a reasonable starter, and probably will be for another few years, when he'll be 38. Undermines your insistance that Luongo's age and term is such a problem, doesn't it. Luongo in 5 years will be 38, and at the end of his real contract / into the cap circumvention years - when his salary drops off to 3.3, 1.6, 1.0 and 1.0 million...


They also have that Jakob Markstrom guy.
  • 0

#365 Canuck Surfer

Canuck Surfer

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,785 posts
  • Joined: 27-December 10

Posted 20 December 2012 - 12:17 PM

Because there's a price at which anybody becomes valuable. Simple. Florida has made it clear that at a cost of Nick Bjugstad, Roberto Luongo has low value, and they're thus not willing to trade.


I read they put Bjugstad on the table and the ball was in Vancouver's court at one point; Vancouver held out for more value on other players as they also wanted to someone that could help them this year. And Florida is positioned to move him. Florida also has two other legit top centre prospects Huberdeau (who is rated higher than Bjuggy) and Howden + Goc, Mathias, Santorelli, Mueller, and a bum named Weiss already established on their roster. In short; they most certainly have the depth at centre, both in prospects and in their line up, where it makes a lot of sense for them to deal for need.

And with all due respect; conversations relating to Clemmenson in particular but also Theodore in the same breath as Luongo are stupid. Until this past season Lou was second only to Hasek in career save %. He's a better goalie. And Markstrom seems to have taken a big step backwards this year (save % .928 down to .910).

As MacLean mentioned; Florida would want to give all their young guns and top prospects every chance to have adequate goaltending as thy move into an era that could be exciting to them.

They also have that Jakob Markstrom guy.


Edited by Canuck Surfer, 20 December 2012 - 12:19 PM.

  • 1

#366 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,736 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 20 December 2012 - 12:37 PM

Because there's a price at which anybody becomes valuable. Simple. Florida has made it clear that at a cost of Nick Bjugstad, Roberto Luongo has low value, and they're thus not willing to trade.


Nope. Not buying that argument.

You infer that Luongo and his contract are so terrible, that trading for him would be a mistake by any franchise. None of those negatives go away, whether the price is Nick Bjugstad or RJ Boyd.

Assuming the Panthers have an internal cap which cannot support Luongo, or if they do not want to marry themselves to all 6 - 10 years left on his contract, getting him for "nothing" will not make it all better.

Do you want to try and make the point that having Luongo in goal will improve the team's results and therefore the amount taken in at the gate, so therefore he will pay for himself? You can, and it would probably be true, however this also argues against your claims that getting Luongo will, in a financial sense, be a bad thing, no?

regards,
G.
  • 0
Following the Canucks since before Don Cherry played here.

#367 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 20 December 2012 - 03:48 PM

Nope. Not buying that argument.

You infer that Luongo and his contract are so terrible, that trading for him would be a mistake by any franchise. None of those negatives go away, whether the price is Nick Bjugstad or RJ Boyd.


Where did I say that Luongo was "terrible"? Let's see some evidence, CSI.

You're lieing through your teeth because you don't understand what I'm saying. Luongo's contract is very, very risky, and teams know that we're being forced to move him, so they're not going to want to pay very much for him. If there was any team out there that wanted Luongo bad enough to pay Gillis' asking price, this deal would've already been made.
  • 0

#368 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,192 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 20 December 2012 - 04:46 PM

That's hard to say. On one hand, Theodore and Clemmensen backstopped the Panthers into the playoffs, something which Luongo couldn't do. On the other hand, Luongo has far more impressive regular season stats in his career.
Theodore is past his prime and Clemmenson is pretty much a career backup. I think Luongo is better than both of them but Theodore has a much more impressive trophy case. If Theodore played for the Canucks over the last couple of years I think he could post Luongoesque statistics, and maybe better in the playoffs.


Thoedore isn't the Hart Trophy winner he once was, hasn't been at that calibre for awhile. The 2 aren't even on the same level anymore and haven't been since Jose got traded from MTL honestly (JT and RL)
  • 0

zackass.png


#369 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,736 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 20 December 2012 - 05:14 PM

Where did I say that Luongo was "terrible"? Let's see some evidence, CSI.


Nice attempt at deflection. I believe I wrote "Luongo and his contract". If you choose to take that as meaning that Luongo is terrible, then so be it.


You're lieing through your teeth because you don't understand what I'm saying. Luongo's contract is very, very risky, and teams know that we're being forced to move him, so they're not going to want to pay very much for him. If there was any team out there that wanted Luongo bad enough to pay Gillis' asking price, this deal would've already been made.


I don't recall making an attempt at lying, and I do understand what your point is. You however do not seem to understand, or are just unwilling to provide an answer to my point: If Luongo's contract is so bad, and it has so many risks, why would any team be interested in acquiring Luongo, regardless of the price tag?

You also continue to disregard issues like the impact of the CBA negotiations on this process. If a Luongo deal was being discussed after the 2010 - 11 season, this deal would've already been made.

regards,
G.
  • 0
Following the Canucks since before Don Cherry played here.

#370 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,078 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 20 December 2012 - 06:09 PM

They also have that Jakob Markstrom guy.


Ah, I'll take that as "uncle" and thus, changing the subject.
  • 1

#371 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 20 December 2012 - 06:22 PM

You however do not seem to understand, or are just unwilling to provide an answer to my point: If Luongo's contract is so bad, and it has so many risks, why would any team be interested in acquiring Luongo, regardless of the price tag?


The answer is the same as my last post's; everybody is attractive at a certain price point.

Who's the worst contract in the league? Bryzgalov? Leafs might have interest if Philly would take Komisarek or Connolly in exchange, for example.
  • 0

#372 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 20 December 2012 - 06:25 PM

Ah, I'll take that as "uncle" and thus, changing the subject.


You're saying that Markstrom's not a factor?

A very highly-touted goaltending prospect might affect their desire/need to pick up a 34 year-old with 9 years left on his deal, I would think. Not changing the subject at all, merely uncovering more information for you.
  • 0

#373 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,192 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 20 December 2012 - 06:33 PM

You're saying that Markstrom's not a factor?

A very highly-touted goaltending prospect might affect their desire/need to pick up a 34 year-old with 9 years left on his deal, I would think. Not changing the subject at all, merely uncovering more information for you.


Not saying he doesn't affect Lu, but I don't think Markstrom is still what everyone thaught. He should still be a starter but I don't see him as becoming elite.
  • 0

zackass.png


#374 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,736 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 20 December 2012 - 08:31 PM

The answer is the same as my last post's; everybody is attractive at a certain price point.

Who's the worst contract in the league? Bryzgalov? Leafs might have interest if Philly would take Komisarek or Connolly in exchange, for example.


A rather limited response.

In fact what you are saying here is that Bjugstad could be traded to the Canucks in a Luongo deal.

The "certain price point" for Florida could include Bjugstad. The reason the trade hasn't been completed already might be a combination of Tallon (or other rival GM's) waiting to see what happens with the new CBA, and whether he can sweat Gillis into giving them a fire sale price for Luongo (something I do not see happening). It is only your stubborn inability to acknowledge this possibility (and perhaps a belief on your part that, since you would not do this, therefore no one else would do this) which keeps you harping on and on.

Sure, Florida might not have to give up Bjugstad in order to get Luongo (assuming Luongo does go to Florida). By the same token, Gillis does not have to trade Luongo away for a bucket of used tape, or for some of the proposals we've seen here which do nothing to improve the team for the present or in the future.

regards,
G.
  • 0
Following the Canucks since before Don Cherry played here.

#375 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,078 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 21 December 2012 - 12:01 AM

The answer is the same as my last post's; everybody is attractive at a certain price point.

Who's the worst contract in the league? Bryzgalov? Leafs might have interest if Philly would take Komisarek or Connolly in exchange, for example.



"Unfortunately, it requires Philadelphia to trade an untradeable contract.

If you think Toronto, or anyone else, would even take a whiff of Bryzgalov, you are dreaming." King of ES.

Another King sized contradiction.
  • 1

#376 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 21 December 2012 - 04:22 AM

"Unfortunately, it requires Philadelphia to trade an untradeable contract.

If you think Toronto, or anyone else, would even take a whiff of Bryzgalov, you are dreaming." King of ES.

Another King sized contradiction.


Did you notice how I said "might" in my post?

If Komisarek/Connolly were going to Philly and maybe if TOR were getting something else in addition (say, Matt Read), that might put Bryz at good value for them. Like I said, at a certain price point, anyone has value.
  • 0

#377 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 21 December 2012 - 04:24 AM

The "certain price point" for Florida could include Bjugstad. The reason the trade hasn't been completed already might be a combination of Tallon (or other rival GM's) waiting to see what happens with the new CBA, and whether he can sweat Gillis into giving them a fire sale price for Luongo (something I do not see happening). It is only your stubborn inability to acknowledge this possibility (and perhaps a belief on your part that, since you would not do this, therefore no one else would do this) which keeps you harping on and on.


Tallon called Bjugstad and told him that he wasn't getting traded - a quote from Bjugstad himself.
  • 0

#378 ice orca

ice orca

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,296 posts
  • Joined: 07-October 10

Posted 21 December 2012 - 08:07 AM

Tallon called Bjugstad and told him that he wasn't getting traded - a quote from Bjugstad himself.

Lots of GMs tell their players they are not going to be traded..then they get traded. NHL is a business any GMwill try to make his team more competitive dont take everything you read or hear as gospel pro sports is as cutthroat as anything in the business world.
  • 1

#379 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,736 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 21 December 2012 - 11:26 AM

Tallon called Bjugstad and told him that he wasn't getting traded - a quote from Bjugstad himself.


Yes, I recall you mentioning this before, and as I said at the time, I'm sure that Tallon would also call Bjugstad and tell him that he was going to be traded.

Maybe Bjugstad won't be traded. Maybe Shore will. The point of it all is that if Tallon does want Luongo he would have to make a hockey deal rather than just handing over just a bucket of used tape.


regards,
G.
  • 0
Following the Canucks since before Don Cherry played here.

#380 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,192 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 21 December 2012 - 01:05 PM

Did you notice how I said "might" in my post?

If Komisarek/Connolly were going to Philly and maybe if TOR were getting something else in addition (say, Matt Read), that might put Bryz at good value for them. Like I said, at a certain price point, anyone has value.


Actually in that post you said.

"If you think Toronto, or anyone else, would even take a whiff of Bryzgalov, you are dreaming."

I don't see a might in there. Just more contradiction really.
  • 0

zackass.png


#381 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 23 December 2012 - 06:36 AM

Actually in that post you said.

"If you think Toronto, or anyone else, would even take a whiff of Bryzgalov, you are dreaming."

I don't see a might in there. Just more contradiction really.


For what you guys were proposing, yes. IE, a hockey trade. Back in the day, I recall SJ taking somebody off of NJ's hands, maybe it was Vladimir Malakhov, and NJ effectively game them Malakhov and a 1st, for something totally immaterial (conditional pick maybe). NJ did that solely to take Malakhov off of their payroll. Philly would need to do something similar with Bryz, at this point.
  • 0

#382 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,192 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 23 December 2012 - 02:41 PM

For what you guys were proposing, yes. IE, a hockey trade. Back in the day, I recall SJ taking somebody off of NJ's hands, maybe it was Vladimir Malakhov, and NJ effectively game them Malakhov and a 1st, for something totally immaterial (conditional pick maybe). NJ did that solely to take Malakhov off of their payroll. Philly would need to do something similar with Bryz, at this point.


Komisarek for Bryzgalov isn't a hockey trade? Defensemen for a Goalie, bad contracts cancel out.
  • 0

zackass.png


#383 ConnorFutureGM

ConnorFutureGM

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 327 posts
  • Joined: 05-March 11

Posted 23 December 2012 - 03:14 PM

Lots of GMs tell their players they are not going to be traded..then they get traded. NHL is a business any GMwill try to make his team more competitive dont take everything you read or hear as gospel pro sports is as cutthroat as anything in the business world.

Any GM who wants to have a future as an NHL GM would know that players need to trust them. It's possible that he could end up trading him but that could damage his reputation enough that whatever gain from the trade to be had could be negated by players not wanting to be on a team with an untrustworthy GM.
  • 0

#384 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 23 December 2012 - 04:21 PM

Komisarek for Bryzgalov isn't a hockey trade? Defensemen for a Goalie, bad contracts cancel out.


You're again showing an inability to understand contracts. Komisarek's expires in 2014, Bryzgalov's in 2020. See the difference?
  • 0

#385 Pears

Pears

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,218 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 11

Posted 23 December 2012 - 04:26 PM

You're again showing an inability to understand contracts. Komisarek's expires in 2014, Bryzgalov's in 2020. See the difference?

The only difference I see is an overpayed plug and a goalie who can actually do something for your team.
  • 0

In my eyes drouin is overrated he can score in the qmjhl but did nothing in last two gold medal games that canada lost. Fox will be better pro than him talk to me in five yrs

Gaudreau has one NHL goal whereas all your "prized" prospects have none.

   ryan kesler is going to the chicago blackhawks ...       quote me on it


#386 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,192 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 23 December 2012 - 04:43 PM

You're again showing an inability to understand contracts. Komisarek's expires in 2014, Bryzgalov's in 2020. See the difference?


Bryz can actually bring something, and sometimes he plays worth of the contract.

Komisarek is a plug that is never worth the money.


Either way this doesn't really matter.
  • 0

zackass.png


#387 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 23 December 2012 - 08:46 PM

The only difference I see is an overpayed plug and a goalie who can actually do something for your team.


Oh, OK. So neither you nor Smashian Kassian see the value - cap space - in having one contract expiring in 2014, versus the other one expiring 6 years later.

Bryz proved what he is last year; an average goaltender who's stats were inflated playing in Phoenix's system (like Smith's are today), and, worse, he's a loudmouth and a headcase. Give me Komisarek with a contract expiring in 2014 over Bryzgalov with a contract expiring in 2020 very easily.
  • 0

#388 Pears

Pears

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,218 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 11

Posted 24 December 2012 - 01:15 AM

Oh, OK. So neither you nor Smashian Kassian see the value - cap space - in having one contract expiring in 2014, versus the other one expiring 6 years later.

Bryz proved what he is last year; an average goaltender who's stats were inflated playing in Phoenix's system (like Smith's are today), and, worse, he's a loudmouth and a headcase. Give me Komisarek with a contract expiring in 2014 over Bryzgalov with a contract expiring in 2020 very easily.

So you're telling me, that you would rather have an absolute pylon of a defenseman than a decent goalie who struggled in his first year in a new system but still put up respectable numbers?

King, you never cease to amaze me.
  • 0

In my eyes drouin is overrated he can score in the qmjhl but did nothing in last two gold medal games that canada lost. Fox will be better pro than him talk to me in five yrs

Gaudreau has one NHL goal whereas all your "prized" prospects have none.

   ryan kesler is going to the chicago blackhawks ...       quote me on it


#389 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,192 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 24 December 2012 - 02:42 AM

Oh, OK. So neither you nor Smashian Kassian see the value - cap space - in having one contract expiring in 2014, versus the other one expiring 6 years later.

Bryz proved what he is last year; an average goaltender who's stats were inflated playing in Phoenix's system (like Smith's are today), and, worse, he's a loudmouth and a headcase. Give me Komisarek with a contract expiring in 2014 over Bryzgalov with a contract expiring in 2020 very easily.


:picard: :sadno:

His stats weren't all that impressive in Phoenix either way, he had one impressive season, maybe 2.

Smith's stats were not inflated due to Phoenix's system, I'm pretty sure everyone in the Coyotes organization would agree. That was Smith, not there system.


now if I had to choose I might take Komisarek too, but that's not what this was about, if you needed goaltending badly and all you had to give up was an extremely overpaid plug, (Which is a positive in itself) I would do it. You wouldn't have to give up anything, it's risky but even if it doesn't turn out the level of preformence they would get is probably better than what they currently have.
  • 0

zackass.png


#390 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 24 December 2012 - 06:31 AM

So you're telling me, that you would rather have an absolute pylon of a defenseman than a decent goalie who struggled in his first year in a new system but still put up respectable numbers?

King, you never cease to amaze me.


"Struggled in his first year" isn't really a viable excuse when you're talking about a 31 year-old NHL veteran. Remember Keith Ballard? He was supposed to have "adjusted" by year two, was he not?

Bryzgalov's contract is wretched, a team killer. You rather being married to him, at that price, until 2020, versus Komisarek for 1.5 more years at $4.5M, really shows a lack of comprehension.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

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.