Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
- - - - -

[Article] Gallagher: Edler might be the price of NHL lockout for Canucks


  • Please log in to reply
83 replies to this topic

#61 Ossi Vaananen

Ossi Vaananen

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,821 posts
  • Joined: 25-April 12

Posted 11 December 2012 - 12:05 AM

We can make between $10 and $25 mill, or higher, on a Stanley cup run. No way we're trading Edler at the deadline to retain an asset that gives us less chance at that run. It's not what contenders (especially those without money troubles) do...

Only a chance if we get a young Iginla (lookalike) for him; who potentially will lead the franchise for a decade. And in the vastly more likely event we keep him; if he does not sign that same potential salary is just as available (by clearing Ballard, or Lou or?) on the open market.


My only point was to trade him when his value is highest. MG did this last year with the Hodgson trade, trading him to a team just outside the playoff picture lacking depth at centre. Hodgson is a different matter, and I don't want to derail this thread. At the trade deadline, a 26 y/o 50 point D-man in Edler could command a substantial return from a team looking at a playoff run. As I said, we only pull the trigger on such a deal if Edler has no desire to stay. If we were to keep Edler right up until the potential free agency of June 15th we risk only getting a 4th for him (Erhoff trade). I'd rather deal him before a playoff run and risk not having defensive depth, than lose him for virtually nothing via free agency.
  • 0

2d7ye0p.jpg

 

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#62 Canuck Surfer

Canuck Surfer

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,703 posts
  • Joined: 27-December 10

Posted 11 December 2012 - 01:41 AM

Sure; we could give up another year of our play off window to retain an asset?

Even if we win a cup and loose Edler; we dont really loose an asset. We still have the same capacity as always to spend his potential $'s. Getzlaf, Perry...

And the cost will remain the same; manage (jettison) salaries like Lou's, Raymond, Higgins, Ballard, Malhotra while mixing in higher end young players like Kassian, Jensen, Gaunce, Schroeder... regardless of whether it retains us Edler or Perry. But at the deadline I do not believe we will return the same ability to win the cup, which you can never get back.

I respect immensely the opinion that we should score specific assets rather than role any dice on loosing an Edler. But a young Kassian did not win us a cup last year, will not this year either, nor the type of asset we would receive for Edler. At some point we have to go for the win!

My only point was to trade him when his value is highest. MG did this last year with the Hodgson trade, trading him to a team just outside the playoff picture lacking depth at centre. Hodgson is a different matter, and I don't want to derail this thread. At the trade deadline, a 26 y/o 50 point D-man in Edler could command a substantial return from a team looking at a playoff run. As I said, we only pull the trigger on such a deal if Edler has no desire to stay. If we were to keep Edler right up until the potential free agency of June 15th we risk only getting a 4th for him (Erhoff trade). I'd rather deal him before a playoff run and risk not having defensive depth, than lose him for virtually nothing via free agency.


Edited by Canuck Surfer, 11 December 2012 - 03:54 AM.

  • 0

#63 CookieCrumbs

CookieCrumbs

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,021 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 11

Posted 11 December 2012 - 03:30 AM

If Edler leaves......... I'll hate him. Liked him when nobody else did and that'll just be another Canuck jersey that I have to leave hanging in my closet collecting dust.


Haha oh boy, I've got a few of those as well.
  • 0

#64 Canuck Surfer

Canuck Surfer

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,703 posts
  • Joined: 27-December 10

Posted 11 December 2012 - 04:39 AM

Ohlund also signed an RFA agreement when he was young and the Canucks had to make a decision to match. He got a $7.5 million dollar signing bonus on the offer from the Leaf's before he had ever played a game for us. Ohlund has always used the tools at his disposal to max out his contracts.

Its not fair to say that he took a discount.

In 2005, we also signed him to a $14 million dollar deal; a fair pay IMO for a solid but not dominating player. That was on par with Willie Mitchell, who was signed the next year for the same $3.5 mill per year for example. And they are not far apart in the caliber of value. My point is that he has never been poorly paid through his career.

And then Tampa offered him $25 mill, which was too high. I am sure they currently would buy him out before Lecavalier and quite seriously regret the move. A massive contract to a guy with chronic knee problems would have handcuffed us for years.

I also could not justify the contract just offered Salo. He did play very well the year before for a $2 mill salary, but also got that salary after missing 80% of the year prior to that drawing salary ($3.5 mill I believe) injured in a non hockey related injury. And as much as he played well for $2 mill; he also faded substantially from his 13 point in 13 game start; scoring 12 points in the next 54 games. His age and injury history makes it smarter to say congratulations, but let Sammy go rather than pay $7 mill over 2 years.

Garrison's cap hit will be lower than the combination of Rome and Salo's 2012/2013 UFA contracts and he effectively replaces them. I am happy with that swap.

Tampa needed experience and had cap space; but overpaid to lure guys who probably would have otherwise signed contracts at values which helped our team.

It's kinda odd that TG mentioned that the Canucks tried to keep Ohlund and Salo, whereas in reality they didn't really try.

Both Ohlund and Salo were due for a "retroactive raise" for taking paycuts for the sake of the team in the past. MG never really sent a legit offer, thus they're both now with TB.

He's not as effective as he used to be, but seeing how Ohlund played against Boston during the playoffs.... he might have been the missing piece for the Canucks in the finals.


  • 1

#65 hudson bay rules

hudson bay rules

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,386 posts
  • Joined: 03-November 10

Posted 11 December 2012 - 05:35 AM

We don't know for sure, but as far as I know that has not been proposed. That's what the "make whole" proposal was about.

Even if there is a reduction in salary, it would almost certainly not be an across the board rollback like last lockout as there's no need for it, meaning players' overall cap hit will not be lowered. Instead, players would just be out money (if there's no "make whole") until such time as their new lowered share returns to last season's amount, which by NHL projections would be by the 2014/15 season (assuming a shortened 2012/13 season. Not sure how losing an entire season would effect their projections.)


I can see a rollback in salary cap of say 20% but any contract already signed must be still payed in full (my idea of make whole). That means a salary of 6 million will still be paid but the cap hit is 4.8 million and any new contract signed must fit under the new cap.
  • 0
I love rock and roll, just put another dime in the juice box baby.

#66 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,461 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 11 December 2012 - 10:39 AM

Edler will re sign for $3.25??? :sick:

Wasn't it you who had a blog about economic facts of a new CBA? Some rationale should sink in he can and will get more than $3.25...


I did a blog about the facts relating to the new CBA, not specifically economic issues.

I agree. He's worth more than $3.25M thus my concern that we won't be able to re-sign him. Given the likelihood that we'll be looking to get under the new lowered cap and having absolutely no space to play with I don't see how we can afford to sign him for any more than what he's getting now.

Of course, Gillis is a heck of a lot smarter than me, so here's hoping he can figure it out. :)


I can see a rollback in salary cap of say 20% but any contract already signed must be still payed in full (my idea of make whole). That means a salary of 6 million will still be paid but the cap hit is 4.8 million and any new contract signed must fit under the new cap.


I couldn't agree more. That's what "make whole" should mean. Anything less is "make partial."

Rolling back the salary cap by 20% doesn't make much sense. It would force too many teams to move too many players and give them nowhere to move them to since the entire idea is to allow bottom feeding teams to spend less, not more. Also, it wouldn't then be tied to the players' share of HRR which is the whole point of the salary cap anyway. That's why the "make whole" thing has to be outside of the cap system.

But of course, all new contracts would have to be signed under the new CBA and with the new cap in mind.
  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#67 Hobble

Hobble

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,640 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 07

Posted 11 December 2012 - 11:17 AM

Canucks lose Edler, they are in some deep trouble on the backend. There really are a lot of Canucks fans who do not fully understand how terrific their team is. I sat through 41 Jets home games last season (ok, not the home opener or Leafs Dec 31st, sold them), and although the atmosphere was terrific, the team had such pathetic chemistry; at least compared to that of the Canucks.

Watching the Canucks work together is honestly a treat that Vancouver fans certainly can take for granted from time to time. Even my wife, who knows little about hockey, has mentioned the difference between how together the Canucks system is compared to other teams.

Edler could easily get $6 million on the open market. If he's healthy, the Canucks would be absolutely brain dead to let him walk. As a Jets fan, we don't have room for another top 4 d-man as they are all young and developing together. However, if Edler became available, they would be foolish not to try and sign him.


Jets could just let Hainsey walk after the lockout.

Buff-Enstrom
Bogo-Edler
Stuart-Clitsome
Postma

But I'd be pretty worried of his back problems.
  • 0

#68 sam13371337

sam13371337

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,810 posts
  • Joined: 01-January 11

Posted 11 December 2012 - 01:44 PM

if bettman gets his way, then the canucks will be the only team able to offer him a 7 year contract...
  • 0
Fire MG

#69 John.Tallhouse

John.Tallhouse

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,576 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 12

Posted 11 December 2012 - 02:19 PM

Words can't describe how pissed I would be if we lost Edler due to the lockout...


Amen
  • 0
Posted Image

#70 Lancaster

Lancaster

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,425 posts
  • Joined: 03-September 12

Posted 11 December 2012 - 06:03 PM

Ohlund also signed an RFA agreement when he was young and the Canucks had to make a decision to match. He got a $7.5 million dollar signing bonus on the offer from the Leaf's before he had ever played a game for us. Ohlund has always used the tools at his disposal to max out his contracts.

Its not fair to say that he took a discount.

In 2005, we also signed him to a $14 million dollar deal; a fair pay IMO for a solid but not dominating player. That was on par with Willie Mitchell, who was signed the next year for the same $3.5 mill per year for example. And they are not far apart in the caliber of value. My point is that he has never been poorly paid through his career.

And then Tampa offered him $25 mill, which was too high. I am sure they currently would buy him out before Lecavalier and quite seriously regret the move. A massive contract to a guy with chronic knee problems would have handcuffed us for years.

I also could not justify the contract just offered Salo. He did play very well the year before for a $2 mill salary, but also got that salary after missing 80% of the year prior to that drawing salary ($3.5 mill I believe) injured in a non hockey related injury. And as much as he played well for $2 mill; he also faded substantially from his 13 point in 13 game start; scoring 12 points in the next 54 games. His age and injury history makes it smarter to say congratulations, but let Sammy go rather than pay $7 mill over 2 years.

Garrison's cap hit will be lower than the combination of Rome and Salo's 2012/2013 UFA contracts and he effectively replaces them. I am happy with that swap.

Tampa needed experience and had cap space; but overpaid to lure guys who probably would have otherwise signed contracts at values which helped our team.


Ohlund was easily a top-10 defender in the NHL during his prime. He could have easily signed for 5-6+ million had he hit free agency. He was equally as good as Jovanovski and Jovo took the major payday whereas Ohlund stayed with the Canucks.
Not saying Mattias didn't earn good money, but everyone knows he could have earned way more. Even though Willie Mitchell signed for $3.5 million, it's because he took a hometown discount, plus he was a one-dimensional player who played positional defense. Ohlund was pretty much a 2-way defenseman who actually plays very physical.
While he did sign the RFA offersheet, the Canucks management at the time was a joke. He was about to re-enter the draft because the Canucks still didn't offer him a contract after 4 year drafting him. Signing the contract with the Leafs just gave the Canucks a swift kick to the bum which they deserved.
It wasn't too long ago when Kesler signed a offersheet when he has proven probably even less than Ohlund.

Even the $26.25 million contract signed by Ohlund, the cap hit is still only 3.75 per year. Bit pricey, but he is versatile. A defenseman who can play the 5/6th spot and can easily be a top-4 at any time. Much more reliable choice than having Aaron Rome, Andrew Alberts, Shane O'Brien, etc. He's also Edler's safety blanket apparently.

Knowing how the Canucks have been "easy" to play against physically, Ohlund would have certainly helped.


With Salo, similar situation as Ohlund. His only issues are injuries (some actually beyond his control like the puck to the face and Brad Marchand). With limited ice-time and as a PP specialist, he can easily be worth whatever TB is paying him. Although Edler also have strong slapshot, if you're down by 1 with 10 seconds left in the game, I'd rather see Sami with the one-timer than Alex Edler. Once again, he's also Edler's safety blanket.
  • 1

#71 ashbury

ashbury

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 417 posts
  • Joined: 05-September 11

Posted 11 December 2012 - 06:16 PM

Gillis wouldn't let that happen even if other players have to be sacrificed. This is just an article by a bored hockey writer desperately searching for something to write about.
  • 1

#72 CanucksSayEh

CanucksSayEh

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,325 posts
  • Joined: 07-March 12

Posted 11 December 2012 - 06:45 PM

Edler owes us after his Conn Smythe performance...for LA... Should sign at minimum wage to make up for the cluster***** that was his play in that series.
  • 0

#73 RunningWild

RunningWild

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,185 posts
  • Joined: 09-December 10

Posted 11 December 2012 - 08:29 PM

curtisandrews@curtisandrews

@botchford more i look at it, more it seems like real possiblityole Edler may not be around for a while. you believe it?


Jason Botchford@botchford

@curtisandrews I have it as 75% gone after this year


OK, so it's Botch. But he's had some pretty relevant info this summer (Doan, Luongo).

I've been saying since day 1, if they know they're losing Edler to free agency - time to trade him ASAP (assuming there's a market). In todays NHL, where there are far fewer FA hitting the market, you need to leverage the assets you have. This team doesn't have a great drafting record under Gillism so prospects aren't going to save the day in Vancouver. But it will be pretty sad to see a drafted player leave for bigger $$ when guys like Hamhuis/Garrison came to Van for less $$. :(
  • 0

#74 Tortorella's Rant

Tortorella's Rant

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,132 posts
  • Joined: 11-April 12

Posted 11 December 2012 - 11:44 PM

Lets just blow it up and trade everything. Game over duuude, game ovaaaaaaa.
  • 1
Posted Image

#75 Canuck Surfer

Canuck Surfer

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,703 posts
  • Joined: 27-December 10

Posted 11 December 2012 - 11:59 PM

Ohlund made $600,000 less than Daniel Sedin last year. Sorry; not worth it even if healthy!

And Ohlund had wonky knee's before he left us for a $25 mill contract. Your letting emotions get in the way of good decision making . Plus, if he was really a top 10 NHL defender he would have been a 4 or 6 time all star > 12 or 14 guys get invited every year. Was he an all star more than once? And somberly from the Bolts web site;


Mattias Ohlund continues rehabilitation on his surgically-repaired knee but is not even close to returning to the ice.
The veteran defenseman had major knee surgery 10 months ago and at the age of 35 his NHL career is in doubt. We wish Ohlund the best of luck in his recovery. There is no guarantee we will ever see him in an NHL uniform again, however.


Ohlund was easily a top-10 defender in the NHL during his prime. He could have easily signed for 5-6+ million had he hit free agency. He was equally as good as Jovanovski and Jovo took the major payday whereas Ohlund stayed with the Canucks.
Not saying Mattias didn't earn good money, but everyone knows he could have earned way more. Even though Willie Mitchell signed for $3.5 million, it's because he took a hometown discount, plus he was a one-dimensional player who played positional defense. Ohlund was pretty much a 2-way defenseman who actually plays very physical.
While he did sign the RFA offersheet, the Canucks management at the time was a joke. He was about to re-enter the draft because the Canucks still didn't offer him a contract after 4 year drafting him. Signing the contract with the Leafs just gave the Canucks a swift kick to the bum which they deserved.
It wasn't too long ago when Kesler signed a offersheet when he has proven probably even less than Ohlund.

Even the $26.25 million contract signed by Ohlund, the cap hit is still only 3.75 per year. Bit pricey, but he is versatile. A defenseman who can play the 5/6th spot and can easily be a top-4 at any time. Much more reliable choice than having Aaron Rome, Andrew Alberts, Shane O'Brien, etc. He's also Edler's safety blanket apparently.

Knowing how the Canucks have been "easy" to play against physically, Ohlund would have certainly helped.


With Salo, similar situation as Ohlund. His only issues are injuries (some actually beyond his control like the puck to the face and Brad Marchand). With limited ice-time and as a PP specialist, he can easily be worth whatever TB is paying him. Although Edler also have strong slapshot, if you're down by 1 with 10 seconds left in the game, I'd rather see Sami with the one-timer than Alex Edler. Once again, he's also Edler's safety blanket.


Edited by Canuck Surfer, 12 December 2012 - 12:14 AM.

  • 0

#76 ccc44

ccc44

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,423 posts
  • Joined: 29-April 09

Posted 12 December 2012 - 03:29 PM

Words can't describe how pissed I would be if we lost Edler due to the lockout...

who cares
  • 0
Posted Image
SHOTS ! SHOTS ! SHOTS !

#77 CRAZY_4_NAZZY

CRAZY_4_NAZZY

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,755 posts
  • Joined: 12-April 09

Posted 12 December 2012 - 07:55 PM

Garrison's contract seems very appealing right about now...
  • 0

2moy3iq.png

 


#78 Pears

Pears

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,068 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 11

Posted 12 December 2012 - 08:27 PM

who cares

If you don't like my posts (which you have proven many times) you can always use the ignore feature on my posts :)

Waste of a post btw
  • 1

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


#79 Ghostsof1915

Ghostsof1915

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,809 posts
  • Joined: 31-January 07

Posted 13 December 2012 - 03:56 AM

Wasn't everyone freaking out when we didn't sign the Sedin's and they were UFA's for a few days, then Gillis signed them to a deal?

There's a reason we have Gilman as capologist. What it might mean is we will have to dump Luongo, Ballard and Alberts and get 3 7th round draft picks out of all three, provided we can find a team willing to take the salaries on. That's $10.4 million in cap room that would clear up. Sadly, that might also mean that a player like Booth might have to be expendable to save us an additional $4.250 million as well.

(Dallas has a boatload of cap room as does Anaheim, Phoenix, and yes Florida. Toronto has $9 million in cap space not sure they can make Luongo fit even if he wanted to go there.)

Edited by Ghostsof1915, 13 December 2012 - 04:02 AM.

  • 0
GO CANUCKS GO!
"The Canucks did not lose in 1994. They just ran out of time.." Barry MacDonald Team1040

Posted Image

#80 Edler0023

Edler0023

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,024 posts
  • Joined: 03-August 10

Posted 13 December 2012 - 04:08 AM

Please no :sadno:
  • 0

#81 Pears

Pears

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,068 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 11

Posted 13 December 2012 - 09:40 AM

Wasn't everyone freaking out when we didn't sign the Sedin's and they were UFA's for a few days, then Gillis signed them to a deal?

There's a reason we have Gilman as capologist. What it might mean is we will have to dump Luongo, Ballard and Alberts and get 3 7th round draft picks out of all three, provided we can find a team willing to take the salaries on. That's $10.4 million in cap room that would clear up. Sadly, that might also mean that a player like Booth might have to be expendable to save us an additional $4.250 million as well.

(Dallas has a boatload of cap room as does Anaheim, Phoenix, and yes Florida. Toronto has $9 million in cap space not sure they can make Luongo fit even if he wanted to go there.)

If the Leafs can dump Komisarek and Lombardi that would give them an extra 8 mill in cap space. They'll be fine if they can do those moves.
  • 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


#82 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,059 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 13 December 2012 - 01:06 PM

As if we needed one more reason to be depressed by this lockout....


Gallagher: Edler might be the price of NHL lockout for Canucks


If anyone canfind a reason it would be Gallagher.
Although, for a change, instead of whining and complaining about the way the team is coached and managed, he has stuck to outlining the context in as factual a way as possible - so I have to give him credit for that, and for the fact that he has balanced his usual wet-blanket by creditting Gillis and Gilman for being particularly adept at handling these types of situations and minimizing losses.
I think the NHL needs to deal with the contradiction in this context - players are approaching free agency (and given the fact they are locked out cannot be expected to postpone their UFA status) - and at the same time, teams cannot negotiate with these players as that UFA status creeps closer and closer. The NHL should either make an exception to the rule that no-negotiations with players can take place under the circumstances, or they should institute an additional draft-pick compensation system for teams that lose players due to the fact they are stuck in this predicament and are unable to take the opportunity to negotiate with key roster players.
  • 0

#83 The Big Luongo

The Big Luongo

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,432 posts
  • Joined: 04-November 06

Posted 14 December 2012 - 09:09 AM

Like a couple guys said Edler should have been traded anyway possibly with Luongo and Raymond to lure other teams in the Luongo mix and get a solid dman and more coming back in return.

Between how much money Edler and his agent probably want, his on ice deficiencies and back problems and how it could sweeten the pot on a Luongo deal this trade would seem to be obvious choice to me.

The only loss here is if we get nothing in return.
  • 0

#84 Pacificgem

Pacificgem

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,782 posts
  • Joined: 20-March 07

Posted 17 December 2012 - 03:13 AM

Would love to see him packaged in a deal, should there be hockey this year, with Luongo. Not sure to where, but that'd make the deal a whole lot sweeter for a team!
  • 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.