Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

Latest StraightJAB (SCREW G)


  • Please log in to reply
39 replies to this topic

#1 OFFSIDEsports

OFFSIDEsports

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 663 posts
  • Joined: 16-June 07

Posted 27 December 2012 - 05:44 AM

*
POPULAR

Here's this weeks, hope you like it... damn that Bettman! Merry Christmas and Happy New Year folks!

Posted Image

[All imagery © Ken Henderson 2009-2012. Any use not expressly permitted by Henderson is forbidden. IF you do want to re-post the image somewhere just PM me and ask.]
  • 12

#2 canuktravella

canuktravella

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,057 posts
  • Joined: 12-October 12

Posted 27 December 2012 - 06:10 AM

hate buttman if seasons cancelled or union disbands i hooe he gets fired only positive thing i can think of if that does happen
  • 1

#3 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,866 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 27 December 2012 - 06:29 AM

hate buttman if seasons cancelled or union disbands i hooe he gets fired only positive thing i can think of if that does happen


I don't understand why so many keep blaming Bettman. He wouldn't have the job if he wasn't doing what the owners wanted. Seeing as he got a big raise and an extension I'd say he's doing exactly what the owners want.
  • 1
Posted Image

#4 OFFSIDEsports

OFFSIDEsports

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 663 posts
  • Joined: 16-June 07

Posted 27 December 2012 - 07:02 AM

*
POPULAR

I don't understand why so many keep blaming Bettman. He wouldn't have the job if he wasn't doing what the owners wanted. Seeing as he got a big raise and an extension I'd say he's doing exactly what the owners want.

I don't understand why so many keep blaming Bettman. He wouldn't have the job if he wasn't doing what the owners wanted. Seeing as he got a big raise and an extension I'd say he's doing exactly what the owners want.


Bettman was entrusted to grow the game and his Southern expansion push to try and secure a large US television contract is THE REASON the NHL has had as many work stoppages as it has and is in the financial mess that it is in. His 'vision' and arrogance has screwed the league period. Sure the owners are culpable... but this is Bettman's mess. He has been an abysmal failure... the worst commissioner in Sports as SI put it.
  • 5

#5 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,511 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 27 December 2012 - 09:29 AM

Hahaha. Only thing else is if the NHL logo was a podium too, and not just a logo.

Posted Image

"The fact of the matter is there are just sometimes that you need to take time off."
  • 0
Posted Image

#6 OFFSIDEsports

OFFSIDEsports

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 663 posts
  • Joined: 16-June 07

Posted 27 December 2012 - 04:38 PM

Thanks everyone!
  • 0

#7 Snake Doctor

Snake Doctor

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,724 posts
  • Joined: 30-September 08

Posted 27 December 2012 - 04:41 PM

Good stuff, keep up the good work.

Anyways, I'm more on the owners side here. There taking all the risk. As for Gary, I'd like him working for me. He's that good.
  • 0
Posted Image


#8 Underachieving Hero of CDC

Underachieving Hero of CDC

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 875 posts
  • Joined: 12-February 11

Posted 27 December 2012 - 04:45 PM

I don't understand why so many keep blaming Bettman. He wouldn't have the job if he wasn't doing what the owners wanted. Seeing as he got a big raise and an extension I'd say he's doing exactly what the owners want.

Its true that this is mostly the owner's fault but I think a good part of the blame can rightly be put on Bettman too. Most of the team owners that were pushing for this lockout were probably from the teams that were losing big money. Teams in places where hockey is not popular and never will be. In many of those cases, Bettman is the one who put the teams in those non-hockey markets in the first place and kept them there even after it was clear that it wasn't going to work and even when better options were available. The phoenix dabacle is a golden example of it. Bettman doesn't deserve to get off scot free here.
  • 2

#9 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,511 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 27 December 2012 - 04:58 PM

NHL Podium says:

"My house is made out of balsa wood, so when I want to scare the neighborhood kids I lift it over my head. Or at least I would. If I had arms."

"Things I also don't have: Shins. Devices for finding furniture in the dark."

"Ho-hum. My whole life is waiting for the questions to which I have prepared answers."

"Hey you. Out there beyond the wall, breaking bottles in the hall. Can you help me? Don't tell me there's no hope at all. Together we stand, divided we fall?"
  • 0
Posted Image

#10 -Vintage Canuck-

-Vintage Canuck-

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 68,217 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 10

Posted 27 December 2012 - 07:01 PM

Good work!
  • 0

307mg00.jpg


#11 Ghostsof1915

Ghostsof1915

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,642 posts
  • Joined: 31-January 07

Posted 27 December 2012 - 10:32 PM

Just because the owners pull Bettman's strings, doesn't mean he and the owners aren't screwing the fans around.
Yes, there's blame on the players side, but I think part of the problem is both the Fehr's and Bettman's egos getting in the way of a deal.

Just imagine how good the league would be with someone with a sports marketing/hockey/ or Sports TV background.
  • 1
GO CANUCKS GO!
"The Canucks did not lose in 1994. They just ran out of time.." Barry MacDonald Team1040

Posted Image

#12 nucks_rule1

nucks_rule1

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,773 posts
  • Joined: 19-May 07

Posted 27 December 2012 - 11:33 PM

well done straight jab... as usual of course
  • 0
Posted Image
my thread!


100th post on September 9th 2008
1000th post on june 24th 2010

THANK YOU MIKE GILLIS FOR GREATEST OFF SEASON EVER!

HANK= H(ART ROSS)

#13 Niloc009

Niloc009

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,715 posts
  • Joined: 12-October 09

Posted 28 December 2012 - 12:36 AM

Good stuff, keep up the good work.

Anyways, I'm more on the owners side here. There taking all the risk. As for Gary, I'd like him working for me. He's that good.


Without getting into a debate about it, I'd avoid saying "all the risk" if I were you.

Nearly all the financial risks are taken by the owners.
All of the physical risks are taken by the players. (Which, if we're talking concussions, I'd call the bigger risk)
  • 1

Posted Image


STHS Hockey League - Brooklyn Beavers GM


#14 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,866 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 28 December 2012 - 04:12 AM

Bettman was entrusted to grow the game and his Southern expansion push to try and secure a large US television contract is THE REASON the NHL has had as many work stoppages as it has and is in the financial mess that it is in. His 'vision' and arrogance has screwed the league period. Sure the owners are culpable... but this is Bettman's mess. He has been an abysmal failure... the worst commissioner in Sports as SI put it.


You have it completely backwards. That was the goal given Bettman BY THE OWNERS. It wasn't Bettmans idea. Again, he wouldn't have the job if he wasn't doing what the owners wanted. Period. The owners are their own worst enemy. They wanted expansion of the game and then turn around and screw the expansion teams by overpaying players so those teams can't compete. They blow off a season to put in a salary cap to fix the problem. Then those same owners find ways to circumvent the cap and again price players beyond those expansion teams. The "mess" has nothing to do with Bettman. It's the owners mess. Bettman is the one trying to fix the mess the "have got" owners have repeatedly made.
  • 0
Posted Image

#15 nuck nit

nuck nit

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,484 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 10

Posted 28 December 2012 - 04:40 AM

Good stuff, keep up the good work.

Anyways, I'm more on the owners side here. There taking all the risk. As for Gary, I'd like him working for me. He's that good.


Risks? These guys have to be among the world's elite in managing financial risk.

They put up millions to potentially make billions.They know they are responsible for making it but have taken the game hostage with their never ending greed.

How anyone can be with the owners after sabotaging four years of NHL hockey in one decade is a laugher.
  • 0

#16 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,866 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 28 December 2012 - 06:26 AM

Without getting into a debate about it, I'd avoid saying "all the risk" if I were you.

Nearly all the financial risks are taken by the owners.
All of the physical risks are taken by the players. (Which, if we're talking concussions, I'd call the bigger risk)


Isn't that true of any industry? Forestry, mining, construction....employees take the physical risks while owners take the financial risk? Such is life. Unlike hockey players those other "risk taker" employees can't make a lifetime of wages in a matter of years.
  • 0
Posted Image

#17 OFFSIDEsports

OFFSIDEsports

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 663 posts
  • Joined: 16-June 07

Posted 28 December 2012 - 06:35 AM

The "mess" has nothing to do with Bettman. It's the owners mess. Bettman is the one trying to fix the mess the "have got" owners have repeatedly made.


For any Bettman initiative he only needs 8 votes for him to have it pass... that's 8 'hawks' and 22 'doves'. IF the owners were, in fact, controlling the league why would it be set-up that way? Bettman installed that voting procedure (yes the twits allowed it to pass but it was his control mandate that instituted it). I would LOVE to see all 30 teams vote on any of the past 10 year initiatives and let the majority rule... Phoenix would not exist, this lock-out would be over and you can frickin' bet that Bettman would have been replaced years ago.

Make no mistake... he, along with a very small group of owners specifically Jeremy Jacobs, are running this league into obscurity.

Edited by OFFSIDEsports, 28 December 2012 - 06:53 AM.

  • 3

#18 OFFSIDEsports

OFFSIDEsports

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 663 posts
  • Joined: 16-June 07

Posted 28 December 2012 - 06:51 AM

Isn't that true of any industry? Forestry, mining, construction....employees take the physical risks while owners take the financial risk? Such is life. Unlike hockey players those other "risk taker" employees can't make a lifetime of wages in a matter of years.


Industry dictates wages and when you're THE CENTER PIECE of an industry (entertainment industry based on talent) the amount of that industries profits should be proportionate to your contribution. Players salaries reflect that truth and are based on what the market can bare in each local, that's why the Rangers etc. used to have massive payrolls as an example. You can't make an arguement against the players based on the wages that their employers agreed to pay them... afterall, unlike forestry, mining, construction the employers cannot employ seasonal labour or machinery to get the job done. Believe me... Bettman would if he could AND bag the profits.

To really look at the situation all money should be ignored on both sides and it should purely be looked at from a labour agreement perspective. In that way, Bettman has shown to have little if any resepct for the players OR the product throughout his tenure... is it any wonder then that the players brought in Fehr to finally say enough is enough? If your body/ability was being strip-mined you'd react in the same way. It's not about money persay, it's about the industry being structured in a way that continues to support it's own growth and the well being of it's main economic drivers... the players.
  • 3

#19 nuck nit

nuck nit

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,484 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 10

Posted 28 December 2012 - 06:57 AM

Bravo,OFFSIDE sports!!
  • 0

#20 Niloc009

Niloc009

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,715 posts
  • Joined: 12-October 09

Posted 28 December 2012 - 08:38 AM

Isn't that true of any industry? Forestry, mining, construction....employees take the physical risks while owners take the financial risk? Such is life. Unlike hockey players those other "risk taker" employees can't make a lifetime of wages in a matter of years.


On a basic basis, I agree. But like I said, not looking to debate here. Just saying that it's incorrect to say that the owners take all the risks.
  • 1

Posted Image


STHS Hockey League - Brooklyn Beavers GM


#21 Spitfire_Spiky

Spitfire_Spiky

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 732 posts
  • Joined: 28-March 09

Posted 28 December 2012 - 08:59 AM

Another excellent one. Definitely like the tie in with the holidays.
  • 0
Mess with the Best, Die like the Rest

#22 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,866 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 28 December 2012 - 10:26 AM

Industry dictates wages and when you're THE CENTER PIECE of an industry (entertainment industry based on talent) the amount of that industries profits should be proportionate to your contribution. Players salaries reflect that truth and are based on what the market can bare in each local, that's why the Rangers etc. used to have massive payrolls as an example. You can't make an arguement against the players based on the wages that their employers agreed to pay them... afterall, unlike forestry, mining, construction the employers cannot employ seasonal labour or machinery to get the job done. Believe me... Bettman would if he could AND bag the profits.

To really look at the situation all money should be ignored on both sides and it should purely be looked at from a labour agreement perspective. In that way, Bettman has shown to have little if any resepct for the players OR the product throughout his tenure... is it any wonder then that the players brought in Fehr to finally say enough is enough? If your body/ability was being strip-mined you'd react in the same way. It's not about money persay, it's about the industry being structured in a way that continues to support it's own growth and the well being of it's main economic drivers... the players.


Again the same could be said of any industry. If the employees price themselves to the point the owner is losing money, the employees will eventually lose their jobs. The players don't care half the owners are losing money. Yet they don't want teams, and the jobs that go with them, to fold.

I've said this several times, Bettman isn't the problem, it's the "have bucks" owners that are the problem. The have teams set player market value that the have not teams can't afford. So they shutdown for a year to get a salary cap to create a level playing field which worked for a while. Then the have teams search for ways to circumvent the cap and come up with "till death do us part" deals that end with cap reducers that won't be paid or played. And again the have not teams are faced with salaries they can't afford or simply cannot compete. So here we are losing another season trying to fix it again.

It was those owners themselves that wanted the league expanded. It was those owners that wanted to go into new markets and expand the game to get a national US TV deal. It was actually a smart plan as TV revenue is money for nothing. You're playing the game whether it's televised or not. But that's a very long term plan. Then those same owners turn around and do everything possible to screw those teams over so they can't afford to compete. How do you draw new fans to a team that can't compete year after year? The have owners are the real problem and the cause of there being a lockout yet again.

The owners need a bigger slice of the pie to survive. The have owners need to to do more revenue sharing for the good of the league as a whole. There needs to be limits on term and structure of player contracts. There has to be a level playing field for all the teams. Otherwise they may as well cut the league to 12 teams and give up any notion of growing the sport beyond a small niche game.
  • 0
Posted Image

#23 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,511 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 28 December 2012 - 10:31 AM

If Gary Bettman is Darth Vader, then the owners are the Emperor. At least some of them are worthy of equal hate.

Jacobs, certainly. Then Craig Leipold. And i hear Ted Leonsis is a real hardliner too. Why should these guys sit back and enjoy being the 'fan-and-team first' guys they really aren't, while Vader does all the dirty work? Maybe hold some of these guys accountable too.

On the same note, it takes two to tango. The players knew what they were doing when they hired Fehr. Some of them want a return to the good ol' days of baseball-like contracts. Some of them want to kill a season or two to achieve that. And while the PA always likes to try to portray itself as the good guy, i have a hard time believing that some of these guys care at all about the fans or the game in comparison to their new hotrod or fancy apartment. There are also equally accountable, imho.

In the end, i don't really care who's at fault. When hockey starts again, i'll be holding them all accountable the best i can by not giving them a single penny of my money from here on out. I think and I hope that a lot of other fans up here act the same way. (But likely most will be back. Suckers that we are.)
  • 0
Posted Image

#24 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,866 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 28 December 2012 - 10:40 AM

On a basic basis, I agree. But like I said, not looking to debate here. Just saying that it's incorrect to say that the owners take all the risks.


The owners take all the financial risk. Without the owners taking that financial risk the players don't have a job. Every employee is at risk of an injury on the job in virtually any occupation.
  • 0
Posted Image

#25 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,511 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 28 December 2012 - 10:55 AM

All the financial risks, yes.

All the risks, no.


Although there is a slight chance of getting a puck to the head up in the owners box.
  • 0
Posted Image

#26 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,866 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 28 December 2012 - 11:28 AM

For any Bettman initiative he only needs 8 votes for him to have it pass... that's 8 'hawks' and 22 'doves'. IF the owners were, in fact, controlling the league why would it be set-up that way? Bettman installed that voting procedure (yes the twits allowed it to pass but it was his control mandate that instituted it). I would LOVE to see all 30 teams vote on any of the past 10 year initiatives and let the majority rule... Phoenix would not exist, this lock-out would be over and you can frickin' bet that Bettman would have been replaced years ago.

Make no mistake... he, along with a very small group of owners specifically Jeremy Jacobs, are running this league into obscurity.


That's incorrect. It doesn't apply to "any initiative" at all. That only applies to the contract negotiations where Bettman says no to an NHLPA offer and the owners want to override that decission and cave. I see it as a safeguard for Bettman to achieve the goals the owners set out for him to achieve in these negotiations. Anything other than that one circumstance is still a simple majority rules (16 of 30) vote among the owners. Bettman put it in to cover his own butt. If this is what you want me to go after I will, but it takes 76% of you to turn that ship around once it's sailed. Essentially it means the have and the borderline teams can't turn around and say screw the have not teams we'll take this offer. It will take a strong majority, including some of the have nots, to fold tent on negotiations. Obviously at least 16 of the 30 owners saw that as a good idea to get the deal they want.

The owners wouldn't have voted in favor of a lockout without a clear goal of what they expect out of the new CBA. It's Bettmans job to achieve that goal. Nor would they have voted in favor giving Bettman such a strong endorsment to achieve those goals (needing 23 of 30 to override him) unless they were dead serious about fixing the problems.
  • 0
Posted Image

#27 Snake Doctor

Snake Doctor

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,724 posts
  • Joined: 30-September 08

Posted 28 December 2012 - 11:49 AM

I would just like to commend you all for a good debate so far. You have proven CDC can be a place to express opinions and not receive a world full of critical comments and hateful comments.

In all I don't feel we will have hockey this year. Hopefully both sides can give a little more before January.
  • 0
Posted Image


#28 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,511 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 28 December 2012 - 11:57 AM

Oh wait, the league just gave the PA another offer. Yay?
  • 0
Posted Image

#29 OFFSIDEsports

OFFSIDEsports

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 663 posts
  • Joined: 16-June 07

Posted 28 December 2012 - 03:31 PM

It was those owners themselves that wanted the league expanded. It was those owners that wanted to go into new markets and expand the game to get a national US TV deal. It was actually a smart plan as TV revenue is money for nothing. You're playing the game whether it's televised or not. But that's a very long term plan. Then those same owners turn around and do everything possible to screw those teams over so they can't afford to compete. How do you draw new fans to a team that can't compete year after year? The have owners are the real problem and the cause of there being a lockout yet again.


That all may be true but Bettman is the one who targeted the spots to expand into, largely based on Television market size with little or NO consideration to NHL hockey viability (which was obvious from the outset but has proven itself out over a decade or so). Bettman is also the one MOST responsible for courting, vetting and supporting new and potential owners. Balsillie's rejection was largely ego driven (though the NHL did get lucky not bringing him in), though expansion greed did play a part in not allowing him to come in. Then there's Spano, Rigas, Del Biaggio etc.

As far as growing the sport goes what Bettman did to Jerry Moyes (ex-owner of Coyotes) should have got him fired. Sure Moyes put the team through Bankruptcy but that was only after a year and a bit of trying to get help from the NHL. Bettman's complete, utter and publicly vocal disrespect for what Moyes had tried to do with the team up to that point sent HUGE SIGNALS around NA that Bettman only plays nice with a few owners AND ONLY if they play by his rules.

It was an ego driven sideshow that exposed the heart and head of Bettman and soiled (the Coyotes fiasco continues to) the reputation of the league as not only a viable option for those looking to get into the sports ownership business, but also the games status as a 'major' league sport.

Bettman continues to drag this amazing game through the gutter... sometimes I feel Stern pushed him to take the NHL gig to destroy it. If that has been his mission all along then I guess he's been a success.
  • 2

#30 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,511 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 28 December 2012 - 04:50 PM

Heard the Stern-Bettman conspiracy theory many times before.

Hard to believe, since ownership continues to hang on to Bettman and pay him a hefty sum. You'd think they'd be smart enough to realize if their commissioner was deliberately sabotaging the league. If not, well it's still on them.


Meanwhile, the NHL pleapfrogging the NBA in popularity in 1994 is a myth.

The story painted a picture that was partly true. For the NBA, 1994 was a Jordan-free year that included a pair of playoff brawls and culminated with a ratings dud in the NBA Finals. For the NHL, 1994 was the year of the Rangers’ memorable run to the championship. Even in a down year, however, the NBA still had a substantial lead over the surging NHL. Consider that Game 7 of the Knicks/Rockets NBA Finals drew a 17.9 U.S. rating on NBC. By contrast, Game 7 of the Rangers/Canucks Stanley Cup Finals drew a 5.2 cable rating on ESPN (a 6.9 when the local New York audience on MSG Network was included).

http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2012/05/why-the-nhl-is-hot-and-the-nba-is-not-again/


Why would Stern ever be threatened by the NHL if the best they've ever done against the NBA is still just a fraction?


Was the NHL ever going to be as popular as the NBA in the US, Bettman or no Bettman? Hell no. If you believe that, you need to stop. Even though the typical basketball head for Bettman has become a bit of a trademark i see, it doesn't really mean anything other than Bettman once worked as Stern's assistant. Whoopee.
  • 0
Posted Image




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.