Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
* * * - - 2 votes

Should we split up the Sedins for the first month or so?


  • Please log in to reply
96 replies to this topic

#1 Bananas

Bananas

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,025 posts
  • Joined: 27-August 09

Posted 16 January 2013 - 09:07 AM

There's a couple reason for why I say this, the obvious one being that we need a legit second line on the ice, which I'll get to in a minute.

Another reason I say this is because of the whole predicted injury bug. With a shortened season and no exhibition and tiny training camp, it has been predicted that there is going to be a lot of injury trouble this year. You think the goons don't know that? Split up the Sedins so that they can avoid nasty checking and bruising lines, for the most part, and can be partnered with some tougher players in the event of a scrum or sorts. The last hing we want is a Sedin injury.

And of course, the option always remains present if we need to unite them for a shift or two. And they definitely pair up during powerplays, for obvious reasons.

I don't really have anything specific as far as lines suggestions go, but maybe something along the lines of..

Burrows - Henrik - Kassian
Daniel - Lapierre - Hansen

Hansen has had past success with the Sedins, and is one of few players that I believe is going to step it up in the absence of Booth and Kes. And I'm sure we've all heard of Lapierre's 20 extra pounds he put on during lockout.

I'm not saying Lapierre and Kassian will necessarily act as enforcers, but likely slight deterrents. This setup allows the Sedins to avoid these lines by 50%, though, which is a good factor at this stage. It also helps and motivates these players to truly step up their game while Booth and Kes are gone.
  • 3
Hey CDC! Remember this!?

http://forum.canucks...in-this-change/

#2 Bertuzzi Babe

Bertuzzi Babe

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,239 posts
  • Joined: 03-May 03

Posted 16 January 2013 - 09:09 AM

No. Just, no.

That is all.

:picard:

Edited by Bertuzzi Babe, 16 January 2013 - 09:10 AM.

  • 4

"Sursumredditio" non usquam in hac mea loquantur!



Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem.....



#3 Heretic

Heretic

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,581 posts
  • Joined: 08-April 07

Posted 16 January 2013 - 09:14 AM

No. Just, no.

That is all.

:picard:


Ditto....

Why does this come up every year?!?!?
  • 0

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


#4 -Vintage Canuck-

-Vintage Canuck-

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 76,230 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 10

Posted 16 January 2013 - 09:15 AM

*
POPULAR

Posted Image
  • 5

307mg00.jpg


#5 Pears

Pears

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,210 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 11

Posted 16 January 2013 - 09:15 AM

No. Just, no.

That is all.

:picard:

I don't see what's wrong with spreading out the scoring in a shortened season? I see no harm in trying it out.
  • 3

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


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


#6 Bertuzzi Babe

Bertuzzi Babe

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,239 posts
  • Joined: 03-May 03

Posted 16 January 2013 - 09:19 AM

I don't see what's wrong with spreading out the scoring in a shortened season? I see no harm in trying it out.


We're playing a drastically shortened season. There's no time for fiddle farting around to 'try it out' and see 'what works'.....you go with what does work and do your best to come charging out of the gate.

Edited by Bertuzzi Babe, 16 January 2013 - 09:20 AM.

  • 0

"Sursumredditio" non usquam in hac mea loquantur!



Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem.....



#7 spliced

spliced

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,240 posts
  • Joined: 31-January 03

Posted 16 January 2013 - 09:24 AM

I think you gotta stick to what works in a short season like this. If the other 3 lines play solid D and the defence can stay healthy the Canucks should be able to win enough to get into the playoffs. Sure the Sedins will have to play tough match ups, but there aren't many regular season teams that are effective against them.
  • 0

#8 Kumquats

Kumquats

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,453 posts
  • Joined: 05-July 08

Posted 16 January 2013 - 09:27 AM

Yes let's split them up when we trade them....
  • 0

#9 personaltrainer604

personaltrainer604

    K-Wing Regular

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 31 posts
  • Joined: 22-July 11

Posted 16 January 2013 - 09:48 AM

Knowing AV's style...I'm sure he will try it..but I doubt it won't be something that sticks.
  • 0

#10 Primal Optimist

Primal Optimist

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,863 posts
  • Joined: 04-March 03

Posted 16 January 2013 - 09:57 AM

Ditto....

Why does this come up every year?!?!?

In previous years I have suggested it for stretches of time when there have been injuries, firstly to balance our offense over the top two lines, secondly because there could come a critical time when you have to separate the saucer from the mother ship, as was my example last year on the subject, and it would be great to know that you had a few weeks of regular season practice at this split of the sedins...

...that being said, those suggestions were back when there was 82 games and easily 30 of them could have been used to tinker around and still make the playoffs with slightly less points..I am not an advocate of it for the short season, but would still not mind seeing the tactic here and there to throw teams off guard from time to time.

Would be fun to see a team that has traditionally been able to lock down our top line scramble to have to cover two top lines. That is all. Again, not a fan of the idea this 48 game run to the playoffs.
  • 0

1286820874m_THUMB.jpg
CDC GM League small.png General Manager

Happy Hockey Fan!!!


#11 mancaesar

mancaesar

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 131 posts
  • Joined: 25-November 09

Posted 16 January 2013 - 09:58 AM

My thoughts were "No. No. Just....no." even before I read the first reply.

Really? So you want to give opposing checkers just one target per shift? When they play together, at least the other team has to worry about whom to cover.
  • 0

John Paul II made a saint. John Garrett next?


#12 timberz21

timberz21

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,053 posts
  • Joined: 24-July 06

Posted 16 January 2013 - 10:00 AM

No but I wouldn't mind putting Burrows on the 2nd line and move a Kassian,Schroeder,Hansen, hell try Rodin.

Burrows proved thats he isn't producing only because of the Sedins and would have a more experienced player on the second line.
  • 0

#13 **Pavel4Life**

**Pavel4Life**

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,729 posts
  • Joined: 24-March 09

Posted 16 January 2013 - 10:03 AM

They are 100% more effective on the same line. Always have been, always will be.

End of topic/
  • 0
CFOO SIG FTW!


QUOTE (bugmo @ Jul 23 2009, 12:09 AM) And you are an idiot who can't see things for the way they are. It's people like you who make it seem okay for the canucks to have a non playoff making team every year. Gillis supporter go jump off the Patullo.

This was said to me and it makes me laugh everytime I read it.

#14 blueliner1955

blueliner1955

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 122 posts
  • Joined: 11-November 07

Posted 16 January 2013 - 10:18 AM

in order of vancouver to play and win games they have to score score score need more goals from every 1 not win game by 1-0 these kinda goals wont win you a cup work thru this injury prone short season and quit posting things about luongo if he traded this year or soon let it be the media just quit writing about it just looking at toronto what can they get from them to help vancouver not much philadelphia has a lot but dont think they will give up much . edmonton and chiacgo why trade a goalie to these if you help them out. spliting the twins up how is this going to help prolly less scoring every 1 needs to score so win win win
  • 0

#15 fwybwed

fwybwed

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,241 posts
  • Joined: 13-January 03

Posted 16 January 2013 - 10:23 AM

I remember when we just had Henrik in the line up and we failed...it took Daniel to come back early off of Concussion leave to even score lol....with that...... NO!
  • 0

#16 D-Money

D-Money

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,582 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 06

Posted 16 January 2013 - 10:32 AM

I get a kick out of this - it seems to come up every year.

The Sedins have always been far more effective together. Their chemistry is their greatest asset. Splitting them up has NEVER worked for the better. This isn't going to change.
  • 0
Posted Image

#17 CanucksSayEh

CanucksSayEh

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,419 posts
  • Joined: 07-March 12

Posted 16 January 2013 - 10:36 AM

I think it could be worth a shot. Currently we have ample supporting players to make 2 lines with them apart, not so much if they stick together. They will still have the powerplay together. We have the goaltending and defense to back em up. It also gives support to the younger players and guys playing over their pay grade in the top 6. Kassian, Hansen and Raymond could all benefit from a Sedin.

It's also good practice just in case one of them should be injured down the road. Last year AV had no idea what to do and started mixing lines together that had never been tried.....In a playoff elimination game!

They are both still elite in their own right.

Burrows-Hank-Hansen
Daniel-Lappy-Raymond
Higgy-Schroeder-Kassian
Weise-Manny-Volpatti

?

Edited by CanucksSayEh, 16 January 2013 - 10:40 AM.

  • 1

#18 Neutral-Zoned

Neutral-Zoned

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 455 posts
  • Joined: 01-November 08

Posted 16 January 2013 - 10:43 AM

Hilarious! So many cdc'ers who keep saying "We tried splitting them up, it didn't work. End of story!"
Really?

We NEVER really gave them that much time apart... EVER. A smattering here and there, that is all.
When they were injured though, Henrik did really well with Daniel out, and vice-versa.

So with these things in mind, I just don't understand the arguement for NOT splitting them up while line 2 is injury-riddled.
  • 1

Injuries has certainly a great part in the struggling. The funny thing is that we got them injuries when the season barely has started.


ps... sorry LiveeviL. I had to do this.

#19 Nucks-4-Life

Nucks-4-Life

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,070 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 06

Posted 16 January 2013 - 10:52 AM

LOL....OP, you read my mind.

I was logging on just to post this thread.

I agree with you completely.

Lets face it, without Kesler in the line-up, we don't have a legit secondary scoring threat.

We can move Daniel down to the 2nd line to even things out.

They can reunite the Sedins on the Powerplay as well as some odd shifts throughout the game. This will give the opposing coach tons of trouble.

Even Strength:

Burrows - Hank - Kassian
Danny - Schroeder - Higgins

Powerplay:

Danny - Hank- Kassian
Burrows - Schroeder - Higgins

PS: Too bad Jensen decided to stay in Europe. With the injury to Booth, he could have had some nice top 6 minutes. I wonder if he is considering coming over?
  • 2

#20 pwnstar

pwnstar

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,311 posts
  • Joined: 20-January 10

Posted 16 January 2013 - 11:20 AM

I think we need two more threads on this subject
  • 0

Posted Image


#21 Gino Odjick

Gino Odjick

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,771 posts
  • Joined: 20-March 07

Posted 16 January 2013 - 11:21 AM

A lot of you seem to think this is like splitting up peanut butter from jam. But I'm here to tell you that it's actually like trying to split up peanut butter from peanut butter.


"Don't split up the Sedins… It would be bad... Try to imagine all life as you know it stopping instantaneously and every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light."


—Egon Spengler in Ghostbusters

  • 0

#22 TheFan66

TheFan66

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Joined: 21-February 07

Posted 16 January 2013 - 11:28 AM

I'm leaning more towards keeping the Sedins together and dropping Burrows down to the 2nd line for the 1st 2-3 games any way.

Sedin Sedin Kassian
Higgins Lapierre Burrows
Raymond Ebbet Hansen
Weiss Malhotra Volpatti

I would also probably keep Shroeder over Volpatti, only because he has been playing in the AHL and his speed will be most problematic for defenders early on when they are not up to speed.
  • 1

#23 Googs

Googs

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 276 posts
  • Joined: 02-July 09

Posted 16 January 2013 - 11:30 AM

we should pick up Gomez. He has upside. He has decent stats up to two years ago. If he plays with Vancouver he might be a better player. Plus he is a playmaker, so much of a deal was made about him not scoring when he never played a full year and the media jumped on him counting the offseason plus unjury time without scoring. He also drives to the net is a excellent skater plays center and is little to no risk. His upside is higher this year I believe than Ebbett and Schroeder.

Plus he has won a stanley cup and being a playmaker... we really need one for booth and Kesler and Gomez could be signed for 600,000 or something like that so there would be little risk.

Plus I think Gomez is in a position where he has something to prove. Vancouver is a team for players who need a second chance and they seem to reinvent themselves.

So I don't believe we need to split up the sedins.

Sedin Sedin Burrows
Raymond Gomez Higgins
Kassian Lapierre Hansen
Archibald Malhotra Weise
Volpati Vandermeer (part time so we can keep him as a defenseman because of the numbers game)


Then Gomez later in the year becomes a utilty player much like Ebbett but Gomez has put up numbers in the nhl and Ebbett has not.
  • 0
No youtube vids in sigs.

#24 Googs

Googs

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 276 posts
  • Joined: 02-July 09

Posted 16 January 2013 - 11:31 AM

NHL Totals South Surrey Eagles BCHL Statistics Unavailable 1997-98 Tri-City Americans WHL 45 12 37 49 57 -- -- -- -- -- 1998-99 Tri-City Americans WHL 58 30 78 108 55 43 10 6 13 19 31 1999-00 New Jersey Devils NHL 82 19 51 70 78 14 23 4 6 10 4 2000-01 New Jersey Devils NHL 76 14 49 63 46 -1 25 5 9 14 24 2001-02 New Jersey Devils NHL 76 10 38 48 36 -4 -- -- -- -- -- 2002-03 New Jersey Devils NHL 80 13 42 55 48 17 24 3 9 12 2 2003-04 New Jersey Devils NHL 80 14 56 70 70 18 5 0 6 6 0 2004-05 Alaska Aces ECHL 61 13 73 86 69 26 4 1 3 4 4 2005-06 New Jersey Devils NHL 82 33 51 84 42 8 9 5 4 9 6 2006-07 New Jersey Devils NHL 72 13 47 60 42 7 11 4 10 14 14 2007-08 New York Rangers NHL 81 16 54 70 36 3 10 4 7 11 8 2008-09 New York Rangers NHL 77 16 42 58 60 -2 7 2 3 5 4 2009-10 Montreal Canadiens NHL 78 12 47 59 60 1 19 2 12 14 25 2010-11 Montreal Canadiens NHL 80 7 31 38 48 -15 7 0 4 4 2 2011-12 Montreal Canadiens NHL 38 2 9 11 14 -9 -- -- -- -- -- 2012-13 Alaska Aces* ECHL 11 6 7 13 12 4
  • 0
No youtube vids in sigs.

#25 stawns

stawns

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,321 posts
  • Joined: 10-August 03

Posted 16 January 2013 - 11:35 AM

There's a couple reason for why I say this, the obvious one being that we need a legit second line on the ice, which I'll get to in a minute.

Another reason I say this is because of the whole predicted injury bug. With a shortened season and no exhibition and tiny training camp, it has been predicted that there is going to be a lot of injury trouble this year. You think the goons don't know that? Split up the Sedins so that they can avoid nasty checking and bruising lines, for the most part, and can be partnered with some tougher players in the event of a scrum or sorts. The last hing we want is a Sedin injury.

And of course, the option always remains present if we need to unite them for a shift or two. And they definitely pair up during powerplays, for obvious reasons.

I don't really have anything specific as far as lines suggestions go, but maybe something along the lines of..

Burrows - Henrik - Kassian
Daniel - Lapierre - Hansen

Hansen has had past success with the Sedins, and is one of few players that I believe is going to step it up in the absence of Booth and Kes. And I'm sure we've all heard of Lapierre's 20 extra pounds he put on during lockout.

I'm not saying Lapierre and Kassian will necessarily act as enforcers, but likely slight deterrents. This setup allows the Sedins to avoid these lines by 50%, though, which is a good factor at this stage. It also helps and motivates these players to truly step up their game while Booth and Kes are gone.



There's a couple reason for why I say this, the obvious one being that we need a legit second line on the ice, which I'll get to in a minute.

Another reason I say this is because of the whole predicted injury bug. With a shortened season and no exhibition and tiny training camp, it has been predicted that there is going to be a lot of injury trouble this year. You think the goons don't know that? Split up the Sedins so that they can avoid nasty checking and bruising lines, for the most part, and can be partnered with some tougher players in the event of a scrum or sorts. The last hing we want is a Sedin injury.

And of course, the option always remains present if we need to unite them for a shift or two. And they definitely pair up during powerplays, for obvious reasons.

I don't really have anything specific as far as lines suggestions go, but maybe something along the lines of..

Burrows - Henrik - Kassian
Daniel - Lapierre - Hansen

Hansen has had past success with the Sedins, and is one of few players that I believe is going to step it up in the absence of Booth and Kes. And I'm sure we've all heard of Lapierre's 20 extra pounds he put on during lockout.

I'm not saying Lapierre and Kassian will necessarily act as enforcers, but likely slight deterrents. This setup allows the Sedins to avoid these lines by 50%, though, which is a good factor at this stage. It also helps and motivates these players to truly step up their game while Booth and Kes are gone.


That's just dumb.......that said, I think it's a good opportunity to move Burr of that line to add some punch to a depleted second line.
  • 0

#26 Tangerines

Tangerines

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,379 posts
  • Joined: 18-January 12

Posted 16 January 2013 - 11:42 AM

I'm leaning more towards keeping the Sedins together and dropping Burrows down to the 2nd line for the 1st 2-3 games any way.

Sedin Sedin Kassian
Higgins Lapierre Burrows
Raymond Ebbet Hansen
Weiss Malhotra Volpatti

I would also probably keep Shroeder over Volpatti, only because he has been playing in the AHL and his speed will be most problematic for defenders early on when they are not up to speed.


I like this line up but AV will probably do something like:

Danny Henrick Raymond
Higgins Lappierre Burrows
Hansen Ebbet Kassian
Weise Malhotra Volpatti
  • 0

#27 timberz21

timberz21

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,053 posts
  • Joined: 24-July 06

Posted 16 January 2013 - 11:55 AM

Hilarious! So many cdc'ers who keep saying "We tried splitting them up, it didn't work. End of story!"
Really?

We NEVER really gave them that much time apart... EVER. A smattering here and there, that is all.
When they were injured though, Henrik did really well with Daniel out, and vice-versa.

So with these things in mind, I just don't understand the arguement for NOT splitting them up while line 2 is injury-riddled.


Your Hilarous, Henrik hasn't missed a game in the last 5-6 years, how can you say "when they we're injured"???  Daniel never played without Henrik in the lineup.
Henrik is the passer, he going to have more success than Daniel, if the player around him finish the play, however Daniel has the shooter/scorer need a good playmaker to feed him.  
Also he's not a high flying scorer like Ovy and Stamkos, so he can't do it alone, specially that he's not that physical either

Edited by timberz21, 16 January 2013 - 11:57 AM.

  • 0

#28 vancanfan

vancanfan

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,516 posts
  • Joined: 31-January 06

Posted 16 January 2013 - 12:01 PM

Terrible idea splitting them up.

Get used to it, we are pretty much the only team in the league that can not afford to split up two players on the first line because, well, if you don't know why, you should probably be following a different sport.
  • 0

#29 MonkeyBusiness

MonkeyBusiness

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 131 posts
  • Joined: 25-June 12

Posted 16 January 2013 - 12:07 PM

Why? No!
  • 0
Posted Image
Sig pic by -Vintage Canuck- Thank You!!!!

Love the Canucks!

Keep Loungo in Vancouver :towel:
http://www.ipetition...o-in-vancouver/

#30 D-Money

D-Money

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,582 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 06

Posted 16 January 2013 - 12:23 PM

NHL Totals                                                    South Surrey Eagles                            BCHL                            Statistics Unavailable                                                                                                                                                                                             1997-98                            Tri-City Americans                            WHL                            45                            12                            37                            49                            57                                                         --                            --                            --                            --                            --                                            1998-99                            Tri-City Americans                            WHL                            58                            30                            78                            108                            55                            43                            10                            6                            13                            19                            31                                            1999-00                            New Jersey Devils                            NHL                            82                            19                            51                            70                            78                            14                            23                            4                            6                            10                            4                                            2000-01                            New Jersey Devils                            NHL                            76                            14                            49                            63                            46                            -1                            25                            5                            9                            14                            24                                            2001-02                            New Jersey Devils                            NHL                            76                            10                            38                            48                            36                            -4                            --                            --                            --                            --                            --                                            2002-03                            New Jersey Devils                            NHL                            80                            13                            42                            55                            48                            17                            24                            3                            9                            12                            2                                            2003-04                            New Jersey Devils                            NHL                            80                            14                            56                            70                            70                            18                            5                            0                            6                            6                            0                                            2004-05                            Alaska Aces                            ECHL                            61                            13                            73                            86                            69                            26                            4                            1                            3                            4                            4                                            2005-06                            New Jersey Devils                            NHL                            82                            33                            51                            84                            42                            8                            9                            5                            4                            9                            6                                            2006-07                            New Jersey Devils                            NHL                            72                            13                            47                            60                            42                            7                            11                            4                            10                            14                            14                                            2007-08                            New York Rangers                            NHL                            81                            16                            54                            70                            36                            3                            10                            4                            7                            11                            8                                            2008-09                            New York Rangers                            NHL                            77                            16                            42                            58                            60                            -2                            7                            2                            3                            5                            4                                            2009-10                            Montreal Canadiens                            NHL                            78                            12                            47                            59                            60                            1                            19                            2                            12                            14                            25                                            2010-11                            Montreal Canadiens                            NHL                            80                            7                            31                            38                            48                            -15                            7                            0                            4                            4                            2                                            2011-12                            Montreal Canadiens                            NHL                            38                            2                            9                            11                            14                            -9                            --                            --                            --                            --                            --                                            2012-13                            Alaska Aces*                            ECHL                            11                            6                            7                            13                            12                            4


Posted Image 
  • 1
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.