Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
* * * * - 1 votes

If you could reverse one Canucks trade, which would it be..........


  • Please log in to reply
90 replies to this topic

#1 vcr1970

vcr1970

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 112 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 12

Posted 09 February 2013 - 11:42 PM

OK, the obvious one is out (Neely for Pederson+)..............

Of the rest (during my lifetime at least), the three that come to mind for me are.........

Rick Vaive and Bill Derlego for Tiger Williams and Jerry Butler (I think this was the deal).

Bure for Jovo, Gagner and ???? was it Morrison?

Kassian for Hodgson


If you can think of one better than the three above, please let me know and add it to the list.

Of the three above, I would give us back Cody............5 goals, 5 assists in 10 games...........he'd be our leading scorer right now
  • 0

#2 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,349 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 09 February 2013 - 11:46 PM

*
POPULAR

Why would we want to do the Hodgson trade over?

It is looking pretty good for us.

Edited by Smashian Kassian, 09 February 2013 - 11:46 PM.

  • 15

zackass.png


#3 NotaSmartMan

NotaSmartMan

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 139 posts
  • Joined: 08-February 13

Posted 09 February 2013 - 11:51 PM

Everyone's already beaten the cody kassian trade to death. The trade was good for both teams, simple as, and it really shouldn't even be close to top three trades that the canucks would want to reverse.
  • 2

mv69pvh.png


I miss Jennaaaayyy.


#4 *VaNcOuVeRCaNuCkS*

*VaNcOuVeRCaNuCkS*

    Lul

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,776 posts
  • Joined: 26-March 09

Posted 09 February 2013 - 11:51 PM

*
POPULAR

I would want to reverse the Luongo trade when it happens
  • 22

Posted Image

^Vintage Canuck^

CDC STHS Hockey League Commissioner

CDC STHS Tampa Bay Lightning


#5 Primus099

Primus099

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,009 posts
  • Joined: 17-October 12

Posted 09 February 2013 - 11:52 PM

I would want to reverse the Luongo trade when it happens


  • 1

#6 Where's Wellwood

Where's Wellwood

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,192 posts
  • Joined: 12-May 10

Posted 09 February 2013 - 11:55 PM

It'd be the Ballard trade for me. I don't mind Ballard but ~4 million is too much to pay for a third pairing defenseman. This is all in hindsight of course. At the time of the trade we hadn't signed Hamhuis yet so Ballard was meant to be a top 4 D-man.
  • 0
Posted Image
Credit to khalifawiz501 for the sig.
My old sig: http://tinypic.com/v...=5#.UlSrrlAWJ7U

#7 Pavel Burrows

Pavel Burrows

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 343 posts
  • Joined: 06-January 13

Posted 09 February 2013 - 11:59 PM

+1 post...GREAT Topic.

For me it would be the Ballard trade. I would want a better return for Grabner. Don't get me wrong Ballard is playing well, but we could have gotten a better return.
  • 0
Posted Image





Credit to VC!

#8 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,615 posts
  • Joined: 09-May 10

Posted 10 February 2013 - 12:03 AM

Cam "freakin" Neely.

Neely trade for Vancouver is worst than the Kessel trade for Toronto.
  • 1

#9 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,615 posts
  • Joined: 09-May 10

Posted 10 February 2013 - 12:10 AM

*
POPULAR

OK, the obvious one is out (Neely for Pederson+)..............

Of the rest (during my lifetime at least), the three that come to mind for me are.........

Rick Vaive and Bill Derlego for Tiger Williams and Jerry Butler (I think this was the deal).

Bure for Jovo, Gagner and ???? was it Morrison?

Kassian for Hodgson


If you can think of one better than the three above, please let me know and add it to the list.

Of the three above, I would give us back Cody............5 goals, 5 assists in 10 games...........he'd be our leading scorer right now


For you younger CDC members,

Points are not the only thing that makes a hockey player. Kassian has done far more for the Canucks than Cody with his 10 Pts would have done if he was here.

Kassian brings physicality, has 5 goals and drops the gloves to keep opposing team honest. This team desperately needed a young guy like Kass. This trade looks like a win win for both sides.

I would definitely do the Kassian trade over again.
  • 9

#10 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,615 posts
  • Joined: 09-May 10

Posted 10 February 2013 - 12:11 AM

The Package: Zack Kassian vs. Nail Yakupov

By Justin Piercy

Posted: Monday, February 4, 2013 | 11:17 AM
Read 51comments51



Posted ImageThe Vancouver Canucks and Edmonton Oilers must be pleased with how young players Zack Kassian, left, and Nail Yakupov, right, have started the 2013 season. (Photos courtesy The Canadian Press)


We at CBCSports.ca will be keeping an eye on the next generation of NHL stars on Canada's seven clubs, whether they're in the NHL or working on the "farm" in the AHL.


We'll periodically check in with these players throughout the 2012-13 season, no matter what league they'll be lacing up their skates in. Today, we check in with the Vancouver Canucks' Zack Kassian and the Edmonton Oilers' Nail Yakupov, who have both impressed thus far in this lockout-shortened season.

Tale of the tape


Zack Kassian Nail Yakupov


6' 3" Height 5' 11"
214 lbs. Weight 185 lbs.
22 Age 19
13th in 2009 Drafted 1st in 2012
5 Goals 5
1 Assists 1
12 PIM 2



For two players with vastly different skill sets, Nail Yakupov and Zack Kassian have looked quite similar this season.



Sure, the rough-as-sandpaper Kassian has had his share of fisticuffs eight games into the season, including this tilt against Oilers tough-guy Ben Eager where Kassian tried to inject some life into his team and the crowd:




Yakupov has also stepped up to correct a perceived slight against his teammates, going after Matt Duchene after the Avs' forward shot the puck at the Oilers' net after the period had ended on Saturday.

While the Oilers forward's goal celebrations soured some pundits, he has found the back of the net five times and added an assist -- immediate production from last year's first overall draft pick, and plenty of highlight-reel fodder from his superhuman hand-eye coordination:


So what's Kassian done? Oh, he's just the Canucks' leading goal scorer.

Paired with the Sedin twins on the first line, and seeing a decent amount of time on the power play, the Windsor, Ont., native has the same offensive output as Yakupov -- five goals and one helper, including this tally showcasing his soft hands in the roughest part of the ice:


With the Canucks in Edmonton on Monday night, the two will share the ice... but who do you think makes the bigger impact?

Edited by WHL rocks, 10 February 2013 - 12:14 AM.

  • 1

#11 canuckfan85

canuckfan85

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 718 posts
  • Joined: 08-February 13

Posted 10 February 2013 - 12:27 AM

*
POPULAR

Neely trade- this thread does not reallly deserve to even hold a discussion, the Neely trade which also brought them Lucic, which brought them the cup, so this is the only answer to a very unoriginal question.
  • 5

#12 Noheart

Noheart

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,810 posts
  • Joined: 01-June 12

Posted 10 February 2013 - 12:45 AM

Neely trade- this thread does not reallly deserve to even hold a discussion, the Neely trade which also brought them Lucic, which brought them the cup, so this is the only answer to a very unoriginal question.


I believe Neely is our curse of the bambino.
  • 3
Posted Image

BEASTLY!!!

#13 Supensunny

Supensunny

    K-Wing Regular

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 16 posts
  • Joined: 20-May 12

Posted 10 February 2013 - 01:20 AM

I have to wait to see where Lu goes and what we get...but otherwise...The Bure trade was the one that Hurt us the most.
  • 0

#14 Supensunny

Supensunny

    K-Wing Regular

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 16 posts
  • Joined: 20-May 12

Posted 10 February 2013 - 01:22 AM

For that matter...maybe getting nothing for Ehrhoff and Salo could be even worse!
  • 0

#15 Virt 'n Kass

Virt 'n Kass

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 359 posts
  • Joined: 22-July 10

Posted 10 February 2013 - 01:36 AM

Why is the Neely trade out? I mean, that's like saying "What's 2 + 2? And 4 is out." I get the feeling this is meant to be another "Why did we trade Cody?" thread, but in (a very flimsy) disguise.

OT: reverse the Neely trade. There is literally no other option. You may have different opinions; those opinions are wrong. We traded away a future Hall of Famer and got something between "bugger" and "all" in return.
  • 1

#16 SamiSalo

SamiSalo

    K-Wing Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 50 posts
  • Joined: 03-September 08

Posted 10 February 2013 - 01:57 AM

If you can think of one better than the three above, please let me know and add it to the list.

Of the three above, I would give us back Cody............5 goals, 5 assists in 10 games...........he'd be our leading scorer right now


Would he somehow have Vanek on his wing here as well?

Grabner and 1st for Ballard.
  • 0

#17 Z. Kassian

Z. Kassian

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,124 posts
  • Joined: 14-July 07

Posted 10 February 2013 - 02:12 AM

I don't like the Ballard deal. NOT that I miss Grabner but I think with the signing of Hamhuis, Ballard turned out to be expendable and a 5-6th dman. We could have gotten more for grabner and a 1st (howden) He is doing pretty well I might add, looks to be developing into a 2nd line winger.
  • 0
Posted Image

#18 Tortorella's Rant

Tortorella's Rant

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,351 posts
  • Joined: 11-April 12

Posted 10 February 2013 - 02:40 AM

Naslund and Stojanov.

Naslund sucks and Stojanov would have challenged Gretzky for every NHL record he set if he stayed in Vancouver.



...... How is my King of the BS impersonation?
  • 0
Posted Image

#19 Edlerberry

Edlerberry

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,245 posts
  • Joined: 01-February 12

Posted 10 February 2013 - 02:48 AM

Recently: BALLARD TRADE

In History: CLEARLY NEELY

Personal Annoyance: BALLARD TRADE

WORST RE-SIGNING: BIEKSA @ $4.6m

WORST UN-RE-SIGNING: WIllie Mitchell @ $3.5m

Edited by gushybear, 10 February 2013 - 02:48 AM.

  • 0
July 7-2013

Toronto will take a step back next year.
Feel free to quote me.


July 8-2013

Wow I can't believe peoples replies...
Im done here. You people are disgusting..


#20 Coconuts

Coconuts

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,041 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 09

Posted 10 February 2013 - 02:51 AM

The Neely trade.

But if it's got to be a modern trade it would be the Ballard trade.
  • 0

Posted Image

Posted ImagePosted Image


#21 brewdog

brewdog

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 356 posts
  • Joined: 30-June 12

Posted 10 February 2013 - 05:49 AM

*
POPULAR

Cooke for Pettinger.
  • 6

#22 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,810 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 10 February 2013 - 07:42 AM

OK, the obvious one is out (Neely for Pederson+)..............

Of the rest (during my lifetime at least), the three that come to mind for me are.........

Rick Vaive and Bill Derlego for Tiger Williams and Jerry Butler (I think this was the deal).

Bure for Jovo, Gagner and ???? was it Morrison?

Kassian for Hodgson


If you can think of one better than the three above, please let me know and add it to the list.

Of the three above, I would give us back Cody............5 goals, 5 assists in 10 games...........he'd be our leading scorer right now



None of those trades are ones I'd reverse.

I would not have put the Williams trade on the list. Much like how Kassian has brought a change of attitude and confidence in the play of the team, Williams did the same thing for the Canucks back in the early 80's. Toronto may have gotten more goals with Vaive and Derlago, but it didn't do much, if anything, to improve their regular season and playoff results. The Canucks actually went to a Cup final with Williams.

The Jovanovski deal is one I may have tinkered with, in 20/20 hindsight. I'd still have traded Bure. He wanted out and Jovanovski as the main piece coming back was pretty darn good. I was sorry to see Hedican go, and I might have tried to hold on to him.

The Kassian deal is a no-brainer. We have seen what Kassian has done for this team with his offensive production, his sound defensive play, his physical play, and most importantly, the change of attitude he has inspired in his team mates. Hodgson was always touted as being a leader and "future captain" on this team. Kassian has actually gone out and led by example.

If you want to ride the points hobby-horse you have to take the good with the bad. The Canucks might not get as many goals or points from Kassian as they may have gotten from Hodgson, but they also wouldn't have had the increased number of goals scored against, which is a good thing. Currently, Kassian may only have 5g 1a to Hodgson's 5g 7a, but he is also +2 to Hodgson's -2. This is a -4g difference in team production, and looking at the team results this year, could have resulted in fewer wins.

Yeah, I'll keep the big guy who hits, fights when needed, skates well, has a great pass, has good hockey sense, is versatile and can play on any line, can score goals, and inspires his team over Hodgson.



For me it would be the Ballard trade. I would want a better return for Grabner. Don't get me wrong Ballard is playing well, but we could have gotten a better return.


I would want to tinker with the Ballard trade. I'm not sure that I'd want to give up a 1st, but that was the price for a top-4 d-man. We are only now seeing what Gillis got in that deal, and Ballard is looking pretty good. Sadly, his contract is a bit high for where he plays and the new CBA may well mean that the Canucks will have to move Ballard.

I regret moving Bernier more than I regret trading Grabner. To be blunt, I don't think you could get anything more for Grabner than what Gillis did manage to achieve. Grabner just couldn't get his head screwed on right, and it took him being traded and then waived (with the intent of sending him to the minors) before he finally woke up. What more do you think Gillis could have gotten for Grabner? This is meant as a serious question, not an attack :).

As I see it, the other teams would know what Grabner could potentially do on offense, but would also be aware of his short-comings in other areas of the game. They would also know that the Canucks were very close to the cap ceiling and couldn't afford to keep Grabner up here sitting in the press box. They'd also know that the Canucks were (and still are) a very deep team and that Grabner very likely would not be kept up on the merits of his play. This, along with the cap considerations, meant the Canucks would have to waive Grabner in order to return him to the minors, and he would very likely have been claimed which would mean the Canucks would lose him for nothing in return, other than they'd have a freed up contract space.

So, if you were Tallon, and you saw the Grabner situation unfolding as it was, would you really have paid more for Grabner? And were Gillis to try and trade Grabner on his own what would inspire another GM to offer more than a low pick or prospect in return for Grabner? He was an asset the Canucks could likely not keep, and it was questionable that he would make it to the NHL, so they would know that they had Gillis over a barrel.

This season looks like Grabner may be making a bit of a return to his scoring results of two years ago, however, his -3 says he's still playing like he did last year (where he finished -18).


For that matter...maybe getting nothing for Ehrhoff and Salo could be even worse!


Meh, Ehrhoff wanted to take his "best chance to win a Cup" with Buffalo. The fact that they were offering more money and term than what the Canucks could reasonably afford is beside the point, of course.

Salo went with longer term and more money as well. This being said, who would the Canucks not have with the money going to Salo (or Ehrhoff)? Garrison, Schneider, Burrows, Edler, all of those guys were signed in place of Salo (and no, you can't count all of the depth guys as you'd need to take out about a half a dozen to equal the money Salo did sign for in TB). And where would he have played this year? Ahead of Ballard or Tanev, perhaps?

And then there's the thing of the 35+ contract which would make signing Salo a very risky proposition what with his injury history.


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

#23 Goal:thecup

Goal:thecup

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 610 posts
  • Joined: 03-September 07

Posted 10 February 2013 - 08:07 AM

Jiri Slegr for Roman Oksiuta.
  • 0

#24 Goal:thecup

Goal:thecup

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 610 posts
  • Joined: 03-September 07

Posted 10 February 2013 - 08:14 AM

Letting Larionov go so the Russian Ice Hockey Federation would not get part of his pay (I know, not a trade, but we lost a great player).
  • 1

#25 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,810 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 10 February 2013 - 08:37 AM

If you can think of one better than the three above, please let me know and add it to the list.


Why would we let you know? Wouldn't we let vcr know so he could add it to the list? ;)


Of the three above, I would give us back Cody............5 goals, 5 assists in 10 games...........he'd be our leading scorer right now


He'd also be tied for second to last on team +/-.


I don't like the Ballard deal. NOT that I miss Grabner but I think with the signing of Hamhuis, Ballard turned out to be expendable and a 5-6th dman. We could have gotten more for grabner and a 1st (howden) He is doing pretty well I might add, looks to be developing into a 2nd line winger.


Looking back at that time, the Canucks had on defense:
Ehrhoff - who was on the last year of his contract and might have already been making noises about wanting more than the Canucks could afford to pay him, so Ballard could be a guy for the future.
Edler - 24 yrs old and still a bit green. And wasn't he a bit banged up at the start of the season?
Bieksa - who was coming off of a pretty bad year, and hadn't been quite the player he was in previous seasons. Some were assuming he'd be traded with the acquisition of Ballard.
Salo - good player, but also injury prone. If memory serves, he started the season injured and it was uncertain if he would continue to play.

And then there was the revolving door of guys like: Alberts, or Rome, and Tanev was barely a blip on anybody's radar as yet,

Mitchell was coming off of what might have been a career ending injury, and it was uncertain (in July 2010) that he would continue to play. It was a sound business decision on Gillis' part to not offer Mitchell a better deal than what was put forward to him by teh Canucks. LA was in much greater need of a d-man, and they took the chance. I suppose if Mitchell had been injured while he still had a term left on his contract, he might still be a Canuck.

Hamhuis hadn't signed yet. Sure, it was "a sure thing" that he would sign here, but it was also a sure thing that Schultz would sign here too, right?

So, the Canucks did kinda' need a d-man. Should that guy have been Ballard is perhaps the question. He had previously had very good results in both Phoenix and Florida where he put up numbers comparable to Ehrhoff when he was with San Jose and played a very physical style (unlike Ehrhoff). While I was disappointed that he cost a 1st, that 1st round pick was the price of picking up a guy the team needed. Grabner and Bernier were a throw-in and a cap dump, nothing more.

The problem with the Ballard deal was his injury situation over the last couple of seasons, and his poor results when he is moved to the right side. There aren't many guys who are completely comfortable playing on both the right and left side. I'm not really sure that we can blame him for not being better than Hanhuis or Edler (who play ahead of him on the left side).


Naslund and Stojanov.

Naslund sucks and Stojanov would have challenged Gretzky for every NHL record he set if he stayed in Vancouver.



...... How is my King of the BS impersonation?


I find it hard to disagree with you. Your comment just makes so much sense. Indeed, what has Naslud done for this team, lately?



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

#26 JensenFan2011

JensenFan2011

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,394 posts
  • Joined: 21-September 10

Posted 10 February 2013 - 08:52 AM

Why would we want to do the Hodgson trade over?

It is looking pretty good for us.

.............................................................................................. no just cause you don't agree with the way hodgson left doesn't mean that the trade was good. Hodgson is greater than kassian pretty much doubles him in goals and is playing well enough defense to play on the PK the only thing kassian is doing better is penalty minutes. you can not convince me that a 3rd line player is better than a 1st line player
  • 0

#27 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,810 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 10 February 2013 - 09:01 AM

Letting Larionov go so the Russian Ice Hockey Federation would not get part of his pay (I know, not a trade, but we lost a great player).


I always had the feeling that Larionov didn't want to be in Vancouver (or perhaps in Canada) as much as he didn't like the Russian Ice Hockey Federation. If he wanted to play here again, he could have signed here as a free agent once he returned from the Swiss league, rather than signing with the Sharks.

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

#28 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,810 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 10 February 2013 - 09:22 AM

.............................................................................................. no just cause you don't agree with the way hodgson left doesn't mean that the trade was good. Hodgson is greater than kassian pretty much doubles him in goals and is playing well enough defense to play on the PK the only thing kassian is doing better is penalty minutes. you can not convince me that a 3rd line player is better than a 1st line player


And just because you don't agree with the way Hodgson left doesn't mean that the trade wasn't good.

I would not even try to convince you that a 3rd line player is better than a 1st line player, however, since Kassian is more than a 3rd line player, and Hodgson is not a 1st line player I guess it's okay to try in this case. Uh, you were implying that Hodgson was the first line player, and Kassian was the 3rd line player, right?

Nobody is disputing Hodgson's offensive talent. It would indeed be surprising if he doesn't outpoint Kassian over their respective careers. Although, at this point in time they are equal in goals scored.

You are also kind of off base by implying that Hodgson is a sound defensive player just because he gets an occaisional shift on the PK. His -2 is rather high compared to Kassian's +2.

You also need to look at a number of the intangibles each player brings. For example: Hodgson is having no where the effect on the Sabres as Kassian is having on the Canucks.


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

#29 Canucks fan in chicago

Canucks fan in chicago

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 882 posts
  • Joined: 01-January 12

Posted 10 February 2013 - 09:28 AM

Trading Samuelsson for Booth. Because we traded playoff experience for less points and a bigger cap hit.
  • 1

#30 Mookie Wilson

Mookie Wilson

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,013 posts
  • Joined: 13-January 09

Posted 10 February 2013 - 11:16 AM

Reverse the Ballard trade. Trade Grabner for a pick or younger prospect. Re-sign Mitchell for 2 years, $6M. Instead of Ballard, we would have had Mitchell + 2 prospects similar in value to Quinton Howden (and one of them may have been Howden).
  • 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.