SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME

It's surprising how poor his FO% has been at the NHL level, given that his faceoff ability was initially considered one of his "strengths" in many of the draft scouting reports. Hopefully it's an area of his game that can still be improved, as he has many of the other traits required for a prototypical 3rd line centre with size.

Yeah, it's a pretty misleading statement ("McQuaid for 2007 pick Jamie Benn"). Just for "gits and shiggles" this morning, I decided to take a few minutes to re-visit the 2007 draft and the McQuaid trade (open spoiler for details):

It would fit with the intended timeline Linden has suggested. Would be great to have the new GM in place with 5-6 weeks left to prepare for the draft. The only candidates I like more than Benning are guys who probably won't leave their current jobs. Definitely feel like he's the best man available, especially for the specific needs of this team and its front office.

Lots to say today (and so this post is going to be very tl;dr). First off, I needed to address this: My response (open spoiler): So that's the long answer for what I believe to be the main driver of the current "decline" in this team. And Gillis certainly bears responsibility for this failure since he makes the roster. But anyway, let's move on to the news of the day: My Take on the Tortorella Firing *Again, this is super long so just open the spoiler if you're up for it (and have the time):

In the words of Charles Baudelaire: Pretty much sums up how I'm feeling about tonight's news.

I think we all knew that Burrows' new deal was more of a "reward for services" contract. It was always going to be a challenge (especially as he declines) for him to consistently meet the production rates that are generally expected of a $4.5 million player. However, it's probably more appropriate to look at these kinds of deals in terms of career earnings/career points. Burrows, the Sedins, Kesler, and most of the Canucks' core have bought into a team structure where Gillis asked them to accept what the team could afford to pay them instead of what the market said they were worth. For many years, this meant players taking "hometown discounts" that paid them significantly less than what the market would usually dictate. When the recent extensions came around for Burrows and the twins, the Canucks were in a position to offer them more money. This IMHO was always part of the understanding between Gillis and the team's core players. Burrows was content making $2 million/year for 30 goals/season because he knew that MG would "take care of him" on the next deal. In terms of career earnings/points, here's where things stand: Burrows: $15.9 million/309 points = $51,456 per point Henrik: $46.165 million/842 points = $54,828 per point Daniel: $46.165 million/805 points = $57,348 per point And here are some comparables: Matt Moulson: $13,902,500/275 points = $50,555 per point Erik Cole: $34.46 million/493 points = $69,899 per point Scott Hartnell: $38,357,500/537 points = $71,429 per point Pascal Dupuis: $14,311,000/394 points = $36,322 per point Chris Kunitz: $24,462,500/471 points = $51,937 per point Joe Thornton: $76.425 million/1194 points = $64,007 per point Patrick Marleau: $61.795 million/931 points = $66,375 per point Pavel Datsyuk: $57.525 million/804 points = $71,549 per point Patrice Bergeron: $40.296 million/495 points = $81,406 per point So basically, you have Burrows' career earnings/points being on the lower side for a 20+ goal winger. He's not as good a deal as Dupuis (who I think would have been a fair comparable in contract negotiations), but he's right in line with guys like Moulson and Kunitz (who are generally considered to be good value). And he's well below the accepted market value for proven 20+ goal wingers in their 30s. As for the twins, they have been well below market value for PPG+ first line players. Even if the twins average only 50-60 points/season from here on out (although I think they'll do better than that), they'll still finish out their careers as good value players (compared to what the market pays for points production). Based on recent contracts, the current market value (for forwards) is somewhere in the $7 million/season to $9 million/season range for players who produce just over a point per game (which is roughly $100,000/point). So the twins need to hit 70 points for market value on their new deals. But given that they've been paid under market value for so many seasons, they've pretty much earned their money no matter what they produce. As for Burrows, recent contracts suggest that this league pays around $200,000 per goal. So Burrows would need to score 23 goals per season to be hitting market value at $4.5 million. But given how far under market value he's been to date, he's still going to be a "good deal" for his career regardless of whether or not he gets his touch back. And that's just looking at these players purely in terms of points and goals. Burrows and the twins bring much more to this team than just their scoring line (although the team, as currently constructed, requires that they produce more offense than they did in 2013-14). Paying "reward for services" contracts does create a stress on the team's salary cap. Obviously, when they're not producing (and the team's struggling on a whole), it's tough having $18.5 million AAV tied up in the twins and Burr. But this is also part of the cycle that all teams must go through in order to retain their veteran core players and maintain a leadership group and a sense of team identity. The good thing is that the Sedins and Burrows don't need to hit unreasonable target numbers in order to meet the market value on their current deals. I don't find it far fetched to think that the twins can together produce around 140 points/season (especially if they're healthy and if the coaching staff returns to a more suitable usage and system). Both Sedins (especially Daniel) had statistical drop-offs that were far greater than what could reasonably be attributed to age/decline. They should experience some "return to the mean" in their advanced stats and this will translate into better overall production. Even as aging players, there's no reason they can't put-up respectable scoring totals (especially if they get a little help from the coaches and management) Similarly, I think that Burrows' 2013-14 numbers were largely an aberration. Although he was due for some drop-off, I believe that the degree to which he struggled was more a result of injuries, usage/system, and some horrible puck luck (his 950 PDO, 4.57 on-ice team shooting%, and 4.8 personal shooting% are all shockingly low compared to his career numbers). It's a fair assumption that he'll bounce back (even with some drop-off due to decline) and that he can probably still be counted on to produce around 20 goals per season (if healthy and with the right system/usage). So the contracts should be fine. They won't be considered "bargains" anymore but they're not really anything out of line with current market value either. And when viewed as part of their overall career earnings/points, these deals are more than fair. EDIT: additions and clarifications

Yeah, I was watching as well. Too bad about the result (especially that giveaway) But as to Virtanen's game today: to be fair, the Czechs were playing things pretty tight against Canada's top players for most of that game. Virtanen's not the only one who was finding it hard to break through their defense. There were some flashes where he looked like a potential game breaker. He just wasn't able to put it all together today (and he was also a little unlucky at times). I did occasionally notice his limited vision when it comes to making plays at full speed on the rush. He just doesn't look like a guy who thinks the game quick enough when things are moving at full speed. When the game's been slowed down and he has a little more time and space (like on the PP), he looked quite good making plays and finding teammates (they just didn't find the back of the net). I was bothered by his tendency to hold the puck too long when carrying on the rush. He went end to end a couple times only to go behind the net and swing it out front to nobody (which was a little too "à la Mason Raymond" for my liking). Turned some good odd man situations into one-and-outs and just didn't seem to have the vision necessary to find teammates when handling the puck at top speed. That all said, it's not really fair to judge anyone on the basis of one game. And this one wasn't one of his best. On the positive side, I was impressed with his work on the PP from the left circle and halfboards. His vision and hockey sense looked better than advertised in those situations. But when the game was moving at very high speed, he sometimes seemed to suffer from a little bit of "tunnel vision." This certainly shouldn't effect his ability to score goals but it could limit his playmaking ability (especially at the highest level). As for those "discipline issues" that Craig Button seems to love focusing on, they don't really bother me. I think those aspects of his game will be easily ironed out with age and experience.

No question Fabbri is small (last chart I read had him 5'10.25" and 171 lbs) but he's also very strong on his skates and his compete level is off the charts. He also owns a skillset that's nearly as good as the Nylander/Ehlers type of guys and his skating is considered elite among this draft class. 58 GP, 45 G, 42 A, 87 PTS, 55 PIM, +45 (Playoffs: 6 GP, 5 G, 4 A, 9 PTS, 2 PIM, +4) Another 2" height and 20 lbs and Fabbri would be a consensus top-10 pick this year. But he's also growing and will likely be 5'11" by the start of next season. His low centre of gravity body type is one that allows the addition of mass without messing up his balance and mobility. My belief is that he might end-up adding enough height and weight that he won't even be considered "small" when he's fully developed. I'm thinking he becomes a Jeff Skinner type. Ideally, he could get to around 5'11" (maybe even 6'0") and 190-195lbs when he's in his early 20s. I've posted video and scouting reports in the prospects board draft thread but here's a decent summary from Elite Prospects: The only thing I'd add to that report is that Fabbri is one of the most aggressive and effective forecheckers in the OHL (#mrforecheck). Just is case Torts gets another year.

Yeah, I'm kinda hoping Calgary takes Ritchie because that would likely slide either Draisaitl or Dal Colle to #6 (and I'd be happy with either one). I won't be anything near to unhappy with Ritchie, I just have some doubts that make me a tad nervous (can't put my finger on them exactly, just don't feel confident he'll reach his full potential). As for acquiring a late 1st rounder, I'm not sure what the market will be. Probably #36 + #66 would be more likely to yield something in the #26-30 range (than the 18-25 range I'm hoping). With this draft, I feel like it drops off into a second tier pretty early but there's also a fairly large group of players who could be ranked (on various team's charts) anywhere between #15 and #45. So I don't know how much difference there is in value between a late 1st and an early 2nd. In other drafts (like 2013), it's not close and you need to add a 2nd rounder just to move up two spots in the late 1st round. But in this draft, I can see teams being more willing to trade position for volume. I'd definitely try shopping our 2nd and 3rd to see how high a pick might be available. As for trading roster players for picks, I'd rather look to add 2015 1st rounders (deeper draft), but every team wants picks in that draft so they might not be very easy to acquire. And while this year's draft class isn't considered very strong or deep, there are several players in that "smaller, skilled" category who I'd be happy to take in that #15-45 range. I've been pretty high on Robby Fabbri and I'd love to see the Canucks find a way to grab him (with a late 1st or early 2nd).

I wonder if we could get into the 18-25 range by trading our #36 and #66? If we're picking one of the size+skill players with #6 (as recent rumours suggest), it could be a good move to also grab a nifty speedster with top-end hands/handling. I can see a few good options who should be still available in the late 1st round (and even one of the #6-15 ranked guys might slide into the 20s). Basically something pretty similar to a repeat of last year's 1st round where we picked a bigger "safe" pick (Horvat) and then a smaller, riskier player (Shinkaruk) with potential top-end skills.

Other than possibly Kassian and the twins, I would think that Torts and Gillis were actually pretty much on the same page on how those players were used. I would imagine that Gillis had hoped Torts would given Kassian more chances and more time in the top-six, if for no other reason than to help justify the Hodgson trade (and improve fan opinion and his reputation an a GM). But MG probably also hoped Kassian would have played well enough (and consistently so) to force his way up the roster. That didn't happen (at least for the majority of the season). At the same time, I would assume that Kassian's usage was discussed at length during the frequent coach-GM meetings (that both MG and Torts have said took place throughout the season) and that ultimately, Gillis left coaching decisions to the coaches. Same goes for the twins. Gillis has openly suggested that he didn't really like the idea of using the twins as much as they were used (and in all the situations they were played) but ultimately, he left those decisions in the hands of his coaches (at least until that final presser). As for Horvat and Shinkaruk, Torts himself stated that he and Gillis were on the same page with wanting those players to actually play full minutes and get the most development time possible. That meant them both going back to junior (unfortunately Shinkaruk got hurt). Both players were given a shot during camp/preseason, however, as they were auditioned with top players and in important roles, and they ended up being among the team's final roster cuts.. For Jensen, he was injured before the season even started so there was no way for him to earn a place in the Canucks' opening lineup. After he was healthy enough to play for Utica, he struggled for months to get his game on track. Even once he was scoring, Gillis said he felt Jensen needed more AHL seasoning and he was only called up after injuries created a need. Torts, meanwhile, wasn't even all that familiar with Jensen and was certainly not clamoring for him being added to the roster. Once Jensen arrived, however, he was given quality minutes with the Sedins (and also demoted, in Torts' usual fashion, when the coach felt he needed correction or "a push"). For Corrado, his Utica play wasn't poor but it wasn't much of a step forward either. He certainly wasn't dominating at the AHL level (which is what you'd hope for after he looked so good in his 2012-13 NHL debut). His first callup to the Canucks this season was very disappointing as he generally struggled and often looked lost and very far from ready for regular NHL duties. It was only during the last few games of his later callup that he looked like anything close to an NHL-level defenseman. It's funny because people slag on both Gillis and Torts for not using the young players properly or "getting younger" as was the organization's public message to start the season. However, most of the prospects who weren't used either weren't ready or just weren't available for much of the season. Those who were used, like Kassian, Tanev, Stanton, Jensen (and even guys like Dalpe, Schroeder, Welsh, Archibald, and Corrado) were actually given pretty good opportunities and, when earned, were allowed to advance to important roles in the lineup. As for the question of depth, this season was always one where adding significant players would have been extremely difficult. The cap situation was extremely challenging and there weren't many surplus assets available to trade for good young talent. IMHO, the youth movement and "re-tooling" was already well underway this year and would have expanded annually (even if Gillis stayed) as existing players developed and new talent was acquired (through the draft, trades/turnover, and with an improving cap situation). Similarly, I really believe that Torts would have used any young player he believed was an asset to his overall team approach and would give minutes to anyone, regardless of age/experience, that he felt would help the team win games.

I don't buy this at all. But it's going to probably take a fairly long post to explain why. Here goes: I see Kesler as a very sensitive player. He needs to feel like he's wanted. If the team comes to him and asks him to potentially waive for a trade, he's going to take that personally and feel like they don't want him and they think they can be better without him. You can't overstate how something like that would play on a guy like Kesler. He's not going to block a trade and stay where he feels he's not wanted. I think that the whole trade thing came directly from management and Kesler was probably upset that he was approached. Whatever relationship he had with MG and the former regime was likely damaged irreparably (and this is one of the few reasons why Gillis truly needed to go). You have to consider how Kesler has consistently responded to suggestions that he was the one who started the process of him being shopped. He gets visibly angry and bristles at the idea that he asked for a trade. His denials are extremely strong. It's clear that the deadline period was very difficult for Kesler and the experience weighed heavily on him emotionally. He's repeatedly talked about needing to lean on him teammates to get through it. How it's something he's never experienced before, never expected to happen, was never part of his life/family plans, and was never something he envisioned for his career with Vancouver. I do think that his comments today make it pretty clear that he did agree to provide a list and accept a trade (if MG could work one out). I don't believe he ever wanted to leave but I think he also didn't want to stay if it meant that he was forcing management to keep him. Kesler's a very proud guy and, like I said before, he's extremely sensitive. I think he's 100% sincere when he says that he loves this city, loves the team, sees himself retiring here, doesn't know any other home (other than where he grew up), doesn't want to leave Vancouver, et cetera. I just think that being shopped (and asked to waive) was something that probably wounded him deeply and created a situation where he would accept a trade. But he was never going to be happy leaving Vancouver. I think that firing MG has probably done as much as is currently possible to repair the situation. Where things go in the future will largely depend on how Linden (and the next management team) approaches future dealings with Kesler. And I think that Torts, if he stays in Vancouver, will very likely ask management to build this team around a core that includes Ryan Kesler. I do not get the sense that Torts sees Kesler as one of the core players that needs to be moved. If anything, I've consistently gotten the sense from Torts that he believes Kesler is the very last player who should be traded. There's going to be some healing time necessary but if the Canucks decide to take the necessary steps to repair the relationship and move forward with Kesler, I can easily see him re-signing with Vancouver when his current deal expires. That all said, if Linden decides it's in the team's best interest to try to use Kesler to acquire some of the assets needed for rebuilding the team, then Kesler will almost certainly accept the move. Like I said before, Kesler is not the type of guy who would force a team to keep him if he feels like he's not wanted. That doesn't mean he doesn't have "his heart in Vancouver." If anything, I'd say it suggests that his feelings for this city and team run very deep.

I'm just glad that Philly can't win shootouts on home ice (they're 0-for-3 this year). Was really worried about Carolina dropping that game after it went to 4-4 (and then 5-5 for force OT). Pretty much holding my breath through the extra five minutes and then relaxed once they started cleaning ice for the shootout. Now I don't have to cheer against our boys tonight (not that it would have been tough to go "turncoat" for one game after everything that's happened this season).

Carolina up 4-1 now, and the 6th overall getting tantalizingly close to set for Vancouver. EDIT: Wow! 4-4 now with Philly scoring three while I wrote this post! Might still need our boys to lose their final game. So if Reinhart, Bennett, and Ekblad are gone in the first three picks, and with Calgary rumoured to be going hard after Ritchie, we should be looking at one of either Dal Colle or Draisaitl being available at #6. Sounds pretty good to me. There are those pesky rumours about Edmonton being high enough on Draisaitl that he might go 3rd overall, but I can't see how they can sell their fanbase on passing on another top-ranked D and picking yet another forward in the first round. And if Ekblad is gone in the top-2, can they really pass on Reinhart or Bennett (and it they do, one of those just drops closer to us). The way things are stacking up, I feel like we'll be loving whoever we take with #6 (unless we go off the board in some crazy way). There's even an outside chance of Ekblad (who's still ranked #1 by some organizations) falling to #6, if the recent rumours are to be believed (re: Edmonton, NYI, and Calgary's potential targets). I haven't even considered this option until now as I never felt like there was a remote chance of him being available when the Canucks picked. It really seems like we can't go wrong if we just stay within the rankings and pick BPA. And as much as I like Ehlers, I'd rather go with more of a consensus #6 and then maybe look to grab a risk/reward guy who falls to the 2nd round (or possibly acquire another 1st round pick if one of the riskier players with potential elite talent is dropping down the board and still hanging around in the 15-25 range).

Cogliano (the current Ducks version) is a pretty good comparable. Personally, I see Fabbri developing into more of a Jeff Skinner type (and Fabbri actually models much of his game after Skinner). While his size is currently a concern (and the only reason he's not considered a top-10 pick), Fabbri is also blessed with a low centre of gravity body type that should allow him to add muscle mass. I see him getting to about 5'11" and 195lbs by the age of 21/22. The draft ranking charts suggest he's growing right now and filling out some (he seems to get a little bigger every month). And even at his current size, he's very strong on his skates. Add in a compete level that close observers have described as "off the charts" and I see a guy who has a great chance to overcome any size disadvantage and reach his potential in the NHL. I think that grabbing Fabbri could take some of the sting off of passing on Ehlers (for those who really want him). Not saying that Fabbri has the same top-end skills but he's a similarly gifted skater with great hands and he plays a very dynamic offensive game (as his stats and scouting reports show). Take one of the big guys (I like a few options) with the first round pick and then hope a guy like Fabbri drops enough to nab him with the 2nd pick. He's still ranked in the 30s on several charts and the smaller guys are often the ones who fall on draft day. He also recently suffered an injury from a head shot in the playoffs (was kept out for four games) and while they've denied he suffered any concussion (claiming a "sore neck" and "bruised jaw"), he did get his bell rung and little things like that cause a drop on draft day (for the record, I think he's fine and there aren't any concerns moving forward). So he still might be available at #37 (or wherever we pick). Of course, he could also be gone before we get to the middle of the 1st round. Hopefully, if Fabbri is still out there, he'll be a player the Canucks have scouted and have good info on. I imagine Guelph coach Scott Walker would be happy to tell his old buddy Trevor Linden the full story on what Fabbri brings to the table (Walker and Linden were teammates from 1995 to 1998). On a side note, Fabbri's also the kid whose headshot concussed current Canucks' prospect Evan McEneny, earning a 10 game suspension in the process. Could make for some interesting storylines plus a few awkward moments at future prospects camps and tourneys. Here's some video on Fabbri:

If we end up passing on Ehlers in favour of a larger sized player, I'm hoping that Robby Fabbri remains on the board long enough that the Canucks can claim him with their second pick. Several rankings have him in the 30s although some have put him top-10. Many people expect him to fall to the second round due to his size. But those people also predict he could be the steal of the 2014 Draft. Here's some scouting on Fabbri: Fabbri's stats line: 2013-14 Regular Season: 58 GP, 45 G, 42 A, 87 PTS, +45, 55 PIM 2014 OHL Playoffs: 5 GP (missed 4 games due to injury), 4 G, 3 A, 7 PTS, +2, 2 PIM Size: 5'10" (5' 10 1/4" on most recent charts--if that last 1/4 inch matters) 166 lbs (170 lbs on some recent charts) Other vitals: Centre (C/LW), shoots left, January 1996 born

I don't think that becoming Canucks GM would be a demotion for McNab. He currently functions as a #2 (ie: Assistant General Manager) to the Ducks' GM. They just give everyone a "Vice President" title in that front office: Bob Murray: Executive Vice President and General Manager David McNab: Senior Vice President of Hockey Operations At worst, becoming the Canucks' GM would be a lateral move for McNab (as he'd be #2 to Linden). However, given that Linden doesn't have the same background or experience of a Bob Murray, McNab (or whoever becomes the new GM) would likely be assuming larger responsibilities and a more important role than his current one with the Ducks. But I agree that it might be a tough task to pry him out of Anaheim. He's very comfortable there and the vacant Canucks GM position isn't the typical #1 job (because of Linden's position at the top of hockey ops).

Agreed. Benning has all the qualities needed to form an effective management partnership with Linden. I like McNab slightly more but he seems to be very comfortable in his current position while Benning is rumoured to currently hold more aspirations for a GM position. With the news of Pat Quinn also being interested in re-joining the hockey club, there appears to be the makings of what could be an effective management team. Trevor Linden: President of Hockey Operations Jim Benning: GM and Vice President of Hockey Operations Pat Quinn: Senior Advisor, Hockey Operations EDIT: I'd also love to see the Canucks retain Gilman but I think he'll get poached by another team (likely Calgary) for a GM position, especially since staying in his AGM position role would essentially be a demotion (given that he was Gillis' #2 man and now there are going to be two new guys directly above him in hockey ops). That said, Gilman is very good at what he does and seems happy here so maybe Linden can convince him to stay with the team. EDIT2: I just noticed that the current Canucks front office page has been edited and has the following listed: Trevor Linden: President, General Manager & Alternate Governor, NHL Laurence Gilman: Vice President Hockey Operations & Assistant General Manager http://canucks.nhl.com/club/page.htm?id=39578 IIRC, Gilman didn't hold the position of "Vice President Hockey Operations" previously. That looks like a promotion (in title at least) so hopefully this is part moving Gilman up the ladder and convincing him to stay. Also, I would guess that Linden's current GM title is an interim/transitional position?

That's it in a nutshell. I'll admit that my plan is largely influenced by how highly I value Niskanen and where I see his potential ceiling. I honestly believe he might eventually become a #1D. And given that the Canucks appear to be going with an inexperienced tandem in net (Lack/Markstrom), I think that the D needs to be as deep and complete as possible. The risk comes if Niskanen doesn't meet projections and never become more than a #5D for this team. Personally, I see the chances of this as very low. He's worked hard to build a very complete game. This season, he's played every defenseman role for the Pens (from shutdown D to PPQB), and excelled at it all. He's also emerged as a leader on and off the ice and the first player that Pittsburgh's rookies turn to for advice and support. And he's still only 27 years old. I see Niskanen as a guy who could come in and be a real fix to many of the weaknesses and issues in the current overall D group (very similar to what adding Hamhuis initially accomplished--but with far more offensive impact). By upgrading the overall mobility and puck-handling ability of the D (which are among Niskanen's core strengths), there should be an overall improvement to the team transition game and puck possession, which should make the forwards perform much better offensively. This needs, of course, to be coupled with some adjustments to the system and player usage. But I think that upgrading the D (both in the personnel and their performance/execution) would create the best environment for successfully working rookie forwards into meaningful roles in the lineup (including regular spots in the top-six). And like you said: if it doesn't work, there should still be enough defensive depth to trade one of the top-4 Ds for a more experienced impact top-6 forward. EDIT: And I think adding Niskanen could help to improve Edler's performance and value, simply by taking the puck off his stick (especially in the neutral zone) and allowing Edler to move into a more secondary puck-handling role (as opposed to the primary D puck carrier--where he's never looked comfortable). Similarly, Niskanen might prove to be a natural partner for Garrison and one with the mobility to create offensive zone setups that utilize Garrison's shot to full value. But the Canucks would need to keep both Edler and Garrison around, at least for long enough to figure out what pairing (alongside Niskanen) has the most value and impact for the team.

I've written quite a few posts about Niskanen and how much I'd love for the Canucks to sign him. I think he's poised to become an impact player of real significance in this league (if given the right opportunity and role). I would just sign Nisky and keep both Edler and Garrison to start the season. See which one of the two has better chemistry with Niskanen and forms the better point tandem on the #1PP unit. (The above is the "tl;dr" version. Open the spoiler to read the full post.)

The bolded part (and the lack of a true PMD) have been big factors this season (and for a number of seasons really). For Garrison, it's interesting to watch a bunch of video in a row (like watching game highlights from every contest where Garrison has drawn points during his NHL career--something I'm a little embarrassed to say that I've actually done). The big takeaway: Garrison scores most of his goals (and actually draws a huge portion of his assists) from a single type of play. Basically, a mobile puck-carrier penetrates the offensive zone down to the left circle, and then feeds a pass back diagonally cross ice to Garrison at the right point. And boom, one-timer... he scores! From this set-up, Garrison seems to almost operate on instinct. He hits the net often and he gets away with a tonne on these shots. When he doesn't end up scoring himself, it's a tipped shot or a rebound for a goal (and Garrison with the assist). I can never find the quote but Garrison himself has said that this type of set-up is what he feeds off of offensively. This is why some of Torts' offensive zone and power play schemes this season have baffled me. We've seen the Canucks work the puck down to the right corner (the Sedins' kitchen), which makes sense, but then they've seemed to stall and have no idea how to take advantage of Garrison at the right point. The twins go back to the point off the right boards but that doesn't create a good shooting option. They'll work it to Edler on the left point but then Edler won't manage to make clean D-to-D passes (which again negates the shot). And they never seem to have a plan to work the puck around to a forward on the left halfboards who could then feed Garrison with the bread'n'butter setup he wants. And rarely does Garrison's D partner penetrate the zone to create that ideal passing option (like the one you can find at least a dozen videos of Campbell doing with great success). Some of that comes down to personnel issues but even then, I've seen it as more execution related or the lack of proper preparation and practice (which again falls back on the coaches). At least we know why AV never liked playing Garrison on the PP with Edler and the twins. I'm starting to think that AV simply knew that the Canucks didn't have the right PMD/PPQB option to take full advantage of Garrison's bomb and since they were still very much married to working the offense from that right side corner down low, and coming off of the Sedins' sticks (which never seems to create a good passing lane for Garrison on the right point), there was no reason to use Garrison on the 1st unit. I'd love to see the new GM address the personnel issue (by adding a PMD/PPQB type) and the new coach(es) (who must be coming soon) use some basic schemes that create the kinds of setups that can make Garrison a real weapon from the right point.

Pretty hard not to expect a Torts firing soon, given what was said (and not said) during today's presser. Linden purposefully never mentioned Tortorella by name in discussing the team's future. Always used phrases like "the coaches" or "the coaching staff." Simply refused to discuss Torts. Francesco went so far as to basically suggest that the firing of Gillis (and the hiring of Linden) stemmed from MG's responsibility for choosing Torts and therefore owning the failures of this coaching staff (at least according to how ownership is now framing Torts' hiring). EDIT: I see that Tortofrazzy, Deb, and others have noticed the same thing. Wonder what's the over under for Torts' days remaining (until fired)?

I know! With all the "process" comments from Trev, you almost expect Scooby Doo and friends to come in and pull the mask off Linden revealing MG underneath. "And I would have gotten away with it too if it wasn't for those meddling kids!"

I'll be very interested to see whether or not Linden is also named as one of the the Canucks' Alternate Governors (which would allow him to represent the team at NHL Board of Governors meetings). Hopefully he is given a seat at the table because if he isn't, it would serious undercut his authority and the meaning of his new title. I just heard on Team 1040 that Linden has been named Alternate Governor, which bodes well for him being more than just a figurehead and his actually assuming a position with some real teeth. Interesting discussion on Team 1040 on whether or not the Canucks will also hire an executive president to work above Linden or whether de Bonis is basically assuming that role. EDIT: I wonder if the Team 1040 guys are lurking on the boards because they seem to be asking the same questions as the posts here (and with suspiciously similar timing).

I guess COO Victor de Bonis will be inheriting even more responsibilities on the business side. "President of Hockey Operations" is not the same as the full "President" title that Gillis held. It should put Linden at the top on the hockey side of the business but de Bonis might be moving to the top position on the corporate side (where he was formerly working as a "partner" to MG). This surprises me a little since Linden has shown some good business acumen and management experience and could be an asset, especially locally, in building corporate partnerships and business relationships. Instead, it looks like he'll be focused on the hockey side of the business (alongside the new GM). I suppose it could also indicate the Linden is, at least currently, being hired as more of a public face than anything else. And that the Canucks weren't ready to install Linden in the overall top position (at least not yet). Whatever Linden's responsibilities are, it's probably a good thing that he's not assuming full control over the organization (at least to the degree this ownership allows). The Canucks have an excellent existing team running the business side of the club and should probably just shift the current staff into whatever portfolios have been vacated by Gillis (outside of hockey ops). Linden should be a key player in defining the "big picture" of where this team is headed (in terms of choosing a system/playing style and team philosophy/approach). This gives the Canucks a popular face to handle the public and sell the fans on the on-ice product. But hopefully he delegates much of the day-to-day "nuts and bolts" of hockey ops to the new GM. And hopefully that GM comes with a strong background and experience in NHL hockey operations, team building/development, and CBA/salary cap. I suppose that a lot still depends on who gets hired as GM and how much of a role they are given.