SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME

So many unknowns right now. What candidates are available? Which of them would be willing to work under this ownership? Does ownership actually have a plan or was this a reactionary move? Will they promote Gilman to GM and hire a new President? Will they clear house on the front office? Will the GM and Presidency be split into two separate positions (and hires)? Until some of these questions (and others) start getting answered, I see this firing as having a much greater chance of making things worse than it does of making them better. Not saying Gillis didn't deserve to be on the hot seat. But I really question the timing of this. I'm curious, especially after Gillis' recent Team1040 interview, whether or not this firing, at least in part, comes in the wake of Gillis demanding more autonomy and final say in making hockey ops decisions and deciding the overall direction the club would be taking. Whatever the final reasons were for this (rather abrupt) move, I'm very worried that this team is going to be in an even worse position after everything plays out. I'm going to hope for the best but I'm not sure I see the type of President/GM candidate(s) this club really needs as also being someone who relishes the idea of working under an ownership group with the Aquilini's reputation for interfering in hockey operations. The owners need to make the right hire and then take several steps back from their current level of involvement in how the hockey side of their operation is being run. This team needs a clear voice at the top (who's not Francesco Aquilini) and a clear sense of direction coming from the new GM/President (with the coaches, owners, players, and the entirety of the front office being 100% on-board with direction and message of the new leadership). I see very few potential candidates who have what it really takes to accomplish this (and even fewer of them who'll actually want to fill the current vacancy). I really hope I'm wrong about this and that the owners already have a plan to hire a replacement with impressive credentials and ability. For right now, I'm leaning toward hiring a new club President and promoting Gilman to GM (and director of hockey operations). The Nicholson rumour is intriguing and might be an option (if he'd be willing to come here). So is the Linden (as new President) rumour, if a suitable GM with good experience could also be found. There are some good GM candidates out there in current assistant positions. Hopefully, if the team chooses to look at an outside hire, they can poach someone out of one of the NHL's top organizations. The Feaster rumours absolutely terrify me.

So let me see if I have this one straight: This tweet started everything: "Whispers" of possible change in Vancouver? Groundbreaking stuff. And that's quite a bit of hedging on the timeline: "perhaps change is coming sooner rather than later" "perhaps as soon as today or tomorrow" I've been hearing these kinds of "whispers" for months. The whole city is talking about whether we should "fire Gillis" or "fire Torts" or "fire everyone." Doesn't seem like much of a story. Then we get some complete speculation with Linden's name thrown into the mix. If there was anything imminent involving Linden, the BT interview this morning would have been cancelled (or at the very least, there would have been a "no comment" rather than a denial from Trevor). Why would Linden even bother showing up for BT if he was on the verge of becoming the Canucks' president? This whole thing just seems like some guesswork getting thrown up on Twitter with the hopes of landing "first" on a story when something actually happens. Rumours that include serious hedging language and lack any identifiable sources are usually just guesswork or stirring the pot. And for all the credibility we give to Bob McKenzie, he's been duped numerous times by rumours that didn't pan out. The difference with McKenzie (from most other "insiders") is that he usually admits when he's wrong or when he's been jobbed by a bad rumour. And it looks like Bobby Mac is starting to put some distance between himself and the earlier tweets: Bob McKenzie ‏@TSNBobMcKenzie 54m But as I said earlier, highly volatile situation, many moving parts, so we'll see where this goes. No confirmations on anything yet. Retweeted by Bob McKenzie Farhan Lalji ‏@FarhanLaljiTSN 36m Linden says on Global he has not been approached by ownership about #canucks prez job & than an announcement is not imminent There's no question that there's considerable volatility inside the Vancouver Canucks organization currently and that significant changes could come at any moment. But that certainly shouldn't be "news" to anyone.

I think the events of the past couple seasons have shown the degree to which the current ownership involves itself in hockey operations. Which makes Gillis' interview yesterday all the more intriguing. I'm very curious to see if we'll be seeing a new MO from MG, based on his recent statements. I was very happy to hear him admit that the organization has been "chasing a moving target" and that he plans to correct this by getting the team back to the formula that made it successful. It remains to be seen, but if Gillis stays President and GM, and he makes good on what he said yesterday, it will likely mean that our rookie GM has finally come into his own and has made a long-overdue stand with the ownership. It's easy to forget that Gillis is a relative neophyte in his position. Most GMs have a decade or more experience in some aspect of hockey ops. While Gillis' background as a former pro and a player agent provides him with a pretty good foundation, he still stepped into a job with a steep learning curve and he's obviously been figuring things out along the way. I don't blame him for bending to the will of the owners. But after the recent interview, I feel like Gillis has finally reached the point where he truly believes that he knows "better" than the Aquilinis and has the confidence to tell them as much He seems ready to put his job on the line in the belief that he can right this ship so long as the owners give him enough control to steer this team in the direction they need to be successful. Some people will take Gillis' bluster and hubristic speaking style as him being someone who's always believed he's known "better" than everyone around him. Personally, I've seen a guy covering for some insecurity and at times trying to hide how much he's been overwhelmed by the stress and challenges of running this team (especially wearing both the President and GM hats, and especially in this market and with this ownership). I've also seen a guy whose first choice has always been to delegate responsibilities whenever possible and who has sometimes given too much respect to colleagues with more experience and history with the club. He's also let his sense of loyalty get the best of him at times. Over the past year or so, I've seen a shift in this as Gillis has seemed far more willing to admit to and own management mistakes while also being willing to hold others to a higher degree of accountability. He's also just seemed to show a greater degree of openness and honesty (although still a lawyer at heart). He seems like he's reached a place where he's finally finished his "on the job" training and has become truly confident in his ability to make the right call, even on the tough ones. When Gillis first came in, he was full of "bold moves" and new thinking. Many of his innovations worked, some did not. The Canucks came a win away from the Stanley Cup. From that point on, I've seen a guy who's been unsure how to take the next step. Too much dithering and half measures with roster moves. Too much "chasing the moving target" (ie: we need to be more like Detroit, Chicago, Boston, LA, Chicago again, and who knows now... St. Louis/Anaheim?). I see ownership having a big role in this. Gillis has had to explain why the Canucks weren't as good as each year's Cup winner (or other media darling team) and then he's tried to change the Canucks to be more like these other models. In the process, the team has only moved farther away each year (since 2011) from what made it the most successful. I love that Gillis appears to have finally realized that the Canucks need to try to be more like themselves when they've been at their best. He had a winning formula and he moved away from it. He didn't have enough belief to stick things out. It seems like Gillis finally believes in himself and in his vision for this team. If that's the case, and it took going through this year's struggles for him to get there, then 2013-14 was far from a lost season. Some people might feel it's "too little too late" but if MG was being sincere in his statements yesterday, I'd like to see what this "new" Mike Gillis can accomplish with the Canucks over the next few years. Hopefully, the Aquilinis will give him the control he needs to do his job properly.

Do you think Stevens and Guy Boucher could work well together? I also liked Stevens alot as a head coach candidate (to replace AV) and I still like him as a potential Torts replacement, but I'd really love to try to get both of these guys on the Canucks coaching staff. Boucher has an out clause with SC Bern that allows him to accept any NHL employment opportunities that arise, so he's very available (if the position interests him). I've always liked Boucher's mind for the game and his willingness to innovate. And the whole 1-3-1 controversy was hugely overblown IMHO. Boucher's not merely a "defensive minded" coach. He's actually been very good an running offenses and special teams (especially PP) during his coaching career. I have no doubts about his ability to coach an up-tempo, puck possession style. I see Boucher as very detail-oriented and a good systems guy who could be a huge help in tailoring a playing style to this roster's specific strengths and weaknesses. I also wonder what Glen Gulutzan could accomplish (continuing as an assistant coach) if he was given more of a voice and some influence on the direction this team takes? I see GG as having been largely shutout this season (by the two-headed Torts-Sully monster) from any meaningful coaching role with this team. I still wonder what his responsibilities actually are? Wasn't it supposed to be the power play and other aspects of how this team produces offense? I've seen Sullivan grabbing those reins all season, at least in the game situations (and pretty much driving those horses into a ditch). It's been hard to even judge Gulutzan's performance this year.

I agree with most of this and I agree with the respondents who say this is a solid post that deserves +1s. My only quibble would be with the suggestion that Burrows' current cap hit is good value. If you look at it on its own, he's overpaid at a $4.5 million AAV. Of course, this contract also needs to be viewed as a reward for Burrows' long service and as a "make-up" deal for his previous bargain salary. I've always chosen to view Burrows as being on an 8-year, $26 million deal (4 X $2 million AAV + 4 X $4.5 million AAV) with a $3.25 million AAV (which I think is right in line with what his value will be over those eight years). I think Gillis probably views it in a similar way. And I think as long as Gillis remains Canucks GM, Burrows will stay in Vancouver. But if Gillis was replaced at the end of this season, you'd have to imagine that the new GM would think seriously about asking ownership to use the Canucks' last compliance buyout on Burrows. If an incoming GM wanted to really change the culture and reputation of this team, there would be few better places to start. Burrows bleeds blue and green, it's true, but he's also strongly associated with everything people outside of Vancouver (and even some Canucks fans) dislike about this team. It's become painfully obvious that Burrows will never get a fair shake from the NHL and its officials (at least while he remains a Canuck). And it's pretty clear that Burrows is a poster boy (deserved or not) for much of the hatred and disdain that this team generates around the league. And if you look at his value based strictly in balance sheets and stats sheets (even his underlying numbers), his $4.5 million AAV is probably about $1 million to $1.5 million too high. Especially given that he's probably going to be a declining asset over the life of his current contract. Burrows' greatest value to this team has been his chemistry with the Sedins and he can only really earn his full salary if he's playing with the Sedins. When you take Burrows off of the twins' line, he becomes an excellent two-way 2/3-line tweener who can kill penalties and brings loads of hustle and effort. These players are great to have in any lineup and bring a lot of value. But this is also a player-type that the current Canucks roster has no shortage of. And those kinds of players generally don't average $4.5 million per season. The moment the Canucks decide that they have a better winger option for the twins (and we're starting to see some real possibilities emerge), Burrows becomes both overpaid and expendable. With that all said, I still don't think Burrows will be going anywhere, but that's only because I don't think Gillis will be leaving Vancouver anytime soon. I don't think Gillis would be well-served by parting ways with Burrows. It would be seen as a betrayal of a core veteran player who earned a rich deal that rewarded him for his years of loyal service while he was underpaid. For Gillis to dump a player when he finally cashed in would send a message that could hurt the Canucks' ability to extend their current roster players' contracts and attract future free agents to Vancouver. But if the Canucks actually replaced GMMG (which is what many people seem to want these days), I would not be surprised to see a Burrows buyout (or trade--if it was possible to find a willing taker) as one of the incoming GM's first big moves. Unlike Gillis, a new GM wouldn't have any reason to feel much loyalty to Burrows. And if a new GM wanted to re-tool this roster and put a new stamp on its identity (while also trying to repair the Canucks' reputation in the process), targeting Burrows would make a whole lot of sense. I'm happy to see Burrows play here for as long as he can and I'd love to see him retire a Canuck. I'll cheer for Burrows wherever he plays and for however long he stays in the game. And I think he's earned every dollar he gets paid. But when I set my emotions aside and try to look at the current Canucks situation with the cold gaze of pure intellect, I can also see a very strong rationale for parting ways with Burrows after this season (for the good of this team, now and into the future).

So we have picks in rounds 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 currently (we traded the 4th rounder to Carolina). Wondering if the Canucks should look at picking Oshawa's Hunter Smith with their 3rd rounder (if he's still available)? He's been predicted to go around the 4th round (was ranked #140 in the NA midterms). But that was also before he scored 2G, 8A, 10 points in the first round of the 2014 OHL playoffs (and before he earned OHL Player of the Week honours for March 17-23). I'd assume he's rising pretty fast right now. He's also gotten a lot of looks from the scouts watching Dal Colle all season. He has very good chemistry with Cole Cassels. The Dal Colle-Cassels-Smith line has been an effective combo for Oshawa for much of the 2013-14 OHL season. He also placed 3rd this year on the OHL's "most improved player" coaches poll (Eastern Conference). For those not familiar with Smith, he's an absolute beast physically. He's usually listed at 6'6" and 210 lbs (but I've heard that he's gotten even bigger this year and is now up to 6'8" and more than 220 lbs--plus he looks to be still growing!). He was draft eligible in 2013 but was passed over. So considered an "overager" but he also has a late birthday (September 11, 1995), although given his physical gifts (he was already 6'5" at age 15), it's not like he was lagging behind earlier born players in size/strength. From what I've heard (and the limited game video I've seen myself), his skating isn't bad. Some have even said it's pretty good, especially given his size, and that he has no problems closing gaps and keeping up to the speed of play (at least at the OHL level). Smith did close to nothing offensively until this season (and he had zeros across the board in the 2012 and 2013 playoffs). To be fair, Smith's 2012-13 season was one that was marred by injuries and when he did get to play, he didn't get the best icetime or opportunities (especially given the players ahead of him in the lineup--which was something that also effected Cassels' production that season). Here are Smith's OHL stats: 2011-12: 15 GP, 1 G, 0 A, 1 point, -6, 19 PIM 2012-13: 30 GP, 0 G, 1 A, 1 point, -5, 22 PIM 2013-14: 64 GP, 16 G, 24 A, 40 points, +11, 100 PIM He also wasn't really much of a physical presence (at least what you'd expect from his size) until this season. However, 2013-14 has seen Smith earn some real "heavyweight cred" in the OHL with his 7 fights, including a few spirited bouts against some pretty tough players (where he's held his own quite well). Here's Hunter Smith versus Kurtis MacDermid: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFDOepzIK44 He's also upped his hitting game significantly and has finished some crushing bodychecks this season. Unfortunately, most of the Youtube video focuses on an incident that earned Smith an unwarranted charging call (plus game misconduct) for this hit on Yazkov: Even though he's always been one of the biggest players on the ice, Smith's really been something of a late bloomer, both in his offensive game and in his physical play. I've heard some people suggest that Smith won't make it past the 2nd round. Others think he's still a 4th round or later pick, even with his strong playoff performance (to date). What do people think? Is the connection to Cassels, plus the potential of a guy with Smith's physical gifts (who can also play the game), enough of a motivator to spend one of this year's earlier picks (ie: the Canucks' 3rd) on a guy who'll likely be a "project" (if he makes the NHL at all)? Here's a quote from one of the better articles on Smith's improvement (including a pretty good scouting report from his coach): http://www.durhamregion.com/sports-story/4326848-hunter-smith-has-come-a-long-way-with-oshawa-generals/

Can anyone remember a previous time when Canucks prospects have dominated the playoffs scoring of one of the major junior leagues? We currently have four of the OHL's top ten playoff scorers. Spots 1, 5, 7, and 8 are players who are Canucks property. 1. Dane Fox: 5 games, 6 goals, 6 assists, 12 points 5. Cole Cassels: 4 games, 2 goals, 7 assists, 9 points 7. Bo Horvat: 4 games, 4 goals, 4 assists, 8 points 8. Brendan Gaunce: 5 games, 4 goals, 4 assists, 8 points I've watched this team for a long time and followed prospects nearly as long and I can't recall ever seeing anything like this.

I'm hearing that Shanny's Wheel of Justice landed on 4 games. But that result gets halved because it was an infraction on Alex Burrows. And then there's the -2 modifier applied to any act committed against the Vancouver Canucks, Net result = zero games. Credit to HFBoards' "DCantheDman" for the explanation.

I think he's referring to the cap dollars committed for 2014-15. We're at roughly $59 million committed on 18 players. That's $5 million under the the current $64.3 million salary cap. With the cap projected to go north of $71 million, that's another $7 million. If they also use their last compliance buyout, the Canucks could have over $16 million to spend.

I think that's one of the areas where, while the coaching staff might not be THE problem, they certainly have been PART of the problem. My biggest worry with this coaching staff was regarding how the PP and the offense would be coached and who would handle these responsibilities. It seemed, at the beginning of the year, that Gulutzan would be shouldering a large portion of this burden. And I felt like it would be important for Gulutzan to play a key role because Torts and Sully are basically two sides of the same coin and they don't have much of a record of PP success or being all that creative in designing offensive schemes and playbooks. I had no problem with the change in direction toward being a "stiffer" team, using a hard forecheck, blocking shots, etc. But I really wondered how they were going to approach the offense and the power play. To me, it seemed like Torts and company were just kind of hoping that offense would happen on its own, so long as the team was working hard and playing "the right way" at both ends of the ice. I hoped that Gulutzan was also cooking something up and would be bringing some creativity and direction to the offense. What I saw instead was Gulutzan appearing to defer completely to the two-headed Torts/Sully monster. During the first half of the season, I don't think I saw Glen do much of anything behind the bench. He wasn't talking to the players, he wasn't drawing stuff up on the board, and he never seemed to be the guy in the huddle drawing up plays. I was shocked that more often than not, when the Canucks had an important PP, it was Sully with the board and a circle of players around him. Torts was always busy, barking to the troops and talking in guys' ears, and Gulutzan just seemed to stand there, silently taking it all in. Lately, it seems that Glen is taking a more active role at the bench but I'm baffled why we had to wait this long before he started actually coaching during game situations. I haven't seen much practice time this year so I'm not sure how much Gulutzan gets involved. Another part of Torts' philosophy has been to practice less and to devote very little time to the offense and the power play (until recently). Hopefully, Gulutzan was at least active when he was given some time to work with the players. But with this staff, it has really seemed like they've taken a "hands off" approach with the offense, which is baffling considering this team's struggle to score goals. I certainly have a hard time understanding some of the looks we've seen on the PP and during 5v5 offensive zone time. The most glaring example was the decision to play Garrison at the right point with Edler on his left, the Sedins working down low at the right corner, and Kesler at the left halfboards. The coaches need only watch to see why this formation made zero sense. Garrison has himself said (and any study of the video evidence clearly shows) that he needs to receive cross ice passes from left to right for him to unload from the right point with any real rate of success. Having the teams two best passers working the right corner basically took away the Garrison's big shot. If the twins tried to find Garrison, it would be a pass up the right boards, with Garrison having to take it on his backhand at the point. It also didn't help that Garrison would, especially on the PP, often be paired with Edler at the point. Basically, you had two guys who play best when the have a partner to set them up. The result was two stationary points passing back and forth and rarely getting a good shot off. Neither D was comfortable making forays that would penetrate deeper into the zone and create options for a diagonal feed back to the other point. Part of this falls on Gillis, who has never addressed this team's need for a dynamic, puck rushing D who can play a roving game in the offensive zone and work an L-shaped area (from the halfboards up to the point and then across to the other point) in the offensive zone and on the PP. Both Edler and Garrison need to have a mobile partner on their right side. Someone who takes the puck from the right point and penetrates diagonally toward the left circle, allowing the LHD to slide right, and creating an option to either pass deeper to the forwards or go back with a perfect setup pass to the right point for the LHD to hammer a one-timer from his off side. It's a basic strategy that works wonders when you have the right personnel and you design some good set plays.. The Canucks have, in Edler and Garrison, two great options for the secondary, shooting position at the point. They lack someone who can play the primary, passing/playmaking position on the other point. A mobile puck-carrying D who can PPQB, rush the puck, and rove around the offensive zone, forcing the defenders to scramble and thereby making space for his other four teammates. But even without a good rushing D (of the Campbell type), the Canucks staff should have realized that they were wasting their weapons by placing their cannon at the right point on an offensive unit that always forces the puck down to the right corner. It would have been OK if they had involved Kesler and had the twins work the puck around to the left side and then have Kesler look to either feed back diagonally to the right point (left to right) or go cross crease back to the twins (that's assuming Danny would take a shot if he received the pass). Instead, they had Kesler taking up a far too stationary position and basically getting shut out of the play (there were lots of shifts where he never got near the puck). The twins pass back and forth and then they go up the right boards to the point. The Ds pass back and forth, but neither one makes a crisp pass (this falls on the players and the coaches--the players need to make better passes and they've been terrible this year but the coaches need to see this problem and put in time--even some basic drills--sharpening the passing skills on this team). With poor D-to-D passing, neither one gets a good shot off, and with two Ds that prefer to defer puckhandling to their teammates, neither one penetrates the zone to create better passing angles for their partner's point shot. Painful to watch. And watch we did. Over and over and over. With the PP%, shooting percentages, and goals/points totals sliding lower and lower from where they should be on a team with what are still some very talented players (and that's even allowing for some regression--due to this core aging and the team getting weaker while their competition was getting stronger). Again, the coaches haven't been THE problem but they have certainly been PART of the problem. And something needs to change. Either they need to re-think the systems or they need to change the staff.

Not surprised that Kesler's still here. From what's been reported, I'm not disappointed either. You can pretty much bank on the fact that the actual offers were not as high as what was rumoured. And personally, I didn't think the offers (as reported) were very strong. Certainly there was nothing that would have clearly improved this team (compared to them keeping Kesler). And, like I've said repeatedly, I don't believe Kesler ever asked for a trade. My worry is where his head is at now, following the recent events. If Kesler didn't want a trade, I wonder how he feels about how Gillis handled things? "No comment" on the trade demand rumours and then proceeds to test the market (and possibly against Kesler's intial wishes--and I see this as a real possibility). Also, the Lu trade sends a clear signal as to where this team's direction is headed. I'm not sure that being part of a Canucks "rebuild" or "retooling" is all that attractive to a guy who wants to win as much as Kes. So if Kesler didn't want a trade before, does he want one now? Or is he relieved to be staying here (at least for now)? Can the Canucks fix this team and keep Kesler? I think they can. Obviously, if a huge haul of assets is possible, then a Kesler trade is a good (and the most obvious) starting point for a (relatively) quick rebuild. That said, I don't think it's the only way. The Lu trade, if coupled with the shedding of more cap space (ie: buyout Booth and possibly find a way to move Burrows--who looks overpaid even if he returns to his former standard of play), creates an opportunity to target free agents who could immediately improve this team. They also need to rethink how they use the existing group of players. The "play in all situations" experiment with the Sedins has proven to have been largely a failure. It is essential, given their contracts and lineup spots, that he Canucks get every last bit of offense that is possible out of the twins. They need to go back to keeping the minutes below 20 per game (I'd say below 18:00 TOI/G for both Danny and Hank). Get the twins off of the PK. Go back to zone matching and controlling usage. Have the coaches create dedicated systems, schemes, and set plays that are based on what the Sedins do best. Control the lineup so that the Sedins only draw minutes with teammates who have a proven aptitude to play their style of game. Don't try to re-make Sedinery. Don't try to make them work up high above the circles or try to make them focus on creating more plays off of the rush. Transition the twins into this team's 2nd line. Give them soft minutes. Squeeze as much offense as you can out of them. Get Kesler a real "1st line" winger to play with. They have the cap space now (or should, after spending the last compliance buyout). Try to build an "all situations" and "1st" line that is centred around Kesler. Spend some money here. And here is offseason coaching job#2: devise further dedicated systems and plays that are based on Kesler's unique set of strengths (and weaknesses). Have the staff all turn pasty and pale from being inside watching tape all summer. Break down what works and what doesn't. Target ways to take advantage of what works best and use that information to make decisions on who Kesler plays with and how they will play the game. Get a true "puck-rushing" defenseman (there should be a few UFAs available). Pair him with Edler (who apparently will not waive his NTC anyway). Get Edler back into his comfort zone and into a pairing type and role/usage where he's proven to be most effective. Bring that same zone matching and selected usage to the entire D deployment and how the pairings themselves are constituted. Concentrate on creating deployment schemes that work not only with lines and pairings but with 5 man units. Get back to controlling who's on the ice (on both teams) when key players like the twins are being used. Target specialized roles for all players (even the depth guys) that rely on their strengths and insulate from their weaknesses. Sure, a lot of this is a targeted return to some of what AV did when here. I don't deny that. It worked. AV needed to go because his message was getting stale and the team needed a "re-set." That doesn't mean throwing out the things that worked. Use Torts to motivate and push buttons but don't be afraid to learn from what the other guy did (that worked well) and steal his ideas. Have meetings with every veteran player under a NTC/NMC. If they aren't 100% committed to the Canucks and this team's new direction, ask them to waive. Put on a hard sell, either way, so that you have a group of guys who have really "bought in" and another group who are ready to "get the hell out." Work from this list of "who's staying" and "who's going" and fill out the remaining roster spots accordingly. Give young players and rookies (even the 2014 picks) a real shot at roles in this lineup, from the top to the bottom, in every role and position. Give the most talented and dynamic prospects an opportunity to really show what they can do. Don't worry about burning a couple ELC years (if they look ready to contribute now). Anyway, that's a start for how I'd rebuild with Kesler. I've got more ideas but my daughter just woke-up from her nap (I'm sitting at home on "trade deadline vacation/sick day" ) and she wants her Daddy RIGHT NOW!!!

It's funny how none of the pundits are willing to consider the possibility that Kesler never asked to be traded. Those initial rumours were extremely suspect. But instead of questioning the sources (both were based on 2nd and 3rd hand information coming from unnamed "insiders"), everyone just took the reports as gospel and started building more rumours on top of a shaky foundation. All we've heard from Kesler and people who actually have spoken directly to him is that Kesler never requested a trade. Of course, with Kesler looking less and less likely to get moved today, the "insiders" have started running with new stories about "ownership blocking the trade" or "Kesler refusing to waive" to various teams (Kes has even been called a "prima donna" because of his "refusals"). And then there's the ever-popular "MG's asking price is too high." Doesn't it seem more likely that Kesler never asked for a trade? I'd have a lot of respect for a pundit who actually considered the possibility that they'd been duped by a poorly sourced rumour (and one that never should have passed a basic sniff test). Of course, Kesler could still get moved (and this might be the best thing for the team if we're looking to significantly "re-tool" for the future). But if he's ever traded, I firmly believe that it will be because the Canucks wanted to get value on their best asset and they decided to approach Kesler (and not because Kes wanted out of Vancouver). Honestly, I'm leaning toward taking the "over" on the odds of Kesler wearing a Canucks jersey on opening night 2014-15 (and maybe even staying here for the rest of his contract). And if Kes stays, I won't be saying it's because MG and the Canucks botched this trade. It'll be because Kesler wants to be here (and therefore refused to waive his NTC). Hey, I could be completely out to lunch on all of this. I just haven't seen anything convincing (and I've looked really hard) that suggests there's ever been any strong evidence out there to suggest that Kesler wanted to leave Vancouver. In the absence of such evidence (or even a rumour with a strong source), it just makes sense to me to believe the statements that can be directly attributed to Kesler (all of which deny the rumours and maintain that Kes is 100% committed to the Vancouver Canucks). We'll see what happens...

So is this the final deal? TO FLORIDA: Roberto Luongo (15% retained) + Steven Anthony TO VANCOUVER: Jacob Markstrom + Shawn Matthias

So only about 800K in cap dollars retained per season? I can live with that...

Seeing some early twitter reports (only weak sources so far) of Canucks retaining some portion of Lu's salary. Hope this isn't accurate (or it's only a small percentage). I really liked the return when it looked like there was no salary retained. This could change things...

So Markstrom? If there's no salary retention, this would be a pretty good return on its own. Markstrom is a very highly touted goaltending prospect and he's very close to NHL ready. By having both Lack and Markstrom, the risk of running with a young starter is significantly mitigated. One of those two will be a solid #1 in the NHL. If there's another player coming (as per the current rumours), then Gillis did pretty well. If the other player is Matthias (according to the tweets coming in right now), then it's a big win for Gillis IMHO.

Good for Lu. I'm happy he's finally going to his #1 destination. Hopefully the Canucks didn't retain any percentage. Curious about the return.

Damn. Our fan base is taking a beating today on Twitter. This morning's "Top News Story" related to Kesler comes from SBNation's BroadStreetHockey.com: This piece of garbage is based off of a few cherry-picked tweets suggesting a Giroux for Kesler swap. Of course, most of the tweets in question are were either made tongue-in-cheek or were flippant responses to larger conversations (often in direct reply to lowball offers). When challenged (in the comments) on the unfairness of the story, the writer in question offers an ALL CAPS reply: Referring to a statement near the bottom of the piece where he offers: "Not completely indicative" of Canucks fans? More like not even remotely close to indicative of our fan base. As for the "READ THE STORY" comment, it seems like it's the Flyers fans who didn't bother to read far enough down the page to take note of the (albeit weak) qualifier about this being "only a handful of dummies" and "not completely indicative" of Canucks fans. For the most part, the following tweet offers a pretty fair representation of what's going around Twitter: Unfortunately, the response from Philly fans hasn't been limited to mere mockery of these valuations. Several tweets have attacked one of the female users associated with the original "Giroux for Kesler" tweets by resorting to the lowest forms of sexist insults and misogynist slurs (and I'm not going to dignify these tweets with any quotes here). But it's still our fan base that always seems to get pissed on. I certainly don't see Nucks Misconduct (the Vancouver Canucks equivalent on SBNation) running a story about how Philly fans expect to get Kesler + Edler for Couturier. Yep, that's an actual trade valuation from a Philly fan on Twitter. The funny thing is that when you actually look through the tweets, there are far more Flyers fans who think that Couturier>>>Kesler than Canucks fans who think Kesler=Giroux. And it doesn't get much better with the other rumoured trade partners. Tweets from select Penguins fans are suggesting (hopefully not serious) swaps like "Kesler for Kobasew" and "Kesler + pick for Orpik." It goes on and on. Yet somehow we're the "joke fan base" of the NHL. Maybe there's just a little too much fracking fluid in the Pennsylvania drinking water? [/rant]

Maybe it's Bieksa? There's been some talk about Tampa Bay having interest. The Lightning seem to really love acquiring Canucks veteran defensemen (Ohlund, Salo). I could see Juice possibly waiving his NTC for the chance to play in the East (I've always felt that he'd thrive in the other conference) and enjoy the fun and sun of Florida. Lightning fans have been offering (RW) Teddy Purcell and either a 2nd round pick or "B" prospect. I think MG would have to consider it, especially if TBL sweetened things a little more. I could see something working around Bieksa for Purcell++. The Canucks (assuming they re-sign) would still have Tanev, Diaz, Weber, Corrado as RHDs, plus Garrison has been effective on his off side. Edler would have to stay then, as the current D corps doesn't have enough physicality to lose both Juice and Eddie without becoming very soft in the process. Hopefully, Stanton can be developed into a more physical player at the NHL level (he's shown this capacity at the lower levels). Hamhuis also has an underrated physical game. Maybe also look to grab one of the Lightning's more physical D prospects or target one in the upcoming draft. There's no doubting the fact that the Canucks lose some grit/toughness and are a less mean/angry team to play against if Bieksa is moved. However, if the return is a good top-six forward plus a future asset (pick/prospect), I think this would be a net positive trade. I really like Bieksa and he's one of the core leaders on this team but he might actually be more expendable than Edler. Hamhuis-Tanev seems to be just as (if not more) effective of a pairing as Hamhuis-Bieksa. And Bieksa doesn't seem to play very well with Edler. Bieksa has actually had good results playing alongside Garrison as an offensive-minded combo but only in limited minutes and the team doesn't appear interested in exploring this possibility as a regular pairing. Stanton-Bieksa have been solid together but they have played nowhere near an irreplaceable role on this team. As for the Purcell offer, he might be a good fit in Vancouver. On the plus side: Purcell is 28 (4 years younger than Bieksa), has 2 years remaining on his contract, has good size (6'3", 200+lbs), loads of offensive ability, has produced solid "2nd line" numbers and flirted with "1st line" numbers in a couple seasons, shoots right, plays either wing, and can be effective in both the setup and finishing roles. On the negative side: he's been inconsistent throughout his career and he doesn't use his size enough. The salary cap would be roughly neutral (Bieksa=$4.6 million AAV; Purcell=$4.5 million AAV). EDIT: typos

Maybe it's time to update the slogan: WE ARE ALL NOT THE REAL CANUCKS Or maybe go with: (DON'T WORRY CANUCKS FANS) THESE ARE NOT THE REAL CANUCKS Yeah, I can see those working. In all seriousness though, I think we need to see if "the real Canucks" actually reappear once this team gets healthy (physically and mentally). It appears that everyone involved in the actual decision-making for this team, from Aquilini to Gillis to Tortorella, is on the same page in this regard. This season seems to be one of assessment. I get the feeling that MG and Torts are paying close attention to how this team is responding to adversity and they are taking detailed notes. This was also a season of surviving the salary cap adjustment. This was never going to be a season for going "all-in" for the playoffs. In many ways, we knew that 2013-14 would most likely be a bit of a write-off. Sure, we've heard "wait until next year" too many times to count but I really went into 2013-14 thinking that this was a "wait until next year" kind of season, and deservedly so. Sure, I figured we'd scrape our way into the playoffs (I picked us as a 6 or 7 seed in the West) and every playoff team has a chance to get hot, get lucky, stay healthy, and win the Stanley Cup as another feel-good "Cinderella Story." But this year's team really needed an extraordinarily favourable run of luck to have a legitimate chance of making any real noise during the post season. We had a core that was built under the old salary cap numbers going into a season where the cap was going down. People say that every NHL franchise faced the same fate but the Canucks had more core players locked in longterm deals (that were mostly negotiated under the pre-lockout financial landscape) than most of the other teams. We had also only just begun to re-stock the cupboard on prospects and had no truly "pro-ready" youngsters available to fill the holes. It's really saying something that the newest Canuck draftees like Hunter Shinkaruk were some of the final cuts (not discounting his performance but most good teams wouldn't have even considered bringing in a raw rookie who wasn't a top-five pick). Only though some shrewd bargain hunting (albeit also with some luck involved) was Gillis actually able to flesh-out a full roster and start the season with a decently competitive team. But we still knew this team was very thin and that we'd need tie the yoke to the core veterans and ride them hard all season (with fingers crossed that no one got hurt or burned out). Unfortunately, there were injuries, fatigue, some really bad breaks, and an already concerning offensive dropoff where some of the key forwards' slumps eventually dried-out completely into a full-on goal drought. The only good thing about this very awful season is that it's shining a blindingly bright and scorching hot light on this team, exposing its weaknesses and shortcomings, while also highlighting its strengths and reasons for optimism (which are honestly there if you look for them). It's already been an extremely up-and-down year and there will probably be several more bumps in the road before 2013-14 is over. This means that there will be a wealth of information to pour through after this season. Sure, the prognosticators among us will claim that they saw the events of this season in their tealeaves as far back as the end of the 2011 Finals. Maybe that's true, to a point. But I agree with Gillis that the first change in re-setting the Canucks needed to take place behind the bench (and that's no slight on AV--just that coaches have shelf lives and the emotional strain of the Cup loss, and the way it happened, probably hastened AV's expiry date). We can debate whether the change came too late (or too soon) but it happened. If this team is going to move forward under Tortorella, the roster needs to be built around what will work for a Torts-led team. And to make those decisions, Torts needed to see firsthand everything that is good and everything that is bad about this group of players. It wouldn't have made sense to make wholesale changes to AV's team before it had become Torts's team. And Vancouver needs a full season under the new regime to figure out who Tortorella's Canucks actually are. According to many recent reports, MG and Torts are in constant contact about the state of this team and its players--which is a very good thing. They will likely have an intense series of meetings immediately following the conclusion of this season and they will formulate a detailed plan for how this team will move forward. The big decisions for this club should be made during the off-season, when trades are quite a bit easier to make (and usually for better returns--especially in a situation when so many players are currently mired in statistical "off" years) and when there will be more cap space available to add new players to this group. This team still has a solid group of core veterans (this core isn't perfect but many of the necessary pieces are already there). There is some really good young talent in the pipeline (hopefully that continues to improve). And, unlike last year, there will be a decent chunk of money for the Canucks to spend in 2014. Of course, there's no denying that some real change and roster turnover will be necessary to put together the best possible team that gives Vancouver a legitimate chance to compete for the Stanley Cup over the next 2-3 seasons. As painful as the current struggles have been, the silver lining is that the events of this season should make it much clearer as to where changes need to be made in this lineup. And those changes won't only be made based on where this team has struggled, but also where they've been successful. I'm comfortable with riding out this season with the current group (for the most part--obviously you never reject any trade that can markedly improve your team) and then letting ownership, management, and the coaches take a good hard look at what they have here, where they need to cut, and where they need to add. And all jokes aside, I really don't think we need to change the slogan: WE ARE ALL CANUCKS And (still) damn proud of it!

Just bumping because Hockey's Future seems to have dropped Rodin from their Canucks page: http://www.hockeysfuture.com/teams/vancouver_canucks/ He was listed on Vancouver's "organizational depth" a week ago. Now he's been removed. HF sometimes ages out guys at 24 (which Rodin doesn't hit until November). Possibly they just reviewed/updated the page and dropped Rodin because of his current playing/contract status? But he's still Canucks property (as in we still own his rights), at least the last time I checked. Anything changed?

Just saw that Kuzma posted this today: Ben Kuzma ‏@benkuzma 50m Gillis on Daniel Sedin: "I'm not going to talk about a potential injury with a player who's playing. I think Danny is pressing a lot." Expand It's pretty weird for Gillis to talk about "a potential injury" when replying to a question about how Daniel is playing. Anybody have anything re: Daniel possibly nursing an injury? It's been speculated off and on and it's going around the Twitterverse a fair amount today (some example tweets inside spoiler): Only a week ago, Dimitri Filipovic over at Canucks Army posted this: Generally speaking, if those guys suggest they have a good source on something, it's usually safe to assume the info is legit. So did Danny pick-up an injury during the Boston game? Something pretty minor? Or has he been nursing something for a while and they've been keeping it under wraps? It's going to be interesting to see what happens with Daniel now that Henrik's officially pulled out for Sochi. If Daniel is also injured, and the Canucks have been hiding it until now, they might need to go public about any injury to Daniel so that Team Sweden has the option to legally add a replacement player under IOC/IIHF rules (as per Elvis's post here: http://forum.canucks...0#entry11955887), if Daniel decides to also skip the Olympics.

So I just heard Pratt on the radio saying that he's hearing that Edler's going to be traded to Detroit. I really don't listen to Dave very much (I just happened to tune in while I was in the car) so I'm wondering if there's actually been anything new? Or is he just been spinning the old rumour from last year? I haven't come across very much recently that suggests anything imminent involving the Canucks and Red Wings. Is Pratt just stirring the pot or are there other (better) sources also suggesting this trade might be back in the works?

Honestly, I have no idea what kind of game this will be. The Canucks could get blessed by the hockey gods with an infusion of puck luck and break out with a high scoring game. They could also finally get on track in their own zone and stop with the own-goals, botched clearances, and defensive breakdowns. I still have some faith left that this team can, at least partially, right the ship and play better hockey on a consistent basis. That said, they could also get embarrassed again tonight. Whatever happens, even if the Canucks continue to struggle to score goals, I want to see the team bring a better work ethic tonight. I've been really frustrated lately with how this team responds in loose puck situations. I can't remember the last time I've seen this group outwork an opposing team for loose pucks. I'm also tired of watching Canuck players standing still in their own zone waiting for the puck to come to them and just watching it glide along the boards while an opposition player (usually starting from a worse position) works hard to claim the ice and grab the puck before it reaches the stationary Canuck. There have been so many times when the opposition has been able to extend their offensive zone time because the Canucks seem disinterested in working for possession, clearing the zone, and starting their own breakout. I don't want to scream at the TV tonight. I hate not scoring goals but I can deal with it. Watching the guys get outworked is much harder to take. Especially when their best players are all mired in scoring slumps and when their roster is depleted by injuries. These are the times when teams need to rely on hard work to make-up for a lack of skill and offensive potency. It really seems like the Canucks haven't been a hard-working team for quite a few weeks now. Even guys who normally bring a solid work ethic seem to be struggling to find their motivation. How many times have we seen guys up their game after making a bad mistake early in a shift (and then they "erase" their mistake by making a couple good plays near the end of that shift). Obviously, when motivated by the embarrassment of a bad play, they can somehow find the effort to make up for the earlier mistake and finish their shifts extra strong. So why not just play the entire shift that way? I'd love to hear some Canucks players described by the broadcasters as "looking like a man possessed." Haven't heard that one in a while. Remember when that used to be a tired, old cliché on this team? Seems so long ago... Some "beast mode" shifts would be nice as well. If the Canucks can just manage to outwork the Jets tonight (and the next few opponents on the schedule), I can live with whatever happens on the scoreboard. As tough as it is to watch boring, low-scoring hockey, it's 100X worse to watch a team that doesn't put on their "hardhats" and bring a strong work ethic when they're struggling to score goals and make plays. IMHO at least, this team (other than a small scattering of individual examples) is not working anywhere near hard enough on any kind of a consistent basis through 60 minutes. This needs to change--and hopefully it changes tonight. [/RANT]

And maybe even replace Burr with Hansen on your second unit. Hansen looked much more effective working behind the net on that late shift than anything we've seen from Burrows lately.