SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME

I tend to agree (that the Jets probably won't be cashing in their biggest chips at this year's deadline) but the rumours do continue to persist. Here's last night's Sportsnet Hockey Central Trade Tracker regarding the possibility of Andrew Ladd being moved at the deadline: http://www.sportsnet...er-andrew-ladd/ And Gary Lawless of the Winnipeg Free Press has continued to push the idea that the Noel firing needs to be accompanied by a purge of the Jets' leadership "clique": http://www.winnipegf...-239381581.html And going from the Free Press comments section and some of the main Jets boards, the idea (of moving Ladd, etc) is more popular among Winnipeg fans than I ever would have expected. So there's certainly a fair amount of smoke. As to whether there's also fire, we'll have to see where things stand on March 5th. If Ladd was available, I think that Brian Lawton is correct in putting Vancouver at the top of the list of possible destinations (although I also agree with Kypreos that Cheveldayoff would be pretty crazy to move him). But if Ladd was on offer, how much should the Canucks be willing to deal for him? Our biggest chip (Edler) isn't really on the Jets' shortlist of demands. While I believe that Winnipeg would be a significantly improved team with Edler (their left side isn't as deep as their right and they are lacking a little size/physicality on the LHDs), it's hard to say whether or not they'd want him as their main piece. They seem to be happy with their D and with the emerging young core. I think Hansen has to come into the discussion (as part of a package) since he lives in Winnipeg and loves the city. As much as I hate the idea of moving him (favourite Canuck and fellow Dane), he really seems to need a change of scenery and I think he'd quickly become a fan favourite in the 'Peg. I'm also fine with moving the Canucks' 2014 1st round pick. And I think only Horvat stays on the untouchable prospects list. For Ladd, I'd even be OK with losing one of Shinkaruk, Gaunce, Jensen, or Corrado. I think we could come up with a suitable package out of those parts. Not sure how many pieces it might take, however. From what I've heard, the Jets are really looking to add some good complimentary top-nine forwards to their current group. I think that Hansen could really help them there. I could even see Booth as add-on to a trade (and to balance some salary), if it's also sweetened with a strong package of pick(s)/prospect(s), to go along with Hansen. To me, Andrew Ladd is definitely a player that you sacrifice assets for (both current and future). Nearly every team in the league would be happy to have him and he'd be a really good fit in Vancouver: 6'3", 210lbs, power winger who can score 30 goals a season. Leadership. 2 Stanley Cup rings. Local connection (from Maple Ridge--so there's a good chance of extending him here, possibly with "home-town discount," once he's actually wearing Canucks colours). Two more years left on his current contract and at a great cap hit ($4.4 million). If Ladd was available, what would it take to land him and what pieces would people be OK parting with?

I've also been advocating a Booth-Schroeder-Hansen line since the offseason. I'm more excited, however, about the potential for reuniting Hansen with Schroeder. People dismiss Schroeder's scoring potential when they look at him only putting up nine points over 31 GP last season. What's missed here is the fact that five of those points came during the half dozen games in 2012-13 when Schroeder played complete games with Hansen and Raymond on his wings (at even strength). During those same half dozen games, Raymond and Hansen were also each scoring at a point per game pace with Schroeder as their centerman. EDIT: IIRC, Schroeder also enjoyed a 4 game scoring streak during the longest period of the 2012-13 season when that line was kept together (through the full 60 minutes of each game--with no juggling). Over 130:44 EVTOI played together during 2012-13, Schroeder and Hansen, respectively, put up the following even strength scoring lines: Schroeder: 2 goals, 3 assists, 5 points, 9 shots, 21 Corsi (attempted shots) Hansen: 4 goals, 3 assists, 7 points, 26 shots, 41 Corsi Raymond played 230:39 total EVTOI with Schroeder, however nearly all of their productivity together came during the roughly 1/2 of that icetime when Hansen completed the line. Here's Raymond's even strength scoring line (while playing with Schroeder): Raymond: 2 goals, 6 assists, 8 points, 27 shots, 45 Corsi I've said it repeatedly but I suppose it's worth saying again: Last season, when Schroeder was given an offensive role with quality linemates (including some wicked chemistry with Hansen), he (and his wingers) produced offense at a 1st line scoring rate. For the 2012-13 season, anything above 2.0 points/60 qualified as first line scoring in the NHL. When they played together, Hansen and Schroeder were producing even strength scoring at 3.2 points/60 and 2.3 points/60, respectively (and Raymond also produced something around 3 points/60 while playing on that line). While the injury situation that has created an opening is certainly nothing to relish, I am glad that there appears to be a window for Schroeder to return to this lineup and get a chance to play quality minutes in the process. With Hansen struggling offensively, and having a difficult time finding a good line fit and chemistry this season, being reunited with Jordan Schroeder might very well provide the tonic he's been needing. I have high hopes for what those two can achieve together. The other winger who rounds out a line with Schroeder-Hansen (whoever it is) should benefit greatly from their chemistry. While Booth didn't produce much scoring with Schroeder last season (he didn't score with anyone really), he did achieve his best Corsi numbers when he had Schroeder as his centerman. They were strong on possession and they created scoring opportunities, they just couldn't finish (which was hardly unique for any of Booth's linemates last season). What Booth does provide, when healthy and on his game, is similar skating ability to what Raymond has but with more physicality and a greater willingness to go strong to the net. In theory, Booth might provide a good fit and a Booth-Schroeder-Hansen line might strike a pretty good balance. As for the Schroeder conditioning stint, I agree with those who say it's a no-brainer that he's getting a couple games to shake off the rust and find his legs again. I can't remember who it was but someone from the Canucks organization, over the last 24 hours, said that they look at the current situation as the schedule giving the team a significant opportunity. Basically, what was said (and I'll look for the quote) is that with the Comets playing a Friday-Saturday back-to-back in Abbotsford, the Canucks can give Schroeder two full AHL games without him needing to leave the Vancouver area. This allows the team to really get a close look at Schroeder, given that he's basically playing in the Canucks' backyard. When the Comets leave town for a three-game home stand in Utica starting on the 28th, it's expected that Schroeder will get recalled to the Canucks (and he never leaves town). If all goes well, there's a good chance he joins the lineup for Sunday's game versus the 'Yotes. Otherwise, he gets in some practice with the team before joining the lineup on Monday (Oilers) or Wednesday ('Hawks). Also, is anyone else hearing that Hank's expected back for the 29th versus Chicago? And Richardson possibly good to go for tonight? Never mind on Richardson: Jim Jamieson ‏@JamiesonCanucks 53m Canucks skate very optional, but Brad Richardson on the ice so looks good to go after missing practice on Wednesday. Looks like he should be back in for tonight's lineup. Good news! EDIT: typos

Hard to understand how the Andre Lewis thing can happen unless there was some very dirty pool involved. Lewis attended the 2014 Combine (Jan. 9th to 14th), which included player meetings with the clubs on the 11th and the 13th. Obviously, the player was not forthcoming about his intention to play in the NASL. After being drafted (and, by all indications, having already having agreed to an NASL contract), Lewis makes the following statement: “'I’m a fan of Vancouver because of Darren Mattocks,' the 19-year-old said of the Whitecaps striker and fellow Jamaican. 'I love the support that the fans give to Vancouver. I’m looking forward to starting my professional career with the Whitecaps and to just go there and work hard and do my best.'” Yet here's what Cosmos CEO Erik Stover said about the signing (from the Goal.com article): "'We agreed to a deal in principle with the player a while ago, and he's under contract with us now pending approval from U.S. Soccer,' Stover told Goal USA. 'We haven't made an official announcement yet since we're in the process of finalizing the terms of the developmental agreement with his club in Jamaica.'" Just how long "a while ago" means is hard to know but it's a fair assumption that Lewis attended the 2014 MLS Combine while already committed to a deal with the Cosmos. And to make things worse: "What teams were apparently unaware of was the fact that Lewis had trained with the Cosmos last November, and joined the team during its tour of Spain, even appearing in a friendly. He was not under contract with the Cosmos when he attended the Combine, but after not signing with MLS during the Combine, Lewis agreed to a deal with the Cosmos some time before Thursday's MLS Draft, which he did not attend." Now the Caps have to shoulder some blame for not being aware of the fact that Lewis had been training with the Cosmos, travelled with the team on the November tour, and even played for them in a friendly. Clearly, this is information that their scouts should have uncovered (EDIT: and should have been the focus of their questions during Combine interviews--unless they did ask Lewis about it and he directly lied about his intentions). If the Caps were aware of these things, then they must have been given indications directly from Lewis (at the Combine interviews) that he would sign with MLS if drafted. There's no way they'd pick him at #7 if they knew he was already commited to a deal with New York. If the Caps weren't aware (which appears to be the case), then heads need to roll on this because management/scouting clearly dropped the ball (by not uncovering this information prior to making the selection). Especially following the Camilo fiasco, the Caps should have been extra careful in establishing clear intentions for the players on their draft list. To effectively waste a 7th overall pick is inexcusable. Of course, as the article says, other MLS drafted players have signed with other leagues but Lewis would be the highest MSL pick to ever be lost in such a manner (which is not a record Whitecaps FC wants to add to their list of organizational "credits"). That said, it also seems like Lewis might very well have been advised, likely by his representation and even possibly by New York Cosmos management, to keep his agreement in principle with the NASL club a secret and to go ahead and attend the MSL Combine (and even indicate during interviews that he was available). It's very hard to imagine how a detail like Lewis being already committed to a deal with an NASL team would fail to come-up during multiple team interviews unless Lewis was deliberately misleading the MLS teams that he spoke to during the Combine (regarding his intentions and availability). If this is the case, the Whitecaps need to carefully examine their options as there might be cause for filing a grievance.

A couple nights back, I was complaining about David Booth and my wife asked me what the deal was (she doesn't follow the team all that closely). I went through Booth's playing history (with Vancouver and for his career), his injuries, his background (culture/faith/etc), off-ice topics, and the whole ball of wax. Her take on things: it sounds like Booth is struggling with a depression/anxiety spectrum AKA "mood disorder." It's strange but this just never occurred to me before as a possibility. It would explain quite a bit if this was the case. Now, I'd like to believe that after what happened with Rypien and the resulting "Mind Check" effort (and the overall organizational sensitivity to mental health issues), that the Canucks would pick-up on this kind of thing and would have systems in place to address such issues. However, it does seem possible that something like this could slip through the cracks. Given Booth's background (culturally-speaking moreso than his faith), he might not be the kind of person who'd be willing to open up about his mental health. It's pretty tough for anyone to take such a step and I have a feeling that it would be tougher for Booth than most. He also seems to be a bit of an island to himself in the dressing room and doesn't really seem to be all that close to his teammates or staff. If he's having issues he could very well be suffering in silence. Torts has been clear that he believes that Booth's issues are strictly "mental." He's said that he thinks that Booth lacks confidence in his own health and readiness to play the game the way he needs to play in order to be successful. But what if it's not a "mental" issue but a mental health issue instead? Right now, Torts is using the kind of shaming techniques (healthy scratches, benching, calling out in the media, demoting down the lineup, etc) that are meant to challenge players and give them the push they need to get back to playing their best hockey. This can be a successful approach when a guy isn't giving his full effort or lacks motivation. However, if Booth is actually suffering from a mental health issue, what Torts is doing could be the very worst thing possible. I find many of Booth's comments in the press seem to support the idea that he's struggling with a mood disorder. I used to get frustrated at how Booth would make comments like "I'm leaning heavily on my Faith" and "I'm putting things in God's hands" when questioned about his quality of play and the coach's decision not to play him. I'd feel like screaming: "You need to fix the problem Booth because God isn't going to magically make you play better!" I almost felt like Booth wasn't taking responsibility for actions and was hiding behind the idea that the Will of God determined everything and that only God could fix his issues on the ice. But if David Booth is struggling with a depression/anxiety spectrum disorder, that's exactly how things might seem. I actually believe that Booth has been working as hard as he can. He made it to the NHL through hard work, he trains harder than most players, and, when healthy, he plays a very hard working game. This is not a lazy guy. Booth could easily feel like he's doing everything he possibly can, on and off the ice, to meet his coach's (and this city's) expectations. But if his mind isn't healthy, it really doesn't matter how hard he works his body. He's just not going to be successful on the ice (and he's not going to appear to be giving the game his full effort--even if he's doing everything he possibly can under the circumstances). The failures and disappointments he's been facing would only feed into a mental disorder and make things get worse and worse. I can only imagine how hard it might be for someone in the grips of mental illness to deal with the treatment Booth is getting from the coaching staff. Same goes for what's being said in the press and by the fans (and no player can successfully insulate himself from this--even if he says he doesn't pay attention). If Booth is actually struggling with a mental illness, it would be extremely difficult for him to cope with all the negative things that have happened during his tenure with the Vancouver Canucks. He might honestly believe that he can't give anything more than what he's already giving to this team. If his mental health has reached the point that he feels truly powerless over his circumstances and that he has no other choice now but to just leave everything in the hands of his God, one could hardly blame him. For Booth's sake, I really hope this isn't the case because mood disorders can be much more challenging to "rehab" than most of the physical injuries that players suffer. If my wife is correct and Booth really is going through something related to his mental health, it would sure explain a lot of things. Before I considered this as a possibility, Booth always seemed like such an enigma and his struggles in a Canucks uniform were so very frustratingly difficult to explain (at least to explain them to my satisfaction). If Booth's struggles are actually the result of an ongoing (and possibly undiagnosed) mood disorder, everything that's been going on with him really starts to make a lot more sense.

I suppose I'd answer the thread topic like this: 1.Schneider was the better back-up His list of accomplishments, to-date as a back-up goalie, is vastly superior to Lack's. 2. Lack is the better back-up Simply by virtue of the fact that it would have been an untenable situation to continue having Schneider on the team with Luongo. Eddie Lack is thrilled to be backing up Luongo (and Schneider definitely would not be). Also, playing behind Luongo is going to help Lack's development immensely (while there would be nothing for Schneider to gain from further playing time as Lu's understudy). 3. It's undetermined who will be the better goalie in the future I truly believe that Lack could prove to be the superior goalie--to Schneider and possibly even Luongo--once he reaches his prime as a professional. I think Lack has huge potential. I would not be surprised if Eddie Lack eventually became one of the top-five starters in the NHL (I'm not saying that he's anything near a lock to accomplish this however). I think Lack has the right tool set--both physically and in skill/ability--to become an excellent NHL starting goaltender. What I like the most about Eddie, however, is his mindset and personality--in that respect I believe he has a chance to become a really special player. Goaltending is the most mentally challenging position in hockey and Lack has the right mental make-up to cope with the stresses of the position (which is an area where both Luongo and Schneider have shown some weaknesses).

I am the only one who got a chuckle out of this? I'll hit you both with +1s for the

It is a bit of a quandary as to what to do with Kassian and that could only take on further complications when the injured players start returning to the lineup. It would help if Kass could start really clicking with Richardson and Booth and if the next series of games saw him play well consistently. If he continues the pattern of having a couple good games and then looking lost for the next three or four, then I could see him drop down the lineup rather quickly. My hope is that he plays well enough, and consistently enough, that his work on the ice demands his inclusion in the top-nine. My worry is that he becomes a #12/13 forward on this team (speaking only for this season--I really believe that he'll be a solid NHLer eventually and I haven't given-up on him being a big part of the Canucks' top-six). I agree that injuries often tend to solve these issues and that there's a good chance that someone will get hurt before the numbers force the Canucks to look for possible demotions. And I didn't mean to say that Kassian necessarily needs a demotion. I agree that Torts can probably accomplish more for Kassian's development by keeping him in Vancouver than would happen if he's demoted for an AHL stint. It's mostly a case of what to do if we get to the point where Kassian is playing on the 4th line and he's not even the most effective player on that unit most nights (which could easily happen if he's playing with Richardson and Weise--as those two are playing extremely well, even with limited opportunities). At what point does it become the better option to demote him? I'd agree that Kassian probably doesn't require a "wakeup call," so to speak, as he's already had quite a few this season and Torts has taken him on as a project and gives him a lot of attention. It's more a case that, should numbers require that forwards get demoted, if Kassian finds himself playing in Utica, I hope he can use the situation to his best advantage (like you, I also worry that an AHL demotion might set him back--but I'm also not sure if a potential scenario where he's alternating between playing 5 minutes a night and being a healthy scratch--basically being a #12/13 forward--is a better option, even if it allows him to continue to practice and travel with the NHL team). And given how tight and competitive the forward roster might become if everyone gets healthy, Kassian's waiver status (as well as his game-to-game inconsistency and his failure, at least to-date, to really take things by the horns and earn a top-nine spot) might mean that he finds himself the odd man out and gets demoted until he's either needed again (for injury relief) or his play with the Comets earns him a recall. It's hard to say what's best and even harder to predict what's going to happen. At the start of the season, I had high hopes for Kassian earning a top-six assignment and becoming a big part of this team night in and night out. At the same time, I also said that I wouldn't be surprised if he found himself playing in Utica for a portion of the regular season. As things stand today, not much has changed for me. That all said, I have noticed improvement with Kassian this season and I'm hopeful that he can avoid many of the outcomes I've suggested here. Everything is in Kassian's control right now and how he plays will determine where he plays.

According to a quick run of capgeek's waivers calculator, Kassian is currently waivers exempt (and can play 23 more NHL games before his status changes). Maybe someone else can confirm (or run the numbers and see if I goofed)? Here's the link: http://www.capgeek.c...=120&Calculate= I'm wondering if the best thing would be to send him down for a while when Burrows and Schroeder come back from their injuries? I think that the twins need Burr back and the 2nd line is playing too well for it to get broken up. So the top-six should be: Sedin-Sedin-Burrows Higgins-Kesler-Santorelli As for the bottom-six, I think that Schroeder needs to be played with Hansen (they have excellent chemistry) in an attempt to get Hansen's offense going and to give Schroeder his best opportunity. From the start of the season, I've been hoping to see Booth-Schroeder-Hansen given a shot together (good mix on paper and Schroeder has some excellent possession/events WOWYs with Booth). Plus, with Booth looking to have finally gotten healthy and found his game again, he needs to keep getting top-nine minutes. That leaves the fourth line. IMHO, Richardson and Weise need to be locks for two of the three spots (both are putting up great numbers with limited opportunities: Richardson is 0.40 points/game and Weise is 0.36 points/game and #1 on the Canucks in points/60). Kassian could take the remaining spot but I wonder if that's really the best place for him? He might really benefit from some big minutes with Utica and then a recall for the stretch drive and the playoffs (hopefully). Welsh and Dalpe are playing pretty well now and are capable of alternating as the #12 and #13 forwards (each can slot in to give the fourth line a different look: Welsh for more size/grit and Dalpe for more scoring upside). Even with Torts finally giving the fourth line some minutes (at least for the last two games), I'm not sure if Kassian's best served playing nine minutes per game (if he's lucky--and 4-5 minutes per game if things go back to how they were) in a 4th liner role. And even if Schroeder doesn't get a middle-six spot in the lineup, I don't think Kassian has done enough to earn a spot ahead of any one of Burrows, Hansen, Booth (especially if his recent play is sustained), or Richardson. As things stand, it looks like Kassian will be stuck on the fourth line if he stays with the big club (once everyone is healthy). Also, maybe a demotion can provide a wake-up call and Kassian will work his butt off to make the most of the increased playing time an AHL stint would afford him? At the very least, it certainly wouldn't hurt the Comets to add a player like Kass to their lineup. EDIT: forgot about Sestito. His two-year deal suggests he's in the organization's long(ish) term plans so he'll likely stay (and not risk losing on waivers). So that means that Welsh might go down too (if they run with 13 forwards) because Dalpe needs to clear waivers.

CDC consistently overrates what's expected of a top-six forward. The OP is bang on for what most people expect (50-60 points per season minimum). However, the reality in recent years is that roughly 0.40 points per game (about 33 points) or better is what constitutes a top-six scoring rate in today's NHL. 50-60 points per season is a first line scoring rate. Of course, the best teams in the NHL have more than three "first liners" and have 50-60 points/season players on their second lines. As things stand currently, the Canucks have a chance to be one of those teams. Here's a good recent article (from PITB) on the difference between expectations and realities as to what constitutes a "second line forward" (and top-six scoring) in the NHL: http://vansunsportsb...ner-in-the-nhl/ EDIT: As far as those numbers go, the Canucks are in pretty good shape with their current roster. Vancouver currently has four forwards who are producing points at a "first liner" rate: Hank and Danny (0.89 points/game each), Kes (0.74), and Santo (0.69). Another two forwards are producing at "second line" rates: Higgins (0.60 points/game--just below a first line rate) and Richardson (0.40). Three more Canucks forwards are currently just below the threshold for "top-six" scoring: Hansen (0.36), Weise (0.36), and Booth (0.35). You also have guys like Burrows (0.18), whose injuries and scoring slump have him well below his normal rate of production, and Kassian (0.24), who has shown flashes of "top-six" ability (and who hopefully will become a more consistent scorer). Both players (especially Burr) could quite easily produce top-six scoring during the 2nd half of this season. Finally, there's Schroeder (if/when he returns to the lineup), who has top-six offensive talent and who has shown the ability in the past to produce at a "first line" scoring rate when he's given complimentary wingers and an offensive role (like the Raymond-Schroeder-Hansen line that actually out-produced the Sedin line, in points/minute played, in their games together last season).

This team is really starting to come together now. I'm especially encouraged by the forwards usage tonight. Here's the forwards EVTOI: Richardson 16:02 Higgins 15:26 Booth 15:13 Santorelli 14:57 Kesler 14:10 Kassian 13:50 Hansen 13:16 Sedin 11:57 Sedin 11:23 Dalpe 9:50 Welsh: 8:59 Weise: 8:50 Of course, Richardson might not be the high minute man (at even strength) if Kesler doesn't pick up a fighting major, and the bottom-six got a few extra shifts once the game moved into blowout territory, but even given those factors, the balance usage, from top-to-bottom, is impressive. The fourth line, which used to struggle to see five minutes a game, pushed close to the ten minute mark for the second night in a row. The 2nd line (although Higgins-Kesler-Santorelli has been getting called the "first line" lately) and the 3rd line were each used for around 15 minutes. And finally, the twins only needed to play for around 12 minutes (and, with Hansen, combined for 5 points on the night). Production was spread out nicely among the top-nine (while the fourth line was blanked tonight--I guess they can't score every game). The Kesler line (and CHiggs and Santo) keeps on rolling. Hopefully the Sedins have bumped the slump and Hansen's lucky goal will get him going as well. And the big story was the third line with Booth and Richardson each making a huge contribution on the night (and playing big minutes in the process). If this team can roll three deep in scoring lines, and with the fourth line providing the occasional threat, plus the Ds chipping in goals, this group will be a very tough team to play against (and the winning ways should continue for a while). It was funny earlier today during the call in portion of the pre-game show on Team 1040. Some Cody-cuddler phoned in complaining about how the Canucks were going to miss Hodgson tonight and how they likely wouldn't have the same success this time around that they had in the last game in Boston (where CoHo scored the game winner). I laughed when I heard that call earlier this afternoon and I laughed again when Booth scored his goal. While Booth's tally wasn't the GWG, it was IMHO the goal that actually won the game for the Canucks. After Booth scored, the momentum shifted into the Canucks' favour and stayed there the rest of the way. Booth's goal was a statement: the Vancouver Canucks would not be denied on this night. As for that caller on 1040, Booth's goal made another statement: Cody who? If the Booth we witnessed tonight (and it's been building for the past several games) is an indication of the Booth the Canucks are going to have playing for the rest of the season, then the other top teams in the West need to get ready to move out of the way because the Vancouver Canucks are coming through and we're heading up in the standings. That's not to say that David Booth is, on his own, going to be the answer. But if the Canucks have the Sedins back playing like the Sedins, Kesler beasting (and his line pumping out scoring), AND Booth finally playing (for Vancouver) like the guy who was Florida's most dangerous player for a couple seasons, then all of a sudden, the Canucks are a team that can compete against anyone and can beat teams in many different ways. We're starting to see the potential that exists on each of these four lines and from all of the players on this team. Of course, we're riding a win streak and all streaks come to an end. While they're going, everything looks good. However, we're also seeing some really great signs: (1) Kesler is back at the top of his game. Our #2 centre is playing like a guy who'd be a first liner on nearly every team in the NHL. (2) Santorelli is keeping it going. It's becoming harder and harder to call this merely a hot streak. Looking more and more like a breakout season/career year. (3) Higgins is (somewhat) quietly putting up first line numbers (among NHL left wingers, he's tied for 19th in points 16th in goals). (4) The Sedins, even after going through a scoring slump (hopefully now over), are still tied for the 15th most points in the NHL. (5) Booth is once again skating with speed and power. He's looking comfortable and confident. Maybe, just maybe, the David Booth the Canucks hoped they'd acquired in 2011 has finally arrived in a Vancouver uniform. If that's the case, we'll forgive the delivery delay because getting a full value Booth in this lineup (even two years late) is a complete game-changer. (6) Richardson is scoring 0.4 points/game. That's bottom-end second line scoring in the NHL (basically elite third line scoring). His two shorties have him tied for the NHL lead in SHGs. He's second only to Kes in forward PK minutes. (7) Weise is 25th in the entire NHL in even strength points per sixty minutes! Dale Weise!!! He's putting up 2.44 points/60, which is also good for the #1 spot on the Canucks. That's just the forward group and I'm gonna stop the list at seven (although there are several other positives that could be added). As for the rest of the team, a similar list could be made for the D (likely starting with Tanev's emergence at a legitimate top-four D, Hamhuis getting his game back after a shaky start to the season, and Garrison producing again after going scoreless for that 14 game stretch--Garry is tied for 6th among NHL Ds and has 13 points in his last 11 games) and for the goalies (Lu looking like Canada's #1 and the Stork looking like he's been playing at the NHL level for years--and the Schneider trade looking like MG made the correct call), but this post already rambles quite a bit. And then there's Torts. I definitely didn't expect to fall in love so quickly and so hard. I was cautiously optimistic about the hiring and I figured he'd be a good coach here but I never expected he'd prove to be exactly what this team needed. Say what you will about Gillis's "re-set" but it's really seeming like Torts did more to change this team (for the better) than a blockbuster trade would have accomplished. Like the best coaching changes, bringing in Torts has been like trading many of our players for a better version of themselves. There's still a ways to go but we're starting to get a look at what John Tortorella's Vancouver Canucks can accomplish--and it's been pretty impressive. Anyway, more than enough said for one post. OK, one last thing (or maybe two). I've honestly moved past the 2011 Finals but after tonight's game, it's hard not to wonder what one Torts timeout might have meant for the 2011 team. Maybe one of those four losses could have been turned around before things got out of hand. Also, it's interesting to see what happens when a mostly healthy Canucks team plays a much less healthy Bruins squad (although Boston--both the team and their fans--would never make excuses for why they were so soundly beaten tonight ). OK, that's it. I'm out. G'night everyone!

Love how Tortorella always has the Sedins' backs (as in tonight's post game presser). Even more than the "who cares what Mike Milbury says" comment, I liked what Torts had to say next. Regarding the twins being disrespected and referred to as "the sisters," Torts went right after Milbury for these comments. Beginning with a "no disrespect to Mike" that brought to mind Jon Stewart's New Jersey Goodfella impressions, Torts went on to basically dismiss Milbury as merely a "commentator" and a "guy outside of the game." Ouch! Pretty strong words for Tortorella to use against Milbury, a fellow Bostonian and a guy with 12 seasons in the NHL as a player, followed by a pretty successful NHL coaching career (at least early on), and a less successful stint as an NHL GM. Say what you will about Mike Milbury (and there's a fair amount that can be criticized), but given his history in the NHL (as a player, coach, and GM), he's pretty much as close to an "insider" as you get. Normally, I'd say that Milbury has earned some respect and his opinions on hockey should carry a fair amount of weight. He's probably forgotten more about this game than I will ever know. However, the Mike Milbury who called the Sedin twins "the sisters" does not deserve respect. The man who made those comments is someone who is completely oblivious to the reality of who the Sedins are and how they play the game. I'd go so far as to say that the Mike Milbury who made those comments is very much "outside" of today's NHL game. And Torts was bang on to suggest as much. I'm so glad that Vancouver finally has a guy who pulls no punches when it comes to defending his players in the media. Tortorella finished things off by saying that comments like Milbury's "make me sick" and that people who take those kinds of "potshots" at the twins are people who "don't have a clue." Well said Torts! I couldn't agree more.

Really don't understand the concern that Santorelli's place on the team would necessitate taking a roster opening away from Horvat and/or Gaunce. Even if both rookies made the lineup, it's not like all three of those guys need to play at centre. Santorelli, Horvat, and Gaunce are all capable C/W hybrid forwards and each has the ability to play up-and-down in the lineup. You could even have a highly effective line playing all three together. Gaunce-Horvat-Santorelli could be a formidable third line. My only concern would be salary. If Santorelli signs for fairly cheap, then it's a no-brainer to retain his services in Vancouver. If the young guys make the jump next season, it'll just mean that the Canucks will have sufficient depth in the lineup to allow them the option, if they so chose, to play veteran 2nd/3rd liner tweeners on their fourth line-which is a problem that just about every team in the league would love to have.

While Shore has recently passed Hutton for the team lead in points, it's still been an intriguing comparison this season, and one that puts Hutton's success on that Maine team into perspective. I was pretty much gobsmacked when I first saw that a sophomore defenseman was leading the Black Bears in points, goals, PP goals, GWGs, and shots on goal. Even with Shore taking the lead away from Hutton in a couple of those categories, it's still remarkable that Hutton's either 1st or 2nd on his team in each of those categories (and where Shore is ahead, it's generally by only one). Hutton's stats line, even after losing the lead in a couple categories, is still eye-widening (ranking on team in parentheses): 13GP, 6G (tied-1st), 5A (4th), 11 points (2nd), 3 PPG (1st), 2 GWG (1st), 41 shots (2nd) The comparison to Shore is interesting given, as noted in the quote post, that they are from the same draft class and are in the same year at Maine. Of course, it's also a comparison between a forward (centre) and a defenseman and between a 2nd round pick and a 5th rounder. If Hutton can keep this up, Hockey's Future might want to re-think their 6.0 C rating on Hutton (as compared to Shore's 7.0 C). Similarly, HF may need to re-think their team ranking for the Canucks, if things keep going like this. Prior to the recent influx of blue-chip talent at the top (Horvat, Shinkaruk, etc), the Canucks needed to hope that a couple of their lesser knowns would make an impact. Now, the future looks brighter, especially if the "can't miss" guys don't miss and we keep getting positive signs from the lesser know "projects" and risk/reward prospects (and maybe even a reclamation or two from guys who looked to be finished in this system). Lots of positive things happening, up and down the prospects chart. Can't wait for these kids to start making an impact in the pro ranks!

Didn't I mention that his size and his lack of physicality were among my primary concerns? That's why I'd only consider him at a discount and for depth purposes (and with his signing augmented by the additional signing of other depth Ds with size and grit). This is not a player that I'd like to see penciled as a regular in the Canucks' starting six, especially during the playoffs (unless there was a serious rash of injuries--which pretty much wrecks any team's chances for the postseason anyway). That all said, you basically conceded (by saying that he "gets by during the regular season") that he could be useful depth over an 82 game schedule. I wouldn't be looking for anything more than "getting by" from Ian White (as that's pretty much the definition of a depth player's role). Like I said, I'd only sign him at a discount and for depth--and if he provided more than that (like a return to his 2011-12 production), it would be a huge bonus. It takes a wide variety of players to fill-out a roster and depth chart. On defense, the Canucks have a set top-four that shoulders most of the load. Tanev (if re-signed) and a couple others will help take some of the weight but most of the players beyond the first 5 or 6 Ds are not going to be expected to play more of a role than some very limited sheltered minutes and injury relief (especially during the playoffs). However, to get to the playoffs, you need to have regular season success. 82 games is a marathon and guys go down with injuries. You need capable replacement players. No depth player comes with the perfect package of attributes for his position (if he did, he'd be a starter in the top half of the lineup). As far as the D, you need players who can sub in to the bottom pairing and who can occasionally play top-four roles when needed. While White lacks size and grit, he does have the skillset to play 20+ minutes (including PP time), move the puck, and occasionally provide some scoring punch. You need this type of player during the regular season. The Canucks currently have a couple holes to fill on the D depth chart. There are a number of options out there and White is one of them. I've been pretty clear that he's not my first choice. However, the Canucks must compete with 29 other teams for players and Vancouver has limited cap space to throw at the remaining depth signings. If White fits their budget (and allows them to spend more money elsewhere), then he's not a bad pick-up. He could be useful, if the price is right (and the right complimentary depth players are also added to the D). This isn't the time of the year for signing depth players intended for the playoffs. Right now, you complete a roster that gets you through 82 games and hopefully wins enough games to get a spot in the postseason. The month leading up to the trading deadline is the time for readdressing depth charts with a view to the playoffs. At the point, depending on the health and performance of the lineup, the Canucks can look toward adding a depth D for insurance during the postseason (if necessary). EDIT: grammar and flow

It's going to be interesting to see how things shake out for Ian White. Given the current climate--cap reduction league-wide and the big money frenzy long passed--there's a good chance that White will be forced to take a serious pay cut to secure NHL employment. He's coming off a $2.875 million AAV deal and his last season probably devalued him. His strong numbers in 2011-12 probably mitigate things somewhat but, at least on paper, his 2012-13 season was disastrous (in terms of setting value going into free agency). He had huge drops across the board in terms of his productivity (while still getting pretty good minutes and power play time). It also doesn't help that he sat as a healthy scratch for the last dozen or so games of the regular season and for the entire playoff run. All things considered, he might be available for something under $2 million (possibly well under) on a short-term deal. He's a good fit for the Canucks in many ways (RH shot, pretty smooth skating, good puckmover, offensive potential, PP ability, etc.) but he's also very undersized and doesn't play physical at all. Assuming Tanev's back and Weber stays for depth, adding White would make for a pretty soft overall group (and would require the top-four Ds to shoulder the entire load in terms of bringing grit and physicality). I'd hate to see the Canucks put into a situation where they absolutely had to play some big bruiser who can't skate just to balance out the lack of physicality on their back end. That said, White still ticks quite a few of the boxes and he's a better option than many of the other possibilities. I'd just be happier if he was a little bigger and stronger, even if not all that physical (Hainsey comes to mind here as a better option--if the reported price tag is even close to accurate). If White's value plummets and he's available for a serious discount (around $1 million), then I'd certainly be on board for bringing him in for depth (even if Tanev's re-signed). However, for anything above the $1.5 - 2.0 million range, I'd rather give Tanev whatever he wants (within reason) and look to add some cheaper depth guys with a little more size.

Is the goalie Bob Essensa?

Marc Dufour?

Gerry Ehman

As far as Tanev (and Ballard) being "the most solid" pairing on the Canucks "for stretches of last year," I think it's important to consider the impact of player usage on the apparent on-ice quality of play (and the same goes for the other Ds). It was during those stretches in question (when Tanev looked his best) that Tanev was also playing his most sheltered minutes. Overall, it's important to remember that Tanev's 2012-13 season saw him play some of the softest minutes he's had since his rookie season. Here's a breakdown of where he ranked last season, among Canucks defensemen, in two of the key statistical measures for competition level: QUALITY OF COMPETITION (Corsi QoC): 1. Dan Hamhuis (-0.219) 2. Jason Garrison (-0.402) 3. Andrew Alberts (-0.477) 4. Alex Edler (-0.579) 5. Kevin Bieksa (-0.891) 6. Keith Ballard (-1.066) 7. Chris Tanev (-1.388) 8. Cam Barker (-2.326) 9. Frank Corrado (-3.080) 10. Derek Joslin (-9.201) RELATIVE QUALITY OF COMPETITION (Corsi Rel QoC): 1. Dan Hamhuis (0.819) 2. Jason Garrison (0.652) 3. Kevin Bieksa (0.566) 4. Alex Edler (0.489) 5. Andrew Alberts (-0.033) 6. Keith Ballard (-0.197) 7. Cam Barker (-0.236) 8. Chris Tanev (-0.447) 9. Frank Corrado (-0.620) 10. Derek Joslin (-1.216) Seventh and eighth place, respectively, and significantly lower numbers than what we see from the Canucks' top-four. Also, when you look at his game-by-game performance through last season, a pretty clear pattern emerges. Here's a rough breakdown of how things went during Tanev's 2012-13 season: The first half of the season, which is when he looked the best (expecially in comparison to his teammates), Tanev was playing most frequently with Ballard, mostly against bottom level competition, and mostly at low TOI/G (something in the 14 to 18 minutes range). Then, around the beginning of March, Tanev gets called upon for higher minutes and a larger role. He's paired mainly with Edler (some people will wrongly identify this pairing as the key factor) and he starts playing 20+ minutes per game and against higher level competition. Tanev's stats plummet during that stretch and he has some of his worst individual performances and game stat lines (example: March 7th vs CBJ: 24:32 TOI, -2 in a 2-1 OTL--he's on the ice for both GA). Then, around mid-to-late March and for the rest of his season (up to his injury), he's put back into a lower minute (14 to 19 minutes per game) and bottom level competition role (IIRC he's paired most often with Alberts after Ballard's injury), and he magically returns back to playing solid defensive hockey and looking once again like that kid who "could have played with a cigarette in his mouth." The overall pattern suggests that Tanev's played his best hockey when he played against weak competition and in a limited role. To me, this speaks more to the player usage strategies employed behind the Canucks bench than it does to anything else. This also holds when you consider one of the few exceptions to the above mentioned pattern in Tanev's season: his minutes playing with Hamhuis. Tanev thrived when he played alongside Hamhuis, even against higher level competition and in a larger role. However, most of these minutes came later in games when the coaches were able to recognize Tanev was playing an exceptionally strong game and therefore shifted him into a more important role (alongside Hamhuis). Once again, this is player usage (and good coaching) more than any other factor. I'd argue that the coaches "babysat" Tanev more than he's ever "babysat" any of his defensive partners. One of the reasons why people talk about how "good everyone who plays with Tanev" looks is because, other than a few exceptions, playing with Tanev almost always means playing against a weak level of competition. Tanev is very solid in that kind of limited role and deserves credit for providing safe, stable, low-event minutes in the 5/6 spot on the Canucks D. However, any of the Canucks current top-four would almost assuredly be just as successful if they had the luxury of playing those kinds of minutes. And, until he proves otherwise, I seriously question whether or not Tanev could be succeed (with any kind of game-in and game-out consistency) if required to replace, minute-by-minute, the icetime and role played by any member of the current top-four. As far as the "+7.7% zone adjustment," I think it's important to recognize that this number speaks more to how Tanev was utilized by his coaches than to how he "drove play" on the ice. Basically, you have stats that demonstrate a player usage pattern for Tanev's icetime. Viewed by the coaching staff as a player who's solid in his own zone but who also offers little potential offensive, Tanev started more shifts in the defensive zone and was often called to the bench when play had moved to the offensive zone. That +7.7% doesn't necessarily reflect a clear directionality to the play on the ice (or Tanev's role in directing play). With a team like Vancouver, where "zone matching" was frequently a more prevalent approach to "line matching," it's easy to see how during Tanev's shifts on the ice, stoppages in the offensive zone would have nearly always seen him called to the bench. Overall, that differential (zone starts/finishes) speaks more to Tanev's usage pattern as a "defensive" defenseman than it does to anything else (like him significantly "driving" the play--which is actually something that his possession metrics, at least for 2012-13, tend to contradict). As far as his on-ice save percentage, it was certainly the best among the defensemen on the team in 2012-13. However, I don't really buy into the "even while spending most of his time partnered with Ballard" argument. Unless, of course, you're taking into account the fact that the Ballard-Tanev pairing was playing soft minutes against weak competition. Then yes, by all means, you should add a qualifier to Tanev's on-ice save percentage. As to Hamhuis-Tanev, you're right: their GA/60 was tied for the lowest in the league (since they didn't surrender a goal against). They also only played 54:36 together (at even strength). That's actually a pairing that I've repeatedly suggested deserve more opportunities together. So far, their numbers have been obscenely good. However, over three seasons, they've only played 224:55 ESTOI as a pairing. I can't recall a game when they've actually started and finished together (and played the whole game together at even strength). Mostly, as I noted earlier, they seem to be a pairing that the coaches would put together as a mid-to-late game adjustment, when the circumstances favoured such a move. I'd love to see them paired more often (and for entire games) but, at least at this point, it's really premature to start making any strong claims regarding comparisons to other more established pairings like Hamhuis-Garrison (especially in terms of effectiveness in a shutdown role). Last season, Hamhuis-Garrison played nearly twice the total minutes that Hamhuis-Tanev have played together in three seasons. And Hamhuis-Garrison is a pairing that has played games together from start-to-finish and nearly always in tough minutes against the highest quality of competition. We just don't have a comparable sample for Hamhuis-Tanev (at least not yet--what we do have are some good indicators regarding a potential future full-time pairing). OK. Yeah, that's a pretty good points/60 for a defenseman (just barely outside the Canucks top-four and probably ranks at a top-four level in the NHL for 2012-13--I'm not going to bother checking and just concede that point). However, there are some other factors worth considering in measuring Tanev's offensive production that season: 1) His shots/60 and individual Corsi/Fenwick/60 were ranked at the bottom of all Ds on the Canucks, even after adjusting for zone starts. 2) His 2 goals came on a team high (for defensemen) 10% shooting percentage. His previous numbers were 0.0% (0 goals) for both 2010-11 and 2011-12. 3) He had zero first assists in 2012-13 (and he's ranked low in that area career-wise). 4) All his points came during minutes played with either the Sedin line or with some version of a 2nd line containing Jannik Hansen (usually the Raymond-Schroeder-Hansen line when those guys were really clicking together). I don't want to be overly harsh here. I was as happy as anyone when Tanev scored that OT winner (off a Sedin feed) against Edmonton. Same for his goal in Phoenix (playing with Raymond-Schroeder-Hansen and paired with Barker). Like most people, I was left wondering whether or not Tanev had more to offer offensively than we'd seen from him previously. While his 0.63 points/60 last season was a good start, I don't think it really tells us very much definitively. It's probably going too far to say he had two flukey goals and added 5 second assists as a passenger on scoring plays by other teammates. Yeah, that's going too far. But really, is it going all that far in the wrong direction, in terms of actually analyzing his individual points production from last season? His offensive potential remains uncertain.

Pretty much every contract negotiation that takes longer than two weeks (and gets press coverage in a hockey market like Vancouver) includes at least one instance when the two sides are reported to be "not talking." No big deal. It's not like they're actually unwilling to talk to each other. If Gurney decided to make a call, Gilman would certainly pick-up the phone, and vice versa. Probably very little to actually talk about at this point so they've agreed to step back from any kind of formal negotiations for the time being. By this point, both sides are well aware of the other's position. And really, unless Gurney is ready to schedule a meeting for his client to come in and sign papers, there's nothing much left for them to talk about (with the Canucks). And the funny thing is, more often than not these "we're not talking" reports are followed by contract signings a week or two later.

#27 Ronnie Stern?

YW. Found this also (from the Bangor Daily News preview for the last game vs. Providence): http://bangordailynews.com/2013/01/31/sports/whitehead-umaine-must-get-more-second-shots-than-opponents-in-weekend-series/ Sounds like maybe a shoulder injury, if I was going to hazzard a guess, or something similar. The game notes listed concussions and broken fingers for other injured players so "upper body" most likely means something in the upper torso (and not the NHL playoffs version where "upper body" is a vague reference to anything above the waist).