VanNuck

Linden is more than a universally respected icon in Vancouver. He is an able leader with a substantial resume that, coupled with his legacy and importance within the city, should make him a candidate for the job. A dark-horse, an underdog maybe, but a definite contender. - Former NHL captain - 9 years - President of the NHLPA (During the lockout, he was a key negotiator for the players) - 8 years, plus being a repreentative since 1990 - Business owner/operator, Club 16 Fitness (1 year+) - Real estate developer (4 years)

That's why they could have put Hodgson on the second line, and simply shift Kesler over to a wing. That would've been in my view, a dynamic secondary two-way threat. Sometimes, people know they are worth more than what the "upper management" gives them, and no self-respecting player would settle for less. Gillis should've been more empowering to Hodgson here AV almost rarely ever played Ballard, even when the guy was healthy - often times, he resorted to using Rome. Even when playing and at good health, he was still underwhelming for the price paid. Grabner alone is worth more than what you rate him. He's managing almost a PPG this season, has far more runway, and would've been valuable depth. Limited depth hurt Vancouver in the final round against Boston with all the injuries piling up. At best, Ballard wasn't worth what they traded. The fact that Linden isn't even sitting as a Canuck ambassador, even though that's just an honourary title. But earlier, people were suggesting there is a rift with Linden and the Canucks. Even if there isn't, his absence in an active role is taking the team the wrong way. The sinking ship was last season when they fell to the eighth seeded Kings and are hardly in a better position this season to even win a Presidents' Trophy, let alone battle back to the finals.

Let us know when you've woken up... What kind of character team: - Has stars who get easily intimidated or frustrated, so they fall down on their job? (Sedins vs. Bolland, Luongo vs. Byfuglien, etc.) - Challenges opponents only to back down from a real confrontation to avoid getting beat up? - Resorts to playing dirty? (This would be fine if they were actually able and willing to follow through with their threats...) - Treats players as expendable commodity (dealing them off without trying to fix the problem or giving them a second chance. Letting fans throw teir players under the bus and not defend them...) This is only a tip of the iceberg. But really, with all of this, how can you call it a character team? And how can you call Gillis a success for creating character, when it really isn't here?

My stance is that those classy players may have character qualities - but not enough to win. Plus, the guys around them have character problems which only hamper the team's image and overall success (that is different from honest toughness from guys like Gino). Being dirty doesn't win you the Cup, neither does being classy, or having skill. Character is what separates winners from losers. Gretzky didn't win four cups by being the most skilled player. He did so by being the ultimate character player - without it, he wouldn't have won one Cup nor would he have 2857 points at the end of the day. Bossy wouldn't have been the great goal scorer he was without his character. Stevens, for all his toughness, knew how to play with character (and understood when not to cross the lines), and won three Cups.

Well, surprisingly this trade is turning out well. Didn't really expect this, but even then, one can't help but feel the axe-above-you, what if something were to happen to cause another rift with Kassian and they trade him? Okay, well now the Ballard matter is turning around - well after the moment was gone (in 2011). Again, there's no guarantee he and AV have sealed up their rift. Even then, I wouldn't have made that trade - it was a steep overpayment. I rather would have kept Mitchell and Bieksa and sign Hamhuis. On Linden, it always pays to keep positive standing with your team's most important players in history. Rocky Wirtz understood that - when taking over the Hawks, he repaired the franchise's relationships with Bobby Hull and appointed him ambassador. So really, Gillis is turning out to be hockey's John Cummins, rebuilding the ship only to sink it. That's why I still rest my case that Linden should take over. Or perhaps Smyl, as someone else suggested, for his in-house experience.

If certain players aren't dirty, those respectful Europeans aren't really built for war. Specifically, Henrik was disappointing as a leader - he is well spoken and all, but he doesn't have the fire-in-the-belly determination to win, otherwise, he and his brother wouldn't be intimidated by the likes of Marchant and Bolland, and henceforth, would've actually put pucks in the net in the final round. Coupled with the likes of Burrows and Lappierre, it only makes them look worse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCGe4MZkuSA Tell me if you think Weise is a winnerfor refusing to fight (aka, do his job).

Linden has had about as much experience as Mike Gillis when he was hired on. The main thing you need to know about being a GM is to be a leader, a team-builder, and a negotiator. Linden has had proven experience with the first and third aspect, the second one is relatively easy to pick up if you already have the other two. Everyone says he's not intereested in coming back to the Canucks, for whatever reason. It's not that I don't accept that - but as long as he's not with Canucks, the team is falling apart. Do people hate Vancouver just because the team is so successful? Oh yes, Wayne Gretzky and his Oilers were the most hateful villians ever, dominating everyone, people just loved to see them fall on their face... How about Yzerman and his Wings, now they're a team to turn green over, hogging the Cup a lot... No, they hate Canucks because the players had resorted to playing dirty to win (they say it's like there is a pack of Claude Lemieuxs on the team). For what it's worth, they've never shown any real guts to win - otherwise, they easily could have won the Cup by now. This is the antithesis of the character team Gillis talked about building.

You got it backwards. Cody's trading was the straw that broke the camel's back for me, that Gillis should go. Now if Linden were the GM, he would have been sure to invest in his people and not leave them out to dry. As far as his being a scapegoat - well, that's just it. When things don't go so well, well he commands enough respect to keep people calm, he'll be honest and forthright on what's wrong and how to make it right. And worse comes to worse, if there's going to be a scapegoat, providing he's done all he can do (and knowing his character), it'll be someone else.

The more I read of other people's comments about Vancouver being such a "dirty, classless organization of losers," the more I would rather distance myself from the team. I probably should have added that Gillis talks about character, but the team really displays a disappointing lack of character. Enter Lappierre and several others on goading opponents to fight, only to duck and draw penalties - rival fans may be opposed to us, but they're right. What self-respecting fan would want to see his team do that? The Sedins have good skill, but really, time after time, they have shown to be easily intimidated off the play. Guys like Nugent-Hopkins and Yakapov, by contrast, they don't let bigger guys stop them. That's called heart and determination. If the Canucks had more character and determination, they would have won, and others would have more respect for them. There's a difference between setting a goal to win the Cup and being irrational in pursuit of it. Frankly, I'm most ashamed of the fairweather fans who are quick to worship heros after victory and then throw them under the bus when things go wrong. Even the Leafs are better here - they never thrown Mats Sundin under the bus for not winning the Cup. Yet no other team (except for Canucks) wants the Cup more badly. Case in point, why did they stick with Mats Sundin? Because he was a classy character guy who could command loyalty from even the most fickle fan - and Vancouver doesn't have such a person on the ice, behind the bench, or up in management. On Hodgson, Gillis had an option. He could have made ammends to repair the rift with Hodgson - he's been woefully inconsistent in publically defending certain players while leaving others out to dry. (At least he was fortunate Kassian is playing well, but it's not unwarrented that Kassian too could hit another similar snag). Luongo, meanwhile, was falling (until now) because he was growing tired of being here, and already wanted to leave - wouldn't have happened if Gillis worked to keep him connected to the team and the city. So to that end, if there must be a scapegoat for the Canucks' shortcomings, it's not to be AV or Luongo, but Gillis. I rest my case here.

Well first, this thread exists so I'm not going to repeat myself over by making a new one. Now, yes Gillis may have put together the best team ever at one point, but: 1. That team is falling apart. Gillis has failed to build and maintain players' relationships with the franchise and the city - otherwise, Hodgson wouldn't have wanted out, Luongo wouldn't have wanted out. Players are beginning to be made to feel expendable if someone better comes along or if they cannot pull their own weight. I mean, who's next? (You can say it's the players' own problem, but I'm telling you that the leadership is responsible for building relationships and making them feel valuable). Case in point, this current roster is almost inferior to the 2011 roster, unless they can trade Luongo for a top flight player - I wouldn't take anyone less than a Weber, Crosby, or Zetterberg (or at least someone on that caliber and who has at least seven years on his contract). 2. Canucks nation has been spoiled with promises of winning a Cup, they've become irrational fairweather fans who call for players' heads when things don't go well, and worse comes to worse, could start riots and brawls. Now, call me irrational and fairweather for wanting to get rid of Gillis, but I'm telling you this - public relations are the management's responsibility. What Gillis really should have been doing was emphasizing loyalty and connection before results. This means projecting realistic expectations for the fans and asking them not to bail when things are bad, but to continue to support the team. That, my friends, was Gillis' failure last season - but it was Linden's strong point, which was why we remained faithful when they stumbled. 3. I was actually mistaken about being third worst franchise, Canucks are ranked 92nd as of 2012. But they were among the most hated: http://bleacherrepor...couver-canucks. That's not because others were simply jealous, but because they had developed a reputation of being dirty players and embellishers who don't play fair and square or who complain when things don't go right. That attitude carries over to Canuck nation, enter what I said in #2. Now, Linden says he isn't interested in returning to the team, even if he misses the guys. But truthfully, the Canucks have become a laughingstock in his absense. With Linden in charge, he will get them back to playing good, honest hockey and making the Canucks' home with the fans. In all honesty, after last season, I can no longer bring myself to cheer for this team - as long as Gillis is in charge, and Linden is anywhere but here.

Once again, something is wrong in Vancouver, and someone has to go. In my books, the scapegoat isn't to be Luongo or AV, but Gillis, who should be replaced with someone who truly cares about this team, who's made his home in Vancouver, and who is respected by every hockey persona in business. That man is Trevor Linden. The guy runs a business - okay, running an athletic centre isn't the same as managing an entire franchise, but to people who say he has no business experience, well he has, not a lot, but he knows what he's doing. Given all of his credentials, backed by his personal character, he is more than capable of being GM here. Under Linden, players who want to play for Canucks, who want to make their home here with the fans, and who wil make every connection with this community (as opposed to token deeds) will play here. Under Linden, well, the fans will learn to stand pact and not holler and howl when things go wrong. He will be up front and honest about situations when things go wrong, and do everything in his power to make things right. Worse comes to worse, if it's obvious Canucks cannot win the Cup in a given season, he will tell the truth, but then ask fans not to give up hope, before coming up with a plan to get the team going for the future. He would then take the message to the players and coaching staff, and they will get their act together. Under Linden, they will want to win, not just for themselves, but for the city - I don't see much of that under Gillis, just some selfish, gutless players who fizzle (although there are others with real desire). There's a reason why the Canucks are ranked among the worst of NHL franchises, as low as third to last of 122, above only Montreal and Toronto by some accounts. And even I, an ardent Canuck fan, am growing dissapointed and even ashamed to call myself a Canuck fan. If Gillis were doing a better job, we wouldn't have this problem. So once again, I call for a change in management.

I can see you are a solid Linden fan, which I like. Yes, Linden as a GM sounds like a stretch. But really, leadership is leadership. Gillis, when he was hired on as GM, that looked like a stretch, because he had no prior management experience whatsoever. He knew his weaknesses and hired staff to fill in the gaps.Linden, well, he too is a strong leader. He hasn't a college education, but he has had some hands-on experience, enter his presidency of the NHLPA. He can do this job - he just needs to find the right people, that's the main thing there is to know about leadership.Gretzky, well, he may have flopped as a coach, but look at his stint as Executive Director (aka GM) or Team Canada. That team won gold. Some good coaches make bad GMs and vice versa.Linden, if he were GM, that would totally change the personality of the organization and bring it back once again to the team that made it's home in the homes of our fans, make us all feel a part of the team. Under Gillis, well, they could have won a Cup, but the team has turned into something I really don't like.

- Can you prove Hodgson wanted out? - Grabner, not as good as he should have, but had more room to grow - Mitchell still better than Ballard But the bottom line is that Gillis has gone and sucked the place dry. These guys don't play for us - they play for themselves and they suck at it. We didn't come within one game of winning it all. We only won one game, and lost the series against an underdog team. So, it's time to change everything, starting with Gillis' removal.

Being an ex-player no. Being a leader yes. And with the Canucks out in the finals, it is time for change. Gillis shall be fired, Linden to take over.

I can tell you what Linden's return will do. He will get the franchise on the same page, and the right one: play for this city and represent it with pride. Gillis, well he has done some good, but he forgot job #1, make this a team that reflects Vancouver, connects with fans, and makes everyone winners. It is because of Gillis, by not taking care of this business, that Canuck nation is totally out of control.But I will say this, the Canucks, under Gillis is not worth cheering for.

Tell us why. There is nothing worse than just making statements without backing up your point. Gillis has done a fine job as GM, and as someone said, there will have to be major disappointment before he loses his job. Well, I can give you this disappointment: should we fail to make the SCF this year - yea, we could even fall out of the playoffs in this first round the way things are going. This season, the fans want nothing less than total victory and if they don't get it, more people will call out Gillis and expect him to have the boot. I can point to a number of controversial moves that Gillis made that most fans disagree with - the only thing that will change their minds is a Stanley Cup. Dealing away Hodgson - the trading of our future Trading for Ballard - at best, an overpayment for a good defenseman (gave up the high potential Michael Grabner), at worst a total bust Giving up Mitchell - Mitchell was still valuable, even despite his concussion, plus he brought irreplaceable intangibles Not repairing rift with Linden - Linden, in the eyes of the fans, is the Vancouver Canucks itself. Bad for PR not to bring him back in some capacity.

You've got a point there, but I think if all the fans campaign for him to take this job, he just might do it for us.

Before I begin, we got to give credit to Gillis for what he has done for the team, building a good foundation and establishing purpose for the franchise. He certainly done well on two areas: drafting prospects and handling little things to attract better players and make them perform better. But he has also taken out a lot of the team's former soul. Long removed are the 90s, when we had players who identified with the fans and made us a part of the game. The team has ceased to be a team for the fans and instead has become a machine - and a useless one too, having lost in the Finals and could get swept in the first round despite winning the President's Trophy. They treat players as assets instead of humans - enter Willie Mitchell - and that translates into less connection with the city, less respect from opponents, and less of a will to win. You say the players want to win, and I have no doubt that's true, but evidently they don't have enough of that swagger, confidence or will, otherwise we would have won the Cup by now. There is more that I could talk about, but I will get straight to my point. Linden would be an ideal replacement for GM. From serving as Captain Canuck to president of the NHLPA, I think he has enough on his resume for this job. He is a strong, stable, and personable leader who knows how to assemble his team and make deals. Most importantly, he cares about this city more than anyone in the Canuck organization. Linden is respected league-wide, even by the opponents. If your leader carries this kind of clout, your team won't be the object of scorn and derision. Your players will feel more up to task of winning. Linden is just that kind of a guy that players would go through a brick wall for. Gillis, on the other hand, isn't so. That's why we ought to bring back number 16.

Schroeder is probably better than Kane. He's more effective defensively and packs more grit; definitely the closest thing to a complete package in a small body.

Yeah, if we put him on a line with Hodgson, then acquire a big power forward like Nash, Byfuglien, or Beach to take up the LW, we'd build a tremendous force for the first line.