khay

Among the list, only Mogilny and Naslund can be said to have equal or greater skill than Daniel Sedin. And if you look at Mogilny, he was injured quite a lot, which led to his decline and same goes for Markus after Moore injured him with his vicious elbow. What I noticed from Daniel's play is that he does not get into good shooting areas (for example to the middle of the ice/slot) much anymore perhaps subconsciously afraid of a hard hit that may result in yet another concussion. For the right price, it's worth a shot. Someone of his skill level would definitely help to revive Danny's play as well just like this olympics.

I wonder if Gulutzan was hired with the promise that if Torts gets fired, he will be hired as the head coach. Regardless, I'm beginning to think hiring Torts was a mistake. He is way too old style; I remember that one time, he slammed the advanced statistics as being "garbage." He thinks similarly to Don Cherry, fight and hit and grind and you will win. I agree that was the element that was missing from our team the last couple of years but it looks like it's still missing. It was there for the first half of the season and now it's gone. Yeah we have so many injuries but it's the coach's job to make things work regardless of the injuries. For one, he doesn't seem to have any strategy for offence. He is not utilizing Daniel well either. Daniel Sedin looks lost and tired even from the first period and stays that way throughout the game. At this rate, the three Canadian teams will finish 12, 13, and 14th in the Western conference. I guess the positive is that we have a chance at the first overall pick... If we do, should we draft Reinhart or Ekblad?

The reason why the team loses momentum in the third? It looks like the players we have are too old and don't have the legs to play the aggressive game (Torts style) for the entire game. This is not the first game where we play well the first two periods and all of a sudden start to lose momentum and fail to generate any offence in the third. I think we need infusion of young blood (players) to have success under Torts system.

Yes. Cap goes up by 7 million dollars next season and if it is one of top 4 D that we trade, we lose at least 4 million. Also, if we buy out Booth, we get another 4 million.

You are right, trade isn't going to fit it. We have played well until the injuries. We slowly started to suck. Schroeder, Burrows, Edler, Stanton, Alberts,... Our top 4 is Bieksa, Garrison, Hamhuis, and Tanev only 2 of the above are great defensively and limits the number of mistakes whereas the other two are known to make mistakes and have defensive breakdowns. Once the players start to come back, we will be better, I just hope the injured players can adapt back to the team as quickly as possible to help us make the playoffs.

I was never a fan of AV but I don't remember the team blowing lead so often in one season when he was the coach. Only game that springs to my mind is the one Mitchell blew in game 3 against Chicago in 2010 (or was it 2009?). How many times have we blown the lead so late or give up a winner so late?

Because they are going no where they might consider an aging yet an elite goalie. He's contract doesn't end until he's 42 but the cap hit is moderate at 5.3 million dollars. Where else can you get an elite goalie at that price? They certainly don't have anyone in the pipeline that can become elite anytime soon. His contract sucked but with the cap going up possibly to 100 million (as some have reported), his contract no longer sucks that much. Anyways, I was throwing out the idea because trading Luongo would be considered bold. In my opinion his trade value has increased since the season began...

Are you sure? Are we playing well without those players?

Market is dynamic as opposed to static. Who are you to say that market has not changed? Say you are MacTavish and Canucks offered Luongo for your 1st or Yakupov. You know having Luongo will definitely make your team better whereas losing Yakupov probably won't hurt much as he is not contributing much to the team anyways at the moment. I'd say Oilers give this trade a serious thought. Things have chanced since the last draft. Luongo clearly established himself as #1 goalie again whereas Yakupov has demonstrated his weaknesses and regressed... and both of the teams need to make bold moves sooner than later...

There really isn't much he can do this year. Only thing he can consider is trading Edler for help up-front but I'm doubtful he will approach Edler to waive NTC. If Gillis were to really make a bold move this year, then he would look to trade Luongo, which would basically signify that he is throwing this season out the window. I love Luongo and has been his fan since he got here but his value is probably pretty high right about now and will be very high around trade deadline and perhaps the draft. Considering the cap increase, his cap hit of5.3 M is quite competitive... I wonder what Oilers would pay for Luongo... One of Yakupov + 1st? Or is that too much to pay or are we getting too little back?

Sorry to bring up an old point but I still don't understand why Rome's hit on Horton was a cheap shot. The hit was to the chest area and head was not the principal point of contact. I don't think it was a penalty (let alone 5 minute major) and definitely not worthy of any suspension. I just don't understand to this day. If I am to complain a bit more... I have been watching hockey for about 20 years but I still don't know what warrants a penalty and what doesn't. It is still not clear to me what is and what is not a penalty. For NFL, I know that when the receiver catches the ball in the air, both of his feet needs to touch the ground before he goes out of bounce for the touchdown to count. In NBA, I know that if a defender moves in to an area almost simultaneously with the offensive player to block the way, then it's a blocking foul whereas if the offensive player comes into the area already occupied by the defensive player, then it's charging. In any given NHL game, I see a hook or slash or obstruction and I think, "Oh! That's a penalty for sure." Yet, no arm goes up in the air. In the same game in a different situation, I see an exactly same hook or slash or obstruction and don't think much of it but sure enough, ref's arm goes up in the air. I'm not talking just about the Canucks games, I've noticed this in all of the NHL games that I have watched. Fans all over the NHL chants, "referees suck!" The refereeing was the most inconsistent in the 2011 SCF games in all 20 years of my viewing experiences. You really had no expectation for what will be and what won't be called. It was completely unpredictable. This hurt us more obviously with the style that we played against the style that the Bruins played. In the end, as said above, Bruins found a way to win whereas we weren't able to adapt to the inconsistent refereeing. We were second guessing in order to draw penalties whereas the Bruins were ruthless after committing a foul play knowing that most likely it won't be called because the referee suspected the Canuck players of diving and were hesitant to call any penalty that would make him a mockery. In other words, the refs were guessing too. I'm not complaining to say the referees really suck. I'm just pointing out how difficult their job is. The problem is with subjectivity. In one of his columns on TSN, an ex-ref Kerry Fraser talks about referee's game management. This is the most ridiculous thing. The whole concept of referees having to manage a game does not make any sense. They are to be impartial and objective. If they see a penalty, they call it. If they don't see it, they don't call it. If you have called Henrik Sedin's weak hook as a penalty then you call it again whether it's Henrik Sedin committing the same penalty or the opposing player committing the same foul on Henrik Sedin. As an example of consistency that are needed in the NHL, think of MLB umpires. In any given game, the strike zone could shrink or expand but the umpire calls it consistently throughout the game so the hitters and the pitchers can adjust to it by the time it gets to 3rd or 4th inning. If the strike zone expands, then it is favorable for the pitcher but a good hitter will adapt by his second at bat. If the strike zone shrinks, good pitchers will still be able to place the ball in the corners. I just hope by the time it gets to my 30 years of viewing that, NHL refereeing gets consistent. It's a great game and has great potential to grow in new markets both in the US and internationally. But first and foremost, the refereeing has to be fixed before it can grow.

I think he means Boston, Detroit, Chicago, and NYR. Not sure why these teams... maybe he is being sarcastic, trying to point out that these teams are favored by the NHL head office and therefore we are going to lose?

Worst case, Santorelli is a great third linee and in the case of injuries or depending on how others perform, he can be an adequate second line player. He won't cost more than 2mil, probably around 1.5 for 2 years. With cap set to rise, that's almost nothing. Besides, let's not make the same mistake we made with Torres. All he asked for was 2 year deal at 1.75 (if I'm not mistaken) and Gillis only wanted to give 1 year deal. I really think a guy like Torres would have been a difference maker in the series against a physical team like LA. Same thing with Salo. Salo should have been given 2 year contract and he was willing to sign for just 2 million dollars. If we had kept Salo and if he was healthy our team would have had few more wins and in a playoff position.

Whoa there. The two goals he allowed were basically no mark chance from Richards and Kopitar of all players within 2 feet of the net. For the Richards' goal, it was within 1 foot of the goal line as he tapped it in in the blue paint. For the Kopitar's goal, it hit the post and in, that's how well placed the shot was. There is no one, I mean no one who can stop those shots unless the shooter puts it right at the goalie. I can't believe that you think those are some routine saves that the goalie must make just because the team has been playing well. Did you see Bieksa's dejected look after the OT goal, he fracked it up and he knew it. He had his eye off the puck, LA player stole it and fed it to Kopitar who didn't make mistake in placing the shot perfectly inside the post. I know Luongo is not perfect. I still remember that goal Richards scored on him in game 2 in the playoffs two years ago, I think from the faceoff dot. That one there, Luongo fracked it up, it should have been a routine save. Even the second goal against Chicago just before LA game, Luongo should have had it. Sure. But people are really blaming Luongo on those two LA goals? I mean, come on!!! Edit: You talk about Scrivens bailing LA out? LA defence never made that critical of a mistake. Did they let any pass get through criss-cross through the blue paint? LA D made sure that the mistakes they made weren't of critical nature. Scrivens didn't bail LA out, LA bailed Scrivens out. In my opinion he is just a lucky goaltender and no more. He let so many terrible rebounds out and LA D was always there to clear it out of harms way. His great number only makes me think that Quick is also not as great of a goalie as we think he is actually.

I hate to agree with you but you are right that our D is overrated and are costing us too much. Only players that I don't want to see moved now are Hamhuis, Tanev, and Bieksa. I have mixed feelings about Garrison's play. I like what he does on defence, doesn't make too many mistakes however, watching him man the right point on PP is so painful compared to what Salo did when he was here. First off, just taking the puck off the board, Salo can let the one timer go from time to time without having to settle the puck down, Garrison can't. On 5-on-3 and 4-on3 PP's, Salo was so good at tightening in and pressuring the opposing D, Garrison always stays far back even though it's 5-on-3. We should keep Hamhuis and Tanev for sure. Bieksa, although he makes mistakes from time to time, he brings other things so I'm all for keeping him. Stanton costs almost nothing and he is playing well so we should keep him for sure. That leaves either Edler or Garrison as expendable. To me, they basically bring the same thing offensively with Edler being better at laying hits and making the first pass whereas Garrison being more reliable defensively. We badly need someone to replace Salo and if we can get that by trading one of the two, then we need to do so.

they lost the killer's instinct over the last couple of years.

I loved how they played with emotion. It felt like I was watching early 2000's Canucks hockey when Crawford was the coach. The ending was $hit though. Their inability to increase the lead, that killer instinct that they have lost while playing for AV will take some time to come back. But it will come back.

I predict that we are gonna kick LA's asses tomorrow: 5-1 in favour of the Canucks (revenge of the last game against them).

The team lost the game not Luongo. If we are going to lose because of 1 goal he allows, then we have not played well enough to win.

The no goal call fired up the team and we completely dominated the second period. Again, good team game with very little mistakes. But as others have said, we need to score more than 1 goal to win. I think we are in a dire need of a finisher who can bury those chances and we will definitely make the playoffs. Only if we can somehow have a player like Hossa, an elite level finisher, we can do what Chicago did in 2010. I wish we had Bure now.