Did it not sound as if Francesco Aquilini insinuated that Torts is gone?

[Honky Cat]

I think Torts should get another year to settle in with this roster and understand the west coast travel. I believe he failed in that respect which may have had something to do with all the injuries.

No thanks....Could the Canucks take a chance on a repeat of what happened this season.....It wasn't the travel that caused the injuries ,it was JT's deployment of them...Unsustainable minutes and blocking shots

[Goal:thecup]

Does anyone recall Keenan's treatment of Linden when he was "coaching" the Canucks"?

Torts reminds me of Keenan when he swears and rants at players on the bench.

Hopefully, Trevor will not put up with that behaviour and I do not think Torts will be able to change.

So yeah, I think Torts is gone as soon as the new GM gets settled in.

[L. Stanley]

it did sound like this, yes, bye torts

[4thLineGrinder]

No thanks....Could the Canucks take a chance on a repeat of what happened this season.....It wasn't the travel that caused the injuries ,it was JT's deployment of them...Unsustainable minutes and blocking shots

i would disagree with this

this season schedule was BEAST to fit in the Olympics and all the extra heritage classics it made for road trips from hell all season long. The playstyle has a part to do with all the injuries but at the same time BECAUSE of all the injuries you are kinda forced to play your surviving top guys alot more.

way too much is made about the blocking shots, that's just a bonus of playing hard defense and commitment to defending. You HAVE to play this way way to succeed in todays playoffs. Is it not better to have this as part of your team game rather than to try and "flip a switch" in the post season?

if we tried hard to have as much bad injury luck next season i think we would fall short. Just call a bad season a bad season and get ready for next year. The schedule will be much better and so will the team

[xereau]

@OP

Yes, it came across this way to me listening to him live.

The way it was said:

"Mike (Gillis) hired Tortorella and I'm responsible for that and that's why we have a change in direction today"

To me that means he is as good as gone. It could mean Gillis took the fall, however, I just don't think Torts is going to survive this change in direction.

[Red Light Racicot]

If youre not going to fire Torts, what was the point of firing Gillis?

Its a half measure.

Linden was a great move, but the way this team has played under Torts why the hell would anyone buy tickets? The game has passed him by unfortunately.

[BedBeats™2.0]

When asked if he was involved in Torts' hiring, he said something to the effect of "Mike hired him, I supported that decision...that's why we have a change in direction today".

I thought it was fairly revealing when I heard it.

Also read that MG invited the Aquis to sit in on all the head coaching interviews.

Im biased because i really do not care for ownership, but it really feels like Frankie deflected the Torts hiring on MG.

Im going to safely speculate that ownership enthusiastically pushed MG into the hiring. Torts just didnt seem like a 100% MG type of a guy whatsoever.

Why would MG hire a guy that had been plying a blah style of Hockey in NYC when he has always wanted an uptempo, relentlessly forechecking transitional team as the overall concept??!!!!

[youngdad]

He's so gone. Trevor's words seemed to say goodbye to Torts as well.

If you think for 1 second Trevor Linden is willing to put his neck on the line and keep Torts you're delusional. There is no way a class act like TL want to to be associated with or affiliated with the antics of Torts. The Calgary incident is enough for TL to say goodbye to JT in my opinion.

Part of what TL brings is a renewed respectability and professionalism to the face of the franchise. For once we have a guy who is actually known and respected outside of Vancouver. His hard work on the NHLPA earned him great respect on both sides of the bargaining table. His hard work on the ice brought the respect of even opposing players. I still remember when Iginla skated across the ice to shake TL's hand in his last game against the flames. After hours Iggy said he did it because among other things TL was "never cheap."

If Linden is a Versace suit, Torts is a disposable emergency rain poncho.

It's a new dawn in Vancouver and nothing but the cream of the crop in terms of professionalism will make their way onto this team without getting past #16.

There is a reason TL has a reputation of being a classy professional. It's because he is one. He's not tarnishing his image by putting it next to that spaz.

Feel a little bad for Torts but not too bad. Didn't do himself any favours.

[Ehlers]

I hope so.

To me, it's not that Tortorella is a bad coach. He's just the wrong coach with these players and the system they are used to

[Goal:thecup]

I don't think they would have launched the lawsuits if they were the ones that hired Torts; just too risky.

Plus Gillis has never said they influenced his decision to hire Torts and he has not denied FAQ's contention that the hire was Mike's.

[oldnews]

Francesco Aquilini's statement seemed pretty clear.

“Mike hired Tortorella and I supported that decision. I have to take responsibility for that, and that’s why we have a change of direction today.”

If I were to take that literally, I think it indicates that Gillis was fired as a result of Tortorella's performance this year, and that Aquilini will take responsibility for the decision to remove him and not leave it to Linden - perhaps part of FA's agreement with Linden.

Judging by Linden's comments, I didn't get a great deal of impression otherwise or the sense that he was committed to Tortorella.

From all the talk after AV's firing, it seems like the biggest motivational factors in hiring Tortorella were impressions that the players weren't "accountable" enough, the (imo myth of a) "country club" atmosphere needed to go, and that tougher leadership was in order. I didn't really like the underlying tone of those motivations - they seemed to be a sidetrack - but can't say how much they had to do with the decision making, however, they certainly didn't seem like primary Mike Gillis indicators.

As for holding Gillis responsible for the Tortorella hiring, I suppose the 8 million dollars owing to MG might be considered some compensation for putting that squarely on him?

[Honky Cat]

i would disagree with this

this season schedule was BEAST to fit in the Olympics and all the extra heritage classics it made for road trips from hell all season long. The playstyle has a part to do with all the injuries but at the same time BECAUSE of all the injuries you are kinda forced to play your surviving top guys alot more.

way too much is made about the blocking shots, that's just a bonus of playing hard defense and commitment to defending. You HAVE to play this way way to succeed in todays playoffs. Is it not better to have this as part of your team game rather than to try and "flip a switch" in the post season?

if we tried hard to have as much bad injury luck next season i think we would fall short. Just call a bad season a bad season and get ready for next year. The schedule will be much better and so will the team

Tortorella was playing the Dickens out of his top players 'before' the injuries ....right at the beginning of the season....It was a question of how long until the wheels are going to fall off...For the ownership,and the STH's...JT's brand of hockey is a red flag.

[-DLC-]

Also read that MG invited the Aquis to sit in on all the head coaching interviews.

Im biased because i really do not care for ownership, but it really feels like Frankie deflected the Torts hiring on MG.

Im going to safely speculate that ownership enthusiastically pushed MG into the hiring. Torts just didnt seem like a 100% MG type of a guy whatsoever.

Why would MG hire a guy that had been plying a blah style of Hockey in NYC when he has always wanted an uptempo, relentlessly forechecking transitional team as the overall concept??!!!!

I believe that "decisions" get the rubber stamp officially by way of the GM, but they may have been decided before then. I agree.

And MG did not sound like Torts was his guy...that seems to be where this escalated...in MG wanting to assert some authority and provide direction when he saw the team going south. That he'd been a lay low guy who was now coming to the forefront in addressing things. His declaration of wanting to be a puck possession team and anyone not on board with that (basically could take a flying leap).

Here's the thing...I believe MG took the brunt of things but had decided to put his foot down and do it his way...he'd been here long enough to know what wasn't working (in chasing goal posts) and knew what had worked. So he was at a point of insisting on a certain outline that followed that. It seems that there was some jostling of power or at least ideas and MG became a casualty in that...as the season grind to a dead end halt and fans were crying out, someone had to pay and he was the one by way of becoming outspoken and, perhaps, unmanageable to some degree? Sad, because you want a manager who is strong in his convictions and won't back down. I think MG's only focus was getting the team on track and was open to new ideas...I think he had a renewed vision and assessment of things and was set to proceed in that. I believe that some of the other stuff is more geared toward putting people in seats on an immediate basis and letting the rest fall in to place afterward. That was the focus (the empty seats more than anything).

At work - hoping this makes sense. I wanted MG to stay...I felt he did have a plan that sounded on par with where we needed to go. I think the owners buckled to the pressure of the screaming wallets but it isn't the worst case scenario because this change may be ok in the end. I do like what Trevor brings so if there was going to be someone brought in to get the ball rolling, I'm ok with it being him. I like Torts - not sure yet. Love/hate atm. Verdict isn't out for me yet.

[Guest]

I think the reason Torts played his top players so much is because he realized he had to do that in order for this team to have any chance of making the playoffs. He realized that this team wasn't skilled or deep enough. Sorry but when Mike freakin' Santorelli was your best player before getting injured you have a goddamn problem with your roster.

[Canucklehead73]

FA has to say this... What GM in their right mind would apply if the owners where making the calls. It's not about pinning the blame on Gillis or even pinning blame at all... FA is stating a GM in vancouver has the ability to make decisions on their own and not be a lame duck GM.

Sorry if anyone else explained this, I did not read the entire thread of rampant specualtion on Torts.

[BedBeats™2.0]

I believe that "decisions" get the rubber stamp officially by way of the GM, but they may have been decided before then. I agree.

And MG did not sound like Torts was his guy...that seems to be where this escalated...in MG wanting to assert some authority and provide direction when he saw the team going south. That he'd been a lay low guy who was now coming to the forefront in addressing things. His declaration of wanting to be a puck possession team and anyone not on board with that (basically could take a flying leap).

Here's the thing...I believe MG took the brunt of things but had decided to put his foot down and do it his way...he'd been here long enough to know what wasn't working (in chasing goal posts) and knew what had worked. So he was at a point of insisting on a certain outline that followed that. It seems that there was some jostling of power or at least ideas and MG became a casualty in that...as the season grind to a dead end halt and fans were crying out, someone had to pay and he was the one by way of becoming outspoken and, perhaps, unmanageable to some degree? Sad, because you want a manager who is strong in his convictions and won't back down. I think MG's only focus was getting the team on track and was open to new ideas...I think he had a renewed vision and assessment of things and was set to proceed in that. I believe that some of the other stuff is more geared toward putting people in seats on an immediate basis and letting the rest fall in to place afterward. That was the focus (the empty seats more than anything).

At work - hoping this makes sense. I wanted MG to stay...I felt he did have a plan that sounded on par with where we needed to go. I think the owners buckled to the pressure of the screaming wallets but it isn't the worst case scenario because this change may be ok in the end. I do like what Trevor brings so if there was going to be someone brought in to get the ball rolling, I'm ok with it being him. I like Torts - not sure yet. Love/hate atm. Verdict isn't out for me yet.

Ill subscribe to that!

Really, the team as a whole couldnt have been so totally unlucky. With the sheen of Linden on board now, the season almost seems comical.

In my fantasy world, i would have liked to have seen MG relieved of one of his positions and duly replaced with Linden or someone that could bring a lift to the end of the season and satiate ownership.

I was thinking had MG stayed he would have approached Torts, like he did with AV, and asked for his original concept to be utilized.

Unfortunately for me there are more negatives than positives with Torts' 1st season. He was totally unlucky with injuries...but the core had been thru overlapping injuries with AV as well, and maintained their game.

Style/systems withstanding, Torts failed in managing this set of players in so many ways. They have all been listed by the brainier CDC'ers, so i wont get into it.

Again, in my fantasy world...id fire the assistants and demote Torts to assistant and restructure his contract (if possible) and bring in a head coach that is familiar with the Western teams, which would mean they are somewhat familiar with the Canucks. Which was something Torts droned on about. "I dont know anything about this team i have blah-blah"

[EmployeeoftheMonth]

I understand why people would think that but my first thought when I heard him say it was that Gillis wasn't fired because he hired Tortorella but that he was fired because he onl hired Tortorella. Again this is just my take but I thought it was more a case of Gillis telling F.A. that firing AV and bringing in a new voice was going to solve the problems.

I think Tortorella is going to get another chance here and call this last season a mulligan. I think F.A. spoke ambiguously and should have been more clear. Or mabe I'm totally off and he was just being oddl cruel and letting a gu know he was going to be without a job

[theminister]

I'm thoroughly of the opinion that Mike Sullivan is as much of a problem directly as Torts. I don't think he adds anything to the coaching staff other than to take duties off of Tort's plate which should be the Head Coach's responsibility. I would have no problem with this in principle if I believed that it freed Torts up to spend more time on evaluations of opponents' teams but that doesn't seem the case. In fact, I don't know what role Darryl Williams has had this year if the only coach willing to look at video was Gulutzan.

The only positive I can take from Tort's first year is that he did help the team learn to stand tall a little better on the ice, finish checks and stick up for each other more. That was welcome and that message should be continued. I don't think that message alone should be at the expense of systems play, puck control or correct personnel usage.

Ideally we could retain a bit of Tort's message with a more strategic and modern approach. If he could be made to accept a new Assistant Coach like Mike Johnston, and be made aware from the GM that he must heed advice, then I think it could be workable. Unfortunately, I'm also confident that Tort's inflexible approach and egoistic pride will not allow him the humility to adapt at this late stage. IMHO all good leaders adapt to changing information.

[theminister]

I understand why people would think that but my first thought when I heard him say it was that Gillis wasn't fired because he hired Tortorella but that he was fired because he onl hired Tortorella. Again this is just my take but I thought it was more a case of Gillis telling F.A. that firing AV and bringing in a new voice was going to solve the problems.

I think Tortorella is going to get another chance here and call this last season a mulligan. I think F.A. spoke ambiguously and should have been more clear. Or mabe I'm totally off and he was just being oddl cruel and letting a gu know he was going to be without a job

Where the heck have you been?

/ Your 'Y' key seems to be broken.

[youngdad]

If Linden is a Versace suit, Torts is a disposable emergency rain poncho.