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

[EmployeeoftheMonth]

Where the heck have you been?

/ Your 'Y' key seems to be broken.

Became a luddite for a few months by way of being too busy. Kind of had to drop everything for a while last summer and focus on some family stuff.

[theminister]

Became a luddite for a few months by way of being too busy. Kind of had to drop everything for a while last summer and focus on some family stuff.

Ah, so. Chin up.

Hopefully this is a sign you'll still be kicking around here.

[oldnews]

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.

I think as usual yours is a really fair and thoughtful take.

I was pretty disappointed in the absolute flatness that the team exhibited in Tortorella's absence. I'm not sure if it's fair to expect Sullivan to get the team rolling in that context, but it's hard to see the effect of a balanced coaching staff this year (you might expect them sustain a litte better with two assistant coaches to fill the gap) - the opposite seemed to be the case - a coaching staff that was entirely off balance and it translated into a team that entirely derailed.

The point you make about Tortorella being inflexible or unwilling to adapt would seem to be strongly underlined by the fact he came right out of the gates overutilizing his top players, and then really, imo was the first to fire a shot over Gillis' bow making comments about lacking depth which implicated his GM long before Gillis' statements about straying from an appropriate style of play. Moreover, in his response to Gillis' comments, he emphasized that no one is going to convince his three line approach was part of the problem and that his hand was forced by injuries and lack of depth. I looked back at the boxscores from the first month of the season however, and it's hard to defend Tortorella's case. That would seem to simply be his m.o. (here and elsewhere), and not a stop gap strategy in an injury context. I think he simply refused to heed Gillis' advice on this matter in particular and probably others, and in the end, it wasn't a relationship that was particularly mendable in the context of so much dissatisfaction with results and accountability to pay.

I don't dislike Tortorella - he grew on me more than I expected this year - but nevertheless, I don't have a great deal of faith in what you highlight are important qualities - the ability to take quality constructive input and use it to adapt. Ray Ferraro's comment on the matter only emphasize that point even more.

[Blue & Green]

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?

This is an interesting take, I certainly don't see Torts as a Linden choice for coach and that may well have been a condition to the agreement. In any case, FA's quote infers to me that the Torts hiring was a mistake by management and "a change in direction" includes acquiring a new coach as well. I certainly hope so.

It's hard to know for certain at this point who Torts's principal supporter was in his hiring, but the management group as a whole said they were all on the same page with this decision.

[SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME]

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

I could buy something like this if FA's awkward statement didn't happen to line-up so neatly with the stance the Aquilinis appear to be taking in the recent lawsuit.

The legal argument they've put forth appears to be that any reporters who've published articles suggesting that Francesco was responsible for the Torts hire have actually committed libel.

They go so far as to say that the very suggestion of ownership having a "prominent role" in Torts' hiring would qualify as something "designed to incite ridicule for making bad or embarrassing judgments."

And they also argue that "Tortorella was their general managers choice, and one which they backed" which is basically an echo of what FA said at the Linden announcement.

So they're pushing a legal fight that effectively says that whoever hired Torts made "bad or embarrassing judgments."

Then, FA says that the whole reason for the "new direction" the club's taking (MG fired and Linden hired) is that Gillis hired Torts and Francesco is "taking responsibility" for this blunder by firing the person he claims was ultimately behind the decision to hire Torts as head coach.

There's a pretty consistent thread running through these statements and it doesn't put Torts in a very flattering light.

I'm actually surprised that Torts is still here, given the statements that have already been made by the ownership.

Obviously, they are putting the final "decision" in Linden's hands but I can't see how Linden can choose to support Torts after ownership's statements. The Aquilinis have basically said that they fired the last guy because he hired Torts and that they'll sue anyone who says they had a role in the hiring because any such claim would "be designed to incite ridicule for making bad or embarrassing judgments."

Torts basically sounds like the GM version of kryptonite right now. Trevor would be wise to steer clear.

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.

I agree that Sullivan has been a problem. He's just too much in lock-step with Torts on too many aspects of coaching.

There's a reason why they've become known around the league as a "two-headed monster."

And together, they seem to have shut-out any other voices on the staff who might have brought alternative ideas or perspective (especially Gulutzan).

[oldnews]

This is an interesting take, I certainly don't see Torts as a Linden choice for coach and that may well have been a condition to the agreement. In any case, FA's quote infers to me that the Torts hiring was a mistake by management and "a change in direction" includes acquiring a new coach as well. I certainly hope so.

It's hard to know for certain at this point who Torts's principal supporter was in his hiring, but the management group as a whole said they were all on the same page with this decision.

I'm just not sure how they can keep Tortorella after the owner has made such a strong and unambiguous comment like that.

Some folks are of the opinion that you hire a GM and then let that GM sort out whether they want to proceed, but I think that forgets the subtext here. To make a statement to the effect that the GM was fired for hiring the present coach - and then retain the present coach? I don't see much wiggle room here - nor do I see how Tortorella is supposed to proceed after comments of that kind in an extremely high profile context.

I think it's something that Aquilini may simply have decided - a decision that essentially predates Linden's hiring - and while Linden is not in a position to reveal that and ownership may be letting the last puck drop on the season, it wouldn't surprise me if Aquilini himself follows up on that comment and leaves a clear slate for Linden and any potential incumbent GM to work with.

[Jack Fig]

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?

I don't know what anyone else thinks, but the way FA disposably referred to him as 'Tortorella' instead of 'John' or 'Torts' seemed like another ominous warning.

[THERETOOL]

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.

exactly ... how can it not be taken that way ?? wow aqua man looked like a dull bulb out there .. thats our owner .. hurrahhh

[J529]

If Torts stays there's chance of Feaster getting hired and them being reunited. Feaster is the one guy I don't want regardless if he won Cup with Torts.

[CanuckFan1981]

I don't believe FAQ... I do not think Tort's was Gilles's choice. He doesn't seem like a Gilles, new age, creative style kind of guy... I think Gilles's choice was either Gulitzen or John Steven's and FAQ told him he had to get someone with a cup ring... hence Torts as one of the few available last summer.

My choice would have been Ruff (from what was available), and sadly he either wasn't interested or wasn't considered...

Anyway, I don't want to talk bad of the Aquilini's too much, because I believe they are better owners than we have ever had before, as far as financial support and caring for the team. I hope they stay behind the scenes and do not get involved in the hockey decisions. And to be fair, all my criticism of them is based on speculation... I will cheer for whoever is a part of the nuck's, as always... just hope I don't have to watch a sinking ship like this entire season felt like since they named Tort's (who on earth expected it to go well I wonder)...

[Jack Fig]

If Torts stays there's chance of Feaster getting hired and them being reunited. Feaster is the one guy I don't want regardless if he won Cup with Torts.

Maybe so, but Feaster is the guy who stands to benefit the most from a discount membership to Club 16 Fitness.

[DarthNinja]

Maybe so, but Feaster is the guy who stands to benefit the most from a discount membership to Club 16 Fitness.

Feaster probably just needs to lay off of eating too much cereal from his Stanley Cup, Calder Cup and GM of the Year award.

It's all about portion control.

[theminister]

Feaster probably just needs to lay off of eating too much cereal from his Stanley Cup, Calder Cup and GM of the Year award.

It's all about portion control.

That's because he should give most of that portion to Rick Dudley.

[VegasCanuck]

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.

That's basically what I heard as well. Essentially said it was a joint mistake as he agreed with the hiring at the time.

[Blue & Green]

I'm just not sure how they can keep Tortorella after the owner has made such a strong and unambiguous comment like that.

Some folks are of the opinion that you hire a GM and then let that GM sort out whether they want to proceed, but I think that forgets the subtext here. To make a statement to the effect that the GM was fired for hiring the present coach - and then retain the present coach? I don't see much wiggle room here - nor do I see how Tortorella is supposed to proceed after comments of that kind in an extremely high profile context.

I think it's something that Aquilini may simply have decided - a decision that essentially predates Linden's hiring - and while Linden is not in a position to reveal that and ownership may be letting the last puck drop on the season, it wouldn't surprise me if Aquilini himself follows up on that comment and leaves a clear slate for Linden and any potential incumbent GM to work with.

Well I hope you are right, a clean slate sounds good. Hopefully Tortorella and his mini-me, Sullivan, will both be gone soon after the end of the regular season. I'm not a fan of their brand/style of hockey.

[youngdad]

Feaster probably just needs to lay off of eating too much cereal from his Stanley Cup, Calder Cup and GM of the Year award.

It's all about portion control.

This

[SuperReverb2]

Like to see Torts get one more chance (year) with a healthy team and some personnel (player) changes that are more suited to his coaching style. REALLY hard to judge him on this bizarre year.

[SabreFan1]

Like to see Torts get one more chance (year) with a healthy team and some personnel (player) changes that are more suited to his coaching style. REALLY hard to judge him on this bizarre year.

What was bizarre about this year? The Canucks as a whole took a dump as the season wore on. Now it's just time for management to figure out whether or not Tortorella was the main reason for it.

[tas]

What was bizarre about this year? The Canucks as a whole took a dump as the season wore on. Now it's just time for management to figure out whether or not Tortorella was the main reason for it.

it doesn't matter if he was the main reason for it. he's a terrible coach with a terrible outdated system and he's not smart enough to adapt.

[SabreFan1]

it doesn't matter if he was the main reason for it. he's a terrible coach with a terrible outdated system and he's not smart enough to adapt.

What's bizarre about it though? That was my question.