The "I would like to see Torts stay for at least one more year" thread.

[Baggins]

Honestly, I have my problems with Torts, but anyone who tries to blame this teams lackluster performance this season on him, or at least a majority on him, didn't watch the same season I watched. At the beginning of the year, this team was playing well and it was evident Torts was one of the reasons. Then injuries came down and we pretty much had to field a roster of scratches, AHL players, and players just coming off injured reserve just to go back again. As he said, our group is old and stale without youth, excitement, spark, etc. That's why Santorelli was so big when we were hot. He provided energy throughout the lineup similar to how Burrows used to do before he was also played with injuries this year. Torts was given a roster good enough to be a wild card team or possibly, barely in the division top 3, had to deal with more injuries than I have ever seen in my life, and didn't really get the young guys in the lineup he wanted to. If I remember correctly, Torts was an advocate of Horvat and Shink at least getting 5 or so games with the team to see if they could possibly stay. Torts is a good coach. Just wait until next year when he has a healthy talented roster with some youth.

However, one thing I'll admit he is not good at, or whoever the special teams coach is, is the PP… Need to get better at that as soon as possible.

I don't recall any rumblings about keeping junior prospects for a regular season try out. Horvat simply wasn't very good in the preseason and Torts said himself Shink needed to work on his strength and was too easy to knock off the puck. The only rumblings about bonus games were from the fans here on this board.

That said, if I recall correctly there wasn't anybody on the opening roster who wasn't waiver eligible. Is it worth risking a player to waivers to give a kid you've already decided isn't ready a 5 or even 9 game try out? You decide he is going back to junior and you've already lost Santorelli to waivers. You don't risk losing you're depth to give a kid you know isn't ready a few bonus NHL games.

[combover]

You obviously have a short attention span. I had no problem whatsoever enjoying that series.

Besides. the original point was (as others have pointed out as well) that coaches deal with the rosters they are given. Trotz had no choice but to play defensively responsible hockey because he had a team loaded at the back end and challenged up front.

To assume that he's incapable of coaching any other style given a different roster, is to show how little you know about being a professional hockey coach.

you enjoyed that series!! its was quite possibly the boringest series in hockey history. clearly you have different tastes in entertaining styles of play which is fine but for me that "style" of play is whats ruining the game.

[combover]

[Me_]

When Vigneault started his tenure in Vancouver, he was known as a defensive coach. Then he got the horses and turned the Canucks into the best offensive team in the league.

One should never assume that an NHL coach is only capable of playing one style. The money situation in Nashville more or less forced Trotz into being a defense-first coach. You also have to look at the team's roster. Nashville's third best defenseman left and became the #1 defender for the Canucks. That's a defensively solid roster and it makes sense to build around it.

Therefore, so how about that Tortorella guy. You know... the Canucks' coach with three years and $6.000 MIL left on his contract?

Is he the exception to the rule and can only coach one style?

[Baggins]

Therefore, so how about that Tortorella guy. You know... the Canucks' coach with three years and $6.000 MIL left on his contract?

Is he the exception to the rule and can only coach one style?

He said himself back in January he either needs to change his system or get new players. He didn't get new players and I didn't see him change his system. It seems he'd rather try to put square pegs in round holes than change his system.

[Me_]

He said himself back in January he either needs to change his system or get new players. He didn't get new players and I didn't see him change his system. It seems he'd rather try to put square pegs in round holes than change his system.

So one reporter starts saying square peg in round hole and it becomes doctrine? How about thinking on your own?

As for the Canucks, they are not built to play in the Pacific. Gillis threw his own team under the bus by stating everyone except the Sedins is available. Yet, he goes on and trades Luongo for spare change. Kesler, with rumored deal on the table from Pittsburgh, Detroit, Toronto, Chicago and Anaheim, no deal. Edler? refuses to waive.

I don't blame Torts one bit and he did change his approach after that Dallas game.

He also said, because of injury, he had to adapt his system to reflect the lack of depth, and most importantly, didn't revert to the original system "soon enough".

Calm down bud.

[J529]

If St. Louis loses again after leading 2-0 in series for second straight year could Hitchcock become available?

[Canorth]

I don't think that Gillis was ever on record saying that everybody was on the table but the Sedins. This was the speculation of "one reporter" so maybe your "think for your self comment" was a bit shortsighted if not hypocritical.

[Moonshinefe]

If St. Louis loses again after leading 2-0 in series for second straight year could Hitchcock become available?

I'd be very surprised. The Blues went from 21st overall in the NHL in 2010, to what they are now after Hitchcock was hired 2011. They're not exactly being "out coached" in the Chicago series really, many of the games have gone to OT. They're just playing the reigning champs who have imho the best offensive roster in the NHL.

If he did get fired though, I'd want him in an instant. He's proven he can develop young talent and our prospects would benefit from a coach like that massively.

[Canorth]

Can anyone tell me how to add quotes/comments to a post?

[gumshoe242]

Don't know why everybody thinks Torts is so done already. Linden has always stated that he would base his decision on interviews with players AND COACHES after the season is over. Obviously this process will start on Monday. Personally I think it would be a major disservice to Torts to simply dismiss him out of hand, and rather stupid on Linden's part NOT to garner as much info as possible from a person I consider to be VERY knowledgeable about the game. (Torts)

Really can't see how Torts can be blamed for inheriting a team that was already on a downward slide (1 win in their last 11 playoff games) and exposing them for what they really are. A team of aging veterans that were babied and coddled for AV for 7 years, and now can't play the game the way the "new" NHL wants it to be played. We all seem to forget how well they played in December and early January (before the injuries hit) when they finally bought into Torts "system". To me that was VERY exciting "up tempo" hockey with great transition and pace. Torts only went to the defensive style when injuries dictated he do so. Besides he has already admitted his fault in not returning to the more up tempo style (more quickly) after the injuries returned.

Lastly. I put the blame squarely on the shoulders of Mike Gillis for hiring a coach that was not suited to our current team and for failing to supply Torts with the proper players for his so called style. Obviously Gillis has already paid the ultimate price for that mistake. Don't think Torts should pay the same price for simply doing what he was hired to do. Besides, if the team is going to change (younger, bigger, faster, stronger) over the summer, who better than to coach that team at least for one more year? I say Torts is the man.

I believe that Francesco Aquilini as much as said Torts was gone during the press conference to announce Trevor's hiring. He said that Torts was Mike Gillis' hire but that he (Francesco) had to accept responsibility for it, as he had fully supported the hiring. To me, that was an admission of more cash about to be spent.

[SuperReverb2]

I believe that Francesco Aquilini as much as said Torts was gone during the press conference to announce Trevor's hiring. He said that Torts was Mike Gillis' hire but that he (Francesco) had to accept responsibility for it, as he had fully supported the hiring. To me, that was an admission of more cash about to be spent.

Actually he said that Torts was Mike Gillis' hire, but he (Aquilini) signed off on it, meaning he Ok'd it. He also mentioned that "that is why we are here today." None of the reporters present jumped on that statement, but a lot of radio talk show hosts (TEAM 1040 for one) and many one here took that to mean that Aquilini threw Torts under the bus and he was going to be fired at the end of the season. Two weeks later he's still here so what Aquilini meant is anybody's guess at this point in time.

[J529]

Following Canucks getting swept last year in playoffs it was 15 days after that when AV got fired.

[EmployeeoftheMonth]

Actually he said that Torts was Mike Gillis' hire, but he (Aquilini) signed off on it, meaning he Ok'd it. He also mentioned that "that is why we are here today." None of the reporters present jumped on that statement, but a lot of radio talk show hosts (TEAM 1040 for one) and many one here took that to mean that Aquilini threw Torts under the bus and he was going to be fired at the end of the season. Two weeks later he's still here so what Aquilini meant is anybody's guess at this point in time.

The way I interpreted it at the time was that Gillis hired Torts as the fix for the team and Aqua went along with that. Given that coaching wasn't the problem there was only one other answer which was the team. The team being the GM's responsibility so Gillis was fired.

[Baggins]

So one reporter starts saying square peg in round hole and it becomes doctrine? How about thinking on your own?

As for the Canucks, they are not built to play in the Pacific. Gillis threw his own team under the bus by stating everyone except the Sedins is available. Yet, he goes on and trades Luongo for spare change. Kesler, with rumored deal on the table from Pittsburgh, Detroit, Toronto, Chicago and Anaheim, no deal. Edler? refuses to waive.

I don't blame Torts one bit and he did change his approach after that Dallas game.

He also said, because of injury, he had to adapt his system to reflect the lack of depth, and most importantly, didn't revert to the original system "soon enough".

Calm down bud.

You appear to be the one worked up.

[DrChill]

He said himself back in January he either needs to change his system or get new players. He didn't get new players and I didn't see him change his system. It seems he'd rather try to put square pegs in round holes than change his system.

Ya, don't trust torts.

Honestly think only reason he isn't gone yet is Linden is gathering information, GM hire is first piece of business needing to be done. Torts can stew.

Maybe it is a technique to get players to waive NTC before draft. Keep Torts on until after people are traded.

[samurai]

Torts is toast,

The org is resetting - new prez, new gm, new coach will pacify the fan base. It was a dumb move to hire him.

[RUPERTKBD]

Therefore, so how about that Tortorella guy. You know... the Canucks' coach with three years and $6.000 MIL left on his contract?

Is he the exception to the rule and can only coach one style?

I have no doubt that he can. The team he coached in Tampa Bay could play offense....

However, I didn't see anything last season that convinced me that he would change his style. All I heard were things like "he didn't have the right guys", or "he didn't get his message through"....

It's a moot point anyway, because the post I was addressing was about Barry Trotz, not John Tortorella.

Following Canucks getting swept last year in playoffs it was 15 days after that when AV got fired.

Except in that case, the GM hadn't been fired already.

[nuck nit]

Successful Canucks player/President with successful new Canucks GM will have consulted with present asst. Canuck GM's and players to determine Torts' future.

I am hoping for an eventful summer.

[SuperReverb2]

Successful Canucks player/President with successful new Canucks GM will have consulted with present asst. Canuck GM's and players to determine Torts' future.

I am hoping for an eventful summer.

Pretty sure this summer will be eventful with or without Torts getting fired. From everything I have heard, the players are OK with another year under Torts MINUS the drama. (if that's possible ha ha) Just speculating, but if that's true, then Linden might concentrate on the MUCH NEEDED player moves and a DECENT GM rather than adding a new coach to the mix as well. Especially if the "target" GM is Jim Benning who could easily be tied up until late May or even mid June depending on how the Bruins fare. Not much time for the new GM and President to get ready for the draft, (which is uber important this year) let alone find a new coach to suit the current and possible future players.