[Report] Torts Fired

[lolwut?]

Good move here.

I really like Torts approach to the game but he doesn't fit our players & the style of game we want to play IMO.

Now bring in Barry Trotz !!

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

Lots to say today (and so this post is going to be very tl;dr).

First off, I needed to address this:

Dude, what is the common denominator the last 4 years of the decline? It's the players! When's the last time a coach got fired after 1 year ( not including interim coaches). It just doesn't happen and is a downright d!ck move to appease the ADD induced fans who lack patience.

My response (open spoiler):

4 years of decline?

So this team was in decline in 2010-11? The best statistical season in team history? The roster that many people consider to be the greatest team in Canucks history?

This group experienced a dramatic rise and then peaked over three seasons between 2009-10 and 2011-12 (three 100+ points seasons, two Presidents' Trophies, one appearance in the Cup Finals).

The decline has been over the last two seasons.

While there's certainly been an age factor with the Sedins and some of the 30+ members of the core, I'd say that the common denominator in the Canucks' struggles is something very specific.

This team lost Ehrhoff after the 2010-11 season. Then they lost Salo after 2011-12.

The Canucks' top players saw their offense diminished after Ehrhoff left for Buffalo. Once Salo was gone, the whole team became less effective.

Without Ehrhoff or Salo, the Canucks haven't had a single defenseman (of top-four quality) with puck rushing ability. They have no one in their top group of Ds who's comfortable handling the puck through the neutral zone. They lack anyone with dynamic offensive talents inside the opponents' blue line. They don't have any top Ds who are comfortable penetrating the offensive zone.

While you don't need puck rushing defensemen to have a good transition game or to make successful zone entries, the lack of these types of players forces the forward group to carry the puck more exclusively, which ends up making the attack less dynamic and multifaceted, which in turn makes our offense easier to defend and shut down.

It also doesn't help that the Sedins aren't the most dynamic players in transition and moving the puck in general. They are highly skilled and can be effective. However, their effectiveness is greatly helped by having the options that mobile puckmoving Ds allow. And they become limited when there's no one on the D who can consistently force the puck up the ice.

This is the same factor that has caused Edler's decline (and made Garrison far less effective than he could have been).

Both of these guys play their best hockey when they have a mobile puck-carrying D playing alongside them.

Edler and Garrison are considered puckmovers, but they are only the type of PMD who can skate the puck out of trouble in their own zone and who can (usually) make a good first pass. They aren't the type of guys who can tilt the ice.

Ehrhoff was this type of player.

Salo, while more of a two-way, all-situations D, still had the skills and anticipation to see plays develop and to know when to join the attack (and occasionally when to lead the rush). He also had good vision in the offensive zone and had the confidence to effectively handle the puck in the offensive zone and move in deep when the opportunity presented itself.

Certainly, the Sedins are aging and will see some drop-off in production. However, the overall degree of the Canucks' decline has been largely fueled by this team's failure to replace its most dynamic defensemen (either through trade/signing or draft/development).

Of course, this team needs an injection of youth (especially on the forward lines) and needs to get deeper throughout the lineup. But the greatest tragedy is the fact that this core isn't nearly as slow or ineffective as they've seemed over the past couple years. They just appear that way because the team removed a key component to the offense (and never replaced it).

This group (especially at the top) has lost far too much value because of this team's failure to address a single basic need.

So that's the long answer for what I believe to be the main driver of the current "decline" in this team.

And Gillis certainly bears responsibility for this failure since he makes the roster.

But anyway, let's move on to the news of the day:

My Take on the Tortorella Firing

*Again, this is super long so just open the spoiler if you're up for it (and have the time):

As for Torts getting fired today: of course he shouldn't be blamed for an issue that started to become an obvious problem long before his arrival here (as discussed in the first part of this post).

Torts has earned his dismissal, at least in part, because he made this team's problems worse and greatly accelerated the apparent decline.

People seem to want to make Tortorella a hero for "exposing" the weakness of this core. How's that a virtue?

At least AV tried to find ways to compensate for the roster issues and get the best out of a group with obvious flaws and holes.

Torts doomed this group to failure by managing the bench in a way that only emphasized and highlighted the roster issues (and even created further issues that hadn't been problems in the past). If Torts had a long term plan in mind, and one that required roster turnover, then why devalue the assets that he thought they needed to be moved? Why not shelter the weak links and artificially raise their market value? Why go public with roster concerns that should have been handled internally?

Of course, neither Torts nor AV should have needed to coach a flawed roster. Gillis should have given them better teams (over the past two seasons). But Gillis has been fired. And both Torts and AV agreed to coach the rosters they were given and try to win with whatever they had available to them (as is their job).

That's the crucial area where I take issue with what Torts has done this season.

Torts stubbornly stuck with an approach that "exposed this core's weaknesses" and in the process has damaged this team's ability to get full value for their assets. That's enough reason to fire him.

He also failed, largely because of his own obstinacy and shortsightedness, to get the most value he could have out of this group. That's the coach's job and AV provided a clear blueprint for how it can be done.

But by and large, Torts' year in Vancouver has been one characterized by an unwillingness to learn from or consider outside approaches (even when they work) and an unwillingness or disinterest in really learning about the specific strengths and weaknesses of his players (he's even admitted that he hasn't taken the time to really study them individually).

The 2013-14 roster was far from a contender but it should have been--at worst--a bubble playoff team. We can argue whether or not it's better to fail spectacularly and get a high draft pick than to squeak into the postseason for another first round exit.

However, from a coach's perspective, there's zero nuance here: you win as many games as you can. That's your job. You do whatever it takes and you work as hard as you have to.

But it's also the job of the coach to work within the confines of the team structure he's given and to implement the team philosophy as dictated by management. The deeper we got into the season, the more the GM and head coach seemed to be diverging from a common approach (if there was really even one from the start--since I really question MG's role in the Torts hiring).

By the time the season wrapped-up, it was clear that MG and Torts didn't share the same view on this team and where it was going. Gillis threw his coach under the bus through his indirect (but obvious) criticism of Tortorella's system. Tortorella openly and defiantly questioned the GMs ability to provide him with the tools he needed to win.

Gillis' was the first head to roll. And the official reason for his firing was his responsibility for hiring Torts. Whether or not you buy that story, it's certainly clear that the team's poor performance under Tortorella was reason why Gillis' time finally ran out.

MG made several errors during his tenure but ownership was always willing to forgive him as long as the team was winning games and making the playoffs. If the Canucks had squeaked into the postseason this year, Gillis would probably still be running the show.

So you have a coach who ultimately cost the GM his job and in the process, devalued most of the core player assets (worst production in years), embarrassed the franchise (Calgary fiasco), exacerbated the goalie situation (Heritage Classic), directly contradicted official team statements (on several occasions), openly questioned management's effectiveness, and ultimately chose to run with his own agenda (right or wrong) during his entire tenure in Vancouver.

No matter what the on-ice results were, Torts earned his dismissal several times over this season.

It was actually surprising that Linden didn't can him on day 1.

I honestly believe that Trevor wanted to find his GM first, and that's what's driven the timeline for Torts getting fired.. I read his current official position of "the GM search is well underway" as Linden-speak for "we've found our guy" and the Canucks are just waiting for their candidate's current team to finish their playoff run.

And I believe that the incoming GM has made it abundantly clear that he doesn't want to keep Tortorella. He wants to hire his own guy and believes (as I do) that there are many superior coaching options available who can better meet the specific needs of this team.

Even if management liked how Torts ran things on the ice and were on the same page with what Torts was trying to implement here, his "extracurricular activities" this season have probably made him persona non grata around the new front office (and rightly so IMHO).

The thing is, I really like John Tortorella. I love listening to the guy talk about hockey (and this team). He's also very charming and he's the kind of opinionated, straight-shooter type that I personally enjoy discussing the game with. I'm going to miss him (and I'd love to see him get into a broadcasting role).

I just don't want him coaching my team.

For the first few weeks, I was a big Torts fan. I really believed in what he was trying to do here. I felt like he was gaining some traction (and I liked the early returns). But around December, when things were going so well on the W/L column, I start to have some nagging doubts.

During the win streak, the Canucks were shooting 11.32% and were getting 0.964 Sv% goaltending. Their PDO stats (measures puck luck) were off the charts. This was never sustainable. Even in the second half of December, the bounces were starting to shift, and somewhere deep down inside, you knew that the wheels could fall off at any time.

December is also the month were bot Gillis and Torts like to say that we were seeing what this team was capable of. Gillis claimed that this was what his full roster could accomplish. Torts claimed that this was how his system worked.

Both were lying.

The December Canucks were a team on a lucky roll. That much is clear.

But when the luck turned, what I saw wasn't the players getting "exposed" (at least not only that) but some very questionable coaching schemes becoming painfully evident. There were things happening on the ice that were so obviously notworking and were equally obviously the result of directives from the coaching staff. Whether it was a bad system or bad execution (by the players) can be debated forever. In terms of responsibility, it makes no difference: the buck stops with the coach.

Even if we'd stayed healthy and our luck had kept going, there were things happening on the ice this season (I've detailed them in other posts) that drove me bonkers. Schemes and plays that were so obviously ill-suited to our personnel. Deployment and usage that made zero sense. And a coach who really seemed to have no idea how to properly use the tools (as limited and flawed as they might be) that were available to him.

I saw nothing in the second half that makes me think Torts can get the best out of these players, even with significant turnover and upgrades. For the Canucks to become the team Torts needs, you'd have to gut the whole mess.

Maybe people would like to see that but good luck getting good value for these assets if you hastily trade everyone and go full rebuild. And good luck trying to replace our better assets. Free agency is going to cost 150% of the current contract value (just for equal replacement), there's not enough in the prospect pool to build from scratch, and new draft picks are going to take at least five years to get to replacement value.

You have to keep the best of this core and try to be smart about building around them. And even still, this season has shown that the best of this core isn't ever going to be at their best when they're forced to play John Tortorella hockey.

Torts might be a good coach. He's just not good for this team.

[HockeyHound93]

I was one of those people that was alright with Torts coming back next year, but that was before Gillis got fired and Linden took over.

It makes sense to have our new GM pick the coach. It would have been awful if Gillis was still here and was the one who fired Torts.

[VIC_CITY]

People really need to stop whining about Torts being a "scapegoat". He may not have had tons to work with but he did a bad job with what he had. I repeat he did a BAD job. THAT is why he was fired today. He's simply a bad fit for this team that he coached poorly.

And enough with the "I guess we'll fire a coach every year" garbage. AV was here damn near a decade, not one or two years. His firing and Torts hiring was a "Hail Marry" that simply failed. That is not a trend.

I disagree with your first statement but agree with your 2nd.

Torts came as advertised. Defense 1st, shot blocking etc. But we were never built to play that style of hockey and unfortunately blocking shots resulted in a few broken bones. But that isn't Torts' fault. He was hired to coach, they knew what kind of coach they were hiring and he coached like he always did. Also, other than the Calgary incident he seemed like a gentleman, especially with the media (which is a big deal in Vancouver).

I agree that AVs time was up but IMO the blame has to be on the person responsible for hiring Torts. It made sense at the time, Torts was a no nonsense kind of guy and a lot of people thought that's what this team needed. But hindsight is 20/20 and it clearly didn't work out.

[Angry Goose]

He was, but I'm not sure he did that much for Philly while he was there. He was quite successful in the AHL though before being brought up to Philly as an assistant then handed the reigns as head coach part way through the season.

They lost in the Eastern Conference finals while he was in PHI. But ignoring the strong play LA has displayed over the years while he has been there, I like the style of hockey both teams bring: hard hitting and aggressive, but skilled and defensively sound. Trouble is, like Torts, not sure he can bring that style of hockey to VAN without some major changes.

[Neversummer]

Puck Daddy suggestion for Torts, go back to TV for a year and get out away from it all.

If he wants to get back right into it .. get this, he suggests Florida ... hahaha. Don't think Tallon would do that to Luongo.

[higgyfan]

That's a stretch, there was still a lack of depth when the team was completely healthy. The team needs Jensen plus another prospect to make the team and contribute, then also acquire a powerplay quarterback and 2nd line winger or center and it can make the playoffs possibly. Lack hasn't shown he's ready to be the guy just yet, so there's that as well..

That's a stretch, there was still a lack of depth when the team was completely healthy. The team needs Jensen plus another prospect to make the team and contribute, then also acquire a powerplay quarterback and 2nd line winger or center and it can make the playoffs possibly. Lack hasn't shown he's ready to be the guy just yet, so there's that as well..

Not a stretch at all...

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nhl-standings-045415816--nhl.html

Dec. 20th they were tied with SJ for 5th in the conference.

Then the injury bug hit and the spiral began.

http://msn.foxsports.com/nhl/team/vancouver-canucks/injuries/66321?q=vancouver-canucks

Given that there is always a period of adjustment when a player returns from an injury, I doubt the team was ever completely healthy. Certainly they were missing Santo and the Sedins were definitely not perfectly healthy.

By February, they were in 7th spot with 3 teams nipping at their heals

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nhl-standings-071425427--nhl.html

As I suggested, Trev has to make some positive changes to the lineup if they want to do anything in the playoffs.

[SamJamIam]

In the words of Charles Baudelaire:

Pretty much sums up how I'm feeling about tonight's news.

That might be the best post I have ever read on CDC. I have those exacts same feelings.

One thing I haven't seen mentioned is that the Aqualinis are clearly not dicking around. They hired Trevor and said he was their man. Trevor assesses the coaching staff, says "You need to eat the rest of Torts' contract so the club can move on" and they do it. For all the "Are the Aqualinis willing to continue spending on the Canucks like in the past?" talk, it's pretty damn clear that we have a stellar ownership group which knows that sometimes you just take the hit and move on.

[SamJamIam]

Not a stretch at all...

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nhl-standings-045415816--nhl.html

Dec. 20th they were tied with SJ for 5th in the conference.

Then the injury bug hit and the spiral began.

http://msn.foxsports.com/nhl/team/vancouver-canucks/injuries/66321?q=vancouver-canucks

Given that there is always a period of adjustment when a player returns from an injury, I doubt the team was ever completely healthy. Certainly they were missing Santo and the Sedins were definitely not perfectly healthy.

By February, they were in 7th spot with 3 teams nipping at their heals

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nhl-standings-071425427--nhl.html

As I suggested, Trev has to make some positive changes to the lineup if they want to do anything in the playoffs.

Given that same information, it could be said that Torts did best when he had a fresh, upbeat team with hope in their hearts. Then as his time dragged on, they became disillusioned, frustrated and increasingly ineffective.

However, I wouldn't dare say that the loss of Santo wasn't a big one. It was probably the biggest loss this team had all year. I think he's actually proved himself to be a part of re-energizing this core.

[higgyfan]

Lots to say today (and so this post is going to be very tl;dr).

First off, I needed to address this:

My response (open spoiler):

4 years of decline?

So this team was in decline in 2010-11? The best statistical season in team history? The roster that many people consider to be the greatest team in Canucks history?

This group experienced a dramatic rise and then peaked over three seasons between 2009-10 and 2011-12 (three 100+ points seasons, two Presidents' Trophies, one appearance in the Cup Finals).

The decline has been over the last two seasons.

While there's certainly been an age factor with the Sedins and some of the 30+ members of the core, I'd say that the common denominator in the Canucks' struggles is something very specific.

This team lost Ehrhoff after the 2010-11 season. Then they lost Salo after 2011-12.

The Canucks' top players saw their offense diminished after Ehrhoff left for Buffalo. Once Salo was gone, the whole team became less effective.

Without Ehrhoff or Salo, the Canucks haven't had a single defenseman (of top-four quality) with puck rushing ability. They have no one in their top group of Ds who's comfortable handling the puck through the neutral zone. They lack anyone with dynamic offensive talents inside the opponents' blue line. They don't have any top Ds who are comfortable penetrating the offensive zone.

While you don't need puck rushing defensemen to have a good transition game or to make successful zone entries, the lack of these types of players forces the forward group to carry the puck more exclusively, which ends up making the attack less dynamic and multifaceted, which in turn makes our offense easier to defend and shut down.

It also doesn't help that the Sedins aren't the most dynamic players in transition and moving the puck in general. They are highly skilled and can be effective. However, their effectiveness is greatly helped by having the options that mobile puckmoving Ds allow. And they become limited when there's no one on the D who can consistently force the puck up the ice.

This is the same factor that has caused Edler's decline (and made Garrison far less effective than he could have been).

Both of these guys play their best hockey when they have a mobile puck-carrying D playing alongside them.

Edler and Garrison are considered puckmovers, but they are only the type of PMD who can skate the puck out of trouble in their own zone and who can (usually) make a good first pass. They aren't the type of guys who can tilt the ice.

Ehrhoff was this type of player.

Salo, while more of a two-way, all-situations D, still had the skills and anticipation to see plays develop and to know when to join the attack (and occasionally when to lead the rush). He also had good vision in the offensive zone and had the confidence to effectively handle the puck in the offensive zone and move in deep when the opportunity presented itself.

Certainly, the Sedins are aging and will see some drop-off in production. However, the overall degree of the Canucks' decline has been largely fueled by this team's failure to replace its most dynamic defensemen (either through trade/signing or draft/development).

Of course, this team needs an injection of youth (especially on the forward lines) and needs to get deeper throughout the lineup. But the greatest tragedy is the fact that this core isn't nearly as slow or ineffective as they've seemed over the past couple years. They just appear that way because the team removed a key component to the offense (and never replaced it).

This group (especially at the top) has lost far too much value because of this team's failure to address a single basic need.

So that's the long answer for what I believe to be the main driver of the current "decline" in this team.

And Gillis certainly bears responsibility for this failure since he makes the roster.

But anyway, let's move on to the news of the day:

My Take on the Tortorella Firing

*Again, this is super long so just open the spoiler if you're up for it (and have the time):

As for Torts getting fired today: of course he shouldn't be blamed for an issue that started to become an obvious problem long before his arrival here (as discussed in the first part of this post).

Torts has earned his dismissal, at least in part, because he made this team's problems worse and greatly accelerated the apparent decline.

People seem to want to make Tortorella a hero for "exposing" the weakness of this core. How's that a virtue?

At least AV tried to find ways to compensate for the roster issues and get the best out of a group with obvious flaws and holes.

Torts doomed this group to failure by managing the bench in a way that only emphasized and highlighted the roster issues (and even created further issues that hadn't been problems in the past). If Torts had a long term plan in mind, and one that required roster turnover, then why devalue the assets that he thought they needed to be moved? Why not shelter the weak links and artificially raise their market value? Why go public with roster concerns that should have been handled internally?

Of course, neither Torts nor AV should have needed to coach a flawed roster. Gillis should have given them better teams (over the past two seasons). But Gillis has been fired. And both Torts and AV agreed to coach the rosters they were given and try to win with whatever they had available to them (as is their job).

That's the crucial area where I take issue with what Torts has done this season.

Torts stubbornly stuck with an approach that "exposed this core's weaknesses" and in the process has damaged this team's ability to get full value for their assets. That's enough reason to fire him.

He also failed, largely because of his own obstinacy and shortsightedness, to get the most value he could have out of this group. That's the coach's job and AV provided a clear blueprint for how it can be done.

But by and large, Torts' year in Vancouver has been one characterized by an unwillingness to learn from or consider outside approaches (even when they work) and an unwillingness or disinterest in really learning about the specific strengths and weaknesses of his players (he's even admitted that he hasn't taken the time to really study them individually).

The 2013-14 roster was far from a contender but it should have been--at worst--a bubble playoff team. We can argue whether or not it's better to fail spectacularly and get a high draft pick than to squeak into the postseason for another first round exit.

However, from a coach's perspective, there's zero nuance here: you win as many games as you can. That's your job. You do whatever it takes and you work as hard as you have to.

But it's also the job of the coach to work within the confines of the team structure he's given and to implement the team philosophy as dictated by management. The deeper we got into the season, the more the GM and head coach seemed to be diverging from a common approach (if there was really even one from the start--since I really question MG's role in the Torts hiring).

By the time the season wrapped-up, it was clear that MG and Torts didn't share the same view on this team and where it was going. Gillis threw his coach under the bus through his indirect (but obvious) criticism of Tortorella's system. Tortorella openly and defiantly questioned the GMs ability to provide him with the tools he needed to win.

Gillis' was the first head to roll. And the official reason for his firing was his responsibility for hiring Torts. Whether or not you buy that story, it's certainly clear that the team's poor performance under Tortorella was reason why Gillis' time finally ran out.

MG made several errors during his tenure but ownership was always willing to forgive him as long as the team was winning games and making the playoffs. If the Canucks had squeaked into the postseason this year, Gillis would probably still be running the show.

So you have a coach who ultimately cost the GM his job and in the process, devalued most of the core player assets (worst production in years), embarrassed the franchise (Calgary fiasco), exacerbated the goalie situation (Heritage Classic), directly contradicted official team statements (on several occasions), openly questioned management's effectiveness, and ultimately chose to run with his own agenda (right or wrong) during his entire tenure in Vancouver.

No matter what the on-ice results were, Torts earned his dismissal several times over this season.

It was actually surprising that Linden didn't can him on day 1.

I honestly believe that Trevor wanted to find his GM first, and that's what's driven the timeline for Torts getting fired.. I read his current official position of "the GM search is well underway" as Linden-speak for "we've found our guy" and the Canucks are just waiting for their candidate's current team to finish their playoff run.

And I believe that the incoming GM has made it abundantly clear that he doesn't want to keep Tortorella. He wants to hire his own guy and believes (as I do) that there are many superior coaching options available who can better meet the specific needs of this team.

Even if management liked how Torts ran things on the ice and were on the same page with what Torts was trying to implement here, his "extracurricular activities" this season have probably made him persona non grata around the new front office (and rightly so IMHO).

The thing is, I really like John Tortorella. I love listening to the guy talk about hockey (and this team). He's also very charming and he's the kind of opinionated, straight-shooter type that I personally enjoy discussing the game with. I'm going to miss him (and I'd love to see him get into a broadcasting role).

I just don't want him coaching my team.

For the first few weeks, I was a big Torts fan. I really believed in what he was trying to do here. I felt like he was gaining some traction (and I liked the early returns). But around December, when things were going so well on the W/L column, I start to have some nagging doubts.

During the win streak, the Canucks were shooting 11.32% and were getting 0.964 Sv% goaltending. Their PDO stats (measures puck luck) were off the charts. This was never sustainable. Even in the second half of December, the bounces were starting to shift, and somewhere deep down inside, you knew that the wheels could fall off at any time.

December is also the month were bot Gillis and Torts like to say that we were seeing what this team was capable of. Gillis claimed that this was what his full roster could accomplish. Torts claimed that this was how his system worked.

Both were lying.

The December Canucks were a team on a lucky roll. That much is clear.

But when the luck turned, what I saw wasn't the players getting "exposed" (at least not only that) but some very questionable coaching schemes becoming painfully evident. There were things happening on the ice that were so obviously notworking and were equally obviously the result of directives from the coaching staff. Whether it was a bad system or bad execution (by the players) can be debated forever. In terms of responsibility, it makes no difference: the buck stops with the coach.

Even if we'd stayed healthy and our luck had kept going, there were things happening on the ice this season (I've detailed them in other posts) that drove me bonkers. Schemes and plays that were so obviously ill-suited to our personnel. Deployment and usage that made zero sense. And a coach who really seemed to have no idea how to properly use the tools (as limited and flawed as they might be) that were available to him.

I saw nothing in the second half that makes me think Torts can get the best out of these players, even with significant turnover and upgrades. For the Canucks to become the team Torts needs, you'd have to gut the whole mess.

Maybe people would like to see that but good luck getting good value for these assets if you hastily trade everyone and go full rebuild. And good luck trying to replace our better assets. Free agency is going to cost 150% of the current contract value (just for equal replacement), there's not enough in the prospect pool to build from scratch, and new draft picks are going to take at least five years to get to replacement value.

You have to keep the best of this core and try to be smart about building around them. And even still, this season has shown that the best of this core isn't ever going to be at their best when they're forced to play John Tortorella hockey.

Torts might be a good coach. He's just not good for this team.

Agree completely. Unfortunately, many of the folks around here would rather :mad: than read such an excellent post.

[higgyfan]

Given that same information, it could be said that Torts did best when he had a fresh, upbeat team with hope in their hearts. Then as his time dragged on, they became disillusioned, frustrated and increasingly ineffective.

However, I wouldn't dare say that the loss of Santo wasn't a big one. It was probably the biggest loss this team had all year. I think he's actually proved himself to be a part of re-energizing this core.

And a variety of reasons for that development have been discussed; many that don't include the CDC buzzwords 'soft', 'no heart' 'crybabies'.

No questions that the continuous parade to the infirmary also had a terrible effect in the locker room and on the ice.

[Ben Kenobi]

Say what you want against those calling the Canucks out for the coaching carousel. It's the reality. It's going to make the Canucks less appealing and they are going to get passed over.

We seem to think that we'll simply be able to go in and get the coach that we want. I don't see it. We know already that the Core is considered to be precious and protected, while coaches are expendable.

What would you think if you got a job offer from an organization notorious for turnover? Especially if you knew that you were going to manage people who couldn't be fired and knew it? What's the point?

[awalk]

They would have made the playoffs this year if they hadn't had that pile up of injuries. It's when they have to meet a Pacific Conference team for 4-7 games they get exposed.

I think (hope) Trevor is referring to making some positive changes in the lineup this summer.

I think playoffs next year is entirely dependant on whoever is in goal.

[Ben Kenobi]

"Lack was playing better than Luongo at the time".

And how did that move work out for us later on? Lack finished the season at .912, well below Luongo's .917. Say what you will, that was the move that broke the Canucks' back last season.

Lack had better stats when in the correct role - as a backup, as he needed more seasoning. It was the wrong time for the move, and the wrong time for this one. Again - wait a year. Let Bobby Lou play and let Lack grow into the job. Same with Torts. A panic move here.

[HerrDrFunk]

We really do have some of the worst fans in the league....

[JeremyCuddles]

Smart move by management. Torts said this team was stale, Linden knows none of these players with NTC's can be moved. Had to save face. We are stuck with this bland core for 4-5 years.

[aGENT]

Agree completely. Unfortunately, many of the folks around here would rather :mad: than read such an excellent post.

I have yet to disagree with anything Sid posts.

[Smashian Kassian]

Sounds like an oxymoron, I know. But when Trotz had offensive talent he had offensive success, and he gets the most out of his players.

[Fanuck]

This is all rather comical.

First, GMMG gets fired for what I feel was the owners decision ultimately - hiring Torts (I've felt from the beginning that was an ownership decision, not a GM choice).

Now Linden is getting flack (at least by some here on CDC) for letting Torts go.

People should ask themselves one question - would any potential GM worth having here agree to walk into a situation where he doesn't have full control over his personnel? The logical answer is NO - therefore Linden is, in my opinion, doing the right thing - cleaning the slate (as much as he can without moving players) so the incoming GM knows that he can do it his way. This is the best situation Linden can create to attract the best candidate for GM.

Then and only then will the new GM be able to create their own (not a inherited) version of what they feel is the necessary combination of coaches/players. Yes, I'm aware that the new GM will inherit a team of players with existing salaries and varying degrees of NTC/NMC, but this would be the case anywhere a new GM is hired.

I'm willing to give Linden (and the new GM) at least 4-5 years on this since I feel that is a realistic time-frame to expect a turn-around into a solid long-term contender (not a one-time) cup hopeful.

Yes, I realize this is FAR more patient than the 'average' CDC poster, but what can I say, I'm a patient person.

[Canuck Surfer]

"Lack was playing better than Luongo at the time".

And how did that move work out for us later on? Lack finished the season at .912, well below Luongo's .917. Say what you will, that was the move that broke the Canucks' back last season.

Lack had better stats when in the correct role - as a backup, as he needed more seasoning. It was the wrong time for the move, and the wrong time for this one. Again - wait a year. Let Bobby Lou play and let Lack grow into the job. Same with Torts. A panic move here.

What broke the team was that the entire team was playing Shitey. We lost ten straight, in, around and directly after the Calgary debacle. Virtually every veteran, save Kesler and to a lesser extent (because he digressed as the season went on) Garrison, had near career low performances. We were near dead last in scoring and PP.

How do you pin that on Lack?

Lack's performance fell less than the overall team performance.