OffThePost.org

Better than Scotte Arneil who is being bandied about. Perhaps Nonis already told them to suck it regarding Eakins. There must at least be a list of 5 or 6 they wish to speak with so Stevens may be pretty low.

_________________
Shoresy, "It's called a sweater"

I'll be damned, apparently Gillis DID ask permission to talk to Eakins.

Credit to Gillis. He's casting as wide a net as possible, pride and politics be damned.

And the only place Eakins should go is Dallas. C'mon, that'd be awesome.

Looks like Leafs have granted Canucks to talk to Aikens according to TSN so they wouldn't have to wait until summer.

Newell Brown was recently interviewed. In his view, they had far too many lefties at the point. When they were tearing up the league on the PP two years ago, he could send out Salo, BXA and even Samuellson at the point (in addition to leftie-Ehrhoff) to give them a different look. He had the luxury of loading up the PP with Salo and Ehrhoff at the points, along with the Sedins and Kesler. Both of those defencemen are no longer around and Kesler was gone for most of the season.

Losing Malhotra on the PK along with Kesler for most of the year meant not being able to kill off the first 20-30 seconds of a PP following a defensive zone faceoff. 5-on-5, the real trouble was that after the Sedins, they really had no secondary scoring to speak of. None. So shut the Sedins down and you should be able to outscore the rest of the team. As for the $ locked up in the goaltending, who would have been available offensively to help? Vancouver didn't have the assets to trade even if they did have the cap space. Did you see what they had to give up just to get Roy for a venti dark roast?

In saying that, yes, I think GMMG has to be held responsible; the coaching staff can only do. At least Brown said as much without actually saying it. At the same time, if the head coach can't properly prepare his team for the playoffs, then THAT absolutely has to be addressed and has to be the priority. That, IMO, is why AV got canned - perhaps he was a little too comfortable with his players and vice versa.

Roy would definitely be a short, not a venti.

_________________
Thanks Chuck, E.L. and Harmy!

All fair points, but (1) realistically what kind of move can Gillis make to address that (short of not signing some replacement level RHD rather than Garrison, which would be dumb), particularly in a shortened season? A GM can't just unilaterally improve the club. He either has to find a GM who specifically wants to make a trade that, magically, works for both sides at that very moment (and no one was going to give up a quality RHD for, say, Ballard mid-season), or tinker with minor-league callups and play them in place of far better left-handed NHLers; and (2) none of this excuses the coaching staff for refusing to deploy Garrison on the first-unit power play, where he had success.


While this is not inaccurate, I also think it's exaggerated by the fanbase, because every team could use more secondary scoring, much like every team could use more size, skill, grit, etc. This is a league with an average of about 4-5 goals scored between both teams in a game. There just isn't that much secondary scoring to begin with. (A lot of us who have watched the League for a while still have older reference points in our head, thinking a 20-35-55 forward is a nice second-liner. Forgetting that in this league there are teams who don't even have that on their first line, let alone three of 'em on their second). If a team has a lot of it, it is almost certainly coming at the expense of "primary" scoring, because few NHL teams are scoring significantly more than the league average every game. It's the old 2-teams-60-minutes-and-one-puck dilemma. So let's imagine Kesler and Booth are healthy and the Canucks get adequate secondary scoring. It likely means a bit of a dip in the Sedins' offensive minutes, which means their totals drop, and fans just complain about that instead.

And you can't ignore the fact that Kesler (and Booth) are on the roster. That means cap space is allotted to them on the one hand, and their contracts on the other, so you can't really look at some long-term fix without sending one of your existing options packing. Not to mention the assets you would need to do that even if you could. In other words, it's impossible to build a team simply accepting the fact that key players are going to be injured for long stretches.


Again, this is largely true for all teams in every sport. Shut down their key guys, and your chances of winning increase considerably. (And in spite of the largely xenophobic views of Joe Radio Caller, the Sedins are among the top players in the league, so even in spite of the clear strategy to focus on them, you'll notice the Canucks won a lot more games than they lost in what was a pretty lackluster year). And the supporting cast are hardly objectively "bad", even if the elite teams have better options to choose from. A guy like Jannik Hansen was quite effective in his role this year and chipped in quite nicely offensively. If Vigneault had harnessed the very obvious chemistry between Schroeder and Raymond (or Roy and Higgins), they would have contributed more as well. If Kesler and Booth are around, the team obviously has way more to work with, but like I say, you can't just take their injuries in stride and expect them to make no difference.


And I don't think Gillis can exactly be blamed for that, either. The Canucks will have to be bad for a while to get considerably valuable assets (that's how Chicago, LA and Pittsburgh all did it -- Detroit the lone, famous exception), but even if he had a truck full of them, as you note, he needs a trading partner and an available piece. How many of those are really out there, especially in a shortened season where everyone is a contender "with one more piece"? The NHL is a zero-sum, closed competition. Everyone is thinking the same things. I'm not sure what Gillis would have been expected to conjure out of thin air, even if he had taken the first available offer for a goaltender.

Also, every deadline the fans whine about how "Gillis isn't doing enough", then every offseason we hear about how "we don't have any assets". You can't have it both ways, folks. Either he has to give up assets during the season, or he has to refrain from doing so.


Can someone point me to the exact point at which fans collectively changed their tune from "we got Derek Roy for a song" to "we overpaid for Derek Roy"? This distinctly happened one day, and it baffles me. The fact that he didn't score much doesn't change the reality of his market price. He was one of the most cheaply acquired "name players" in the deadline leadup. One prospect who was never going to crack the team, and a draft pick with something like a 20% chance of being an NHL regular at best. That is not a steep price in the world of NHL trades -- I'd do it every time unless my team had no picks left.

_________________

To lazy to rip apart the quotes but I'll say this.

Mostly agree with Jyrki on everything but:


1. Everyone seems to assume it was Luo that had to be traded, from everything we heard their were deals to be made for Schneider for fair value, players that would have been on the 2nd line or provided a RH dman.

2. I was down on Roy from minute one, because I thought he was too small for the playoffs. Gillis acknowledged in the post season presser that he feels the game has changed in the playoffs and that small and quick is not the way to go and yet this is who he gave up assets for. And btw Connauton tore it up for the Texas stars, ran the PP and let the team in points for the playoffs.

If the game is different in the playoffs why did Gillis go for Roy a player that seems to be opposite of what he feels is required for playoff success? Or did he only figure out after the loss to the Sharks that the nature of the game is changed if so he really should be looking for a new job? Too me the logical inconsistency is really disturbing and makes me wonder if he is the man for the job.

_________________
Shoresy, "It's called a sweater"

Maybe so (I definitely didn't hear this, for the record), but the bridge had been burned. Even if there were rich returns to be had for Schneider (I am skeptical of this, as I have voiced before. There are like 100 good goaltenders out there these days and increasingly they're coming out of nowhere), keeping Luongo around would have been a double-cross to him. The guy wants to move on (more because of his family than anything, I think).

And in-season, I just can't conceive of a team that specifically wanted a goaltending upgrade for a playoff run (already rare), and is willing to part with core pieces to get it (even rarer). I imagine you were talking about the 2012 offseason, but even if the lockout didn't screw up the timelines, I'm still not convinced the market was that hot. The fact that Jonathan Bernier hasn't been moved yet is telling, I think.


He clearly wanted Clowe too... if I player is good, I think you go after him if you can get him. (And I'll take "quick" any day of the week! No one wants to get slower.) Trying too hard to fit into a specific mold is what they did in 2012 where they shoehorned Samme Påhlsson into the lineup at the expense of offense. When the talent is good enough, you don't have to be a team of cavemen to win. Just like the opposite.


He still was never going to make the Canucks, though, particularly with Vigneault around, I think. (It would be funny if, as rumored, Vigneault is the next Stars coach and he gets called up, though). It's great for him that he was so productive after the trade, but he was not a prospect who was generating excitement league-wide or anything. That could also be an impugnment of the Chicago Wolves' system, in hindsight.

_________________

A couple separate issues here. Roy had a rep of being a regular season hero and playoff no show. It's harder for the little guys to find the space in playoffs to work with as they can't just bull there way through like larger players are able to. Some find a way to make it work, others don't. So size imo is a bit more of an advantage in the playoffs than it is in the regular season as the game is called differently.

Having said that I would agree with you that skill is much more important, Detroit, Chicago, Pens show that. My point was more directed to MG making excuses because the playoffs are called differently therefore you have to be bigger. If so why did he get Roy?

And yes there is a whole question about player development. If Connauton continues to flourish elsewhere it'll be a pretty strong indictment of the organizational development which is all on Gillis as he claimed when he arrived that development would be the focus.

_________________
Shoresy, "It's called a sweater"

Gillis has his job on the line next year no doubt, just like Av did this year. I hate the what could have been argument, does anyone think Neely would have performed that way for Van or Naslund for the Pens, or Ronning who was a forth line centre for the blues and power play specialist? Change is often just what the player needs. I was sad to see Connaughton go cause on one of my trips back I saw him in ONE game for the giants and he had a blinder but he isn't even playing in the NHL yet.

Part of GMMG's strategy in fact is looking for exactly that kind of player isn't it? Find someone who will perform better on your team based on the way they are dealing with them or his past performance and take the risk. As for dealing for Roy are you happier if we do nothing? He had to do something no? I don't think Roy was his initial target but he was what we managed to get. I agree we could have gotten more for Schneids but I wouldn't have been happy with that trade unless it did get us a cup, I can't get over the boston games in the SCF and deep down I don't think this team could either and you can't win it all if you don't really believe in your goaltender. Priority one is getting a deal for Lou even if it's for a bag of pucks, and I don't blame Gillis for that as I think there was a deal done but Lou thought he should have more options at the time so without having to officially veto it he did and then got pissed when we couldn't find something else. Pretty sure he'll take what he can get now if it means a good shot at a starting role.

We'll see what GMMG can do for this year as I think it's his last without a strong performance in the playoffs next year and for that matter if he can't get fans excited about the coming year he might not even see the end of it.

Apparently (don't have links for this info) the Canucks have interviewed John Stevens, John Tortorella, and Joe Sacco. Kinda surprised on that third one.

Hey, give Gillis credit for leaving no stone unturned.

Jacques Martin's in the mix too. Things worked out well the last time the Nucks brought in a Habs castoff.

_________________

Shocked his name didn't come up sooner.

Gillis is definitely engaging in a legit coaching search. Kinda neat to see what one actually looks like.

We had our first one in decades last year.

_________________
Injustice? Cobain died and Eddy Fucking Vedder lived to haunt us with his shitty fucking voice, trite lyrics and his Eddy Vedderness.



- Ancient Chinese Proverb

Strange, then, that they ended up going with a recycle.

Forgot that Eakins was the player acquired by the Canucks at the deadline many moons ago whose announcement J21 had a little fun with at the time.

It'd be awesome if Vancouver had gotten him and put up the headline "CANUCKS GET COACH WITH EAKINS."

Was Vigneault a big pusher of shot blocking? If so Slats hiring him REALLY makes no sense.

I don't recall the Canucks blocking a lot of shots though.

No, he wasn't. I don't think it was a systematic thing, but when you have fragile players and a goalie that likes a lot of action, it's not really a good idea.

_________________