"All-Star" Game - January, 30th, 2012

Oh, the days when the All-Star game had any sort of meaning.  Remember when it used to be East vs. West?  Or North American born players vs. the world?  At least you had something to root for then, now, it's pretty well only for the host city.  It was great of Ottawa to be able to cheer on an entire line of Senators, especially for Alfredsson and what he has done for that city.

I guess every team has their players they can cheer for, but it doesn't really prove anything on the competitive side of it.  I understand it's for the fans, and it targets a younger demographic, but the All-Star break is pretty well a week of no hockey in the middle of the season...unacceptable.

I use the word "all-star" loosely as well, I mean, come on, Joffrey Lupul?  Pominville? Dennis Wideman?  I'd love to have Scott Hartnell on my team, he is one of my favorite players just because he is exactly what an all around hockey player should be, but I wouldn't think he is one of the best in the NHL.  Now, he's having a great season so far, but he was probably brought in more for his commentating abilities rather than his on-ice skills.

The All-Star Game is not exactly a place for defensemen to be at all.  The only talent they get to display is how good they are at giving away 3-on-1's and how they don't know how to take the man.  D-men shouldn't be there at all, but since they are, I'm sure there are better candidates than Dan Girardi.  Again, he's a great player, but All-Star? Nay nay.

The good ol' days - Campbell Conference vs Wales Conference

My vote is to go back to East vs. West or North America vs the world, just beacause it involves more people.  More people can cheer for a team, more cities might show more interest.  Otherwise, this whole 'players drafting players' schtick is going to get old in a hurry, then all you have left is a single city cheering on teams that nobody cares about in a game that even less people bother waking up for.

One great thing to see come out of that All-Star game was the demand for the Sedin's.  Everybody wanted to play with them, everybody talked about how it's not fair that they are on the same team.  When you hear players say stuff like that, to think that they would be the most desirable tandem to play with in the league, it makes you proud to a Canuck fan.

Tanev Gets Called Up || January, 20. 2012

With Chris Tanev being called up to replace Sami Salo, he's being paired with Edler (for now).  That either means that Coach AV has a ton of faith in this kid, or he is putting him with Edler so he can cover for Tanev IF he screws up.  From what we saw last year - especially in the playoffs - I think it's got more to do with the first one.

In the past, Tanev was paired with Ballard, and that's usually when Ballard played his best hockey.  Tanev is more of a calm, stay at home defencemen, which helps when you have Ballard run-and-gunning up the ice.  Now that Tanev is with Edler though, what's that mean for Ballard?  I think it's pretty apparent that Ballard and Alain Vigneault don't really get along, for whatever reason.  Now, instead of pairing the one player with Ballard that really boosts each persons skill set, he kind of leaves Ballard in the dust.

I think Ballard will be traded before the dead line, depending on how Tanev looks.  If Tanev plays decent, not even outstanding, but as long as he doesn't give the puck away and makes simple and smart plays, then I think Ballard will be gone sooner rather than later.  That's a lot of cap space to have only play 14-15 minutes per game.  I think Ballard is a great defencemen and will put up some impressive numbers, but not on Vancouver.  Wrong coach, wrong style of play.  A good fit for him might even be Chicago (as much as that hurts to say) but then we'd have to play him and I don't think that would be wise.

Tanev will play just fine, which is great for the future because he will essentially take Salo's spot when he retires.  If Ballard does end up getting traded, who should we get in return? A replacement D-man, or a forward? Or do we just put him on waivers and just shed the salary?  Now it's your turn to talk, let me know what you think.

Hopefully it was the perfect storm || January, 16, 2012

Well that was a disaster.  Coming off a pretty successful road trip, starting with the huge win over Boston, then back to back in the sunshine state, then another big win over the surprising St. Louis Blues, the team that showed up against Anaheim was a shadow of it's former self.  For true Canuck fans, you probably aren't worried, you could just write it off as one of those things that usually happen in sports, where the first game back after a long road trip is usually a stinker.  However, the Canucks are starting to set a very disheartening trend.  They seem to show up against the top teams in the league - like Detroit, Chicago, Boston, San Jose - but when it comes to the basement dwellers, they suck.

Think back a month, when Vancouver played Columbus, or when they played Carolina without Jeff Skinner.  Those are teams they should be beating, and Vancouver has gotten the reputation around these parts, of not showing up against teams that should be an easy win.  Some people say that there are no easy wins in the NHL, especially now with the salary cap kind of leveling the teams off a bit, but when you're an elite team like the Canucks...it's a different story.

There are easy wins in the NHL, maybe not physically easy, but talent wise you can't say that Columbus is even close to the talent level of the Vancouver Canucks.  Now, Anaheim, they are a different story.  Granted, they have been playing better lately under the new head coach, but so far this season they are a terrible team.  I don't know how they have been so bad, considering they have one of the scariest first lines in the NHL.  Ryan-Getzlaf-Perry could be one of the biggest and skilled lines in the league, but this year has not been treating them well.  Especially since Ryan Getzlaf has pretty well just coasted through every game this season, but they are a very talented team.

So, the question is, did the Canucks lose the game?  Or did the Ducks just beat them?  Well, considering Vancouver only had a handful of shots in the first half of the game, it's a safe bet that they just didn't really give a shit.  They're probably tired, the star players (Kesler, Sedins) could be a little frustrated about not producing like they're used to, but I think that it was just one of those things.  Look for Vancouver to turn it up a notch against the Kings this Tuesday.  If they lay another steamy pile of a game against L.A., then you can start to question the ethic of a team this talented.  Right now though, I don't think there is anything to worry about.

There are rats, then there's Brad Marchand... || January, 9th, 2012

We've seen him before and he is going to be one hell of a player.  A key part of him becoming that great player though, is surviving that long.  He is making too many enemies too quickly in this league.  Brad Marchand is becoming a player that others are forced to look out for, and not necessarily in a good way.  There is no doubt that he is going to put up some very impressive numbers, he's got the skills for it.  Everybody loves a player who can get under the opponents skin, but there is a line and Marchand has crossed it...several times. 

Most recently, Marchand under cut an oncoming Sami Salo, ducking underneath him and flipping him onto his head.  Now, in his defense, Salo has a long history of head hunting people and smashing them face first into the boards, so the Bruins "self defense" case is very valid.....

This isn't the first time Marchand had done this - take a look back in the Stanley Cup Finals, he did the exact same thing there.  He is a short guy, so it doesn't take much for him to get down and flip somebody, but he is doing this as a defense mechanism, not a hit along the boards or anything.  There is a difference between a hip check by a defenseman on someone coming down along the boards and seeing somebody come towards you and duck under them and take them out at the knees. 

Boston loves this kid, and why wouldn't you.  They love him for almost all the same reasons we love Burrows and Lapierre and Kesler, but the only difference is, those guys aren't putting people in dangerous positions.

Holiday Break || December, 28th, 2011

It's been a while, which means that there should be a lot to talk about, so let's get to it...

Well, they're winning.  Winning lots.  They should be winning though, especially against the lower teams in the standings, but when the Canucks lost to Carolina and Columbus - two of the worst teams in the league - it raised some eyebrows.  It was just a small blip in what has been a phenomenal run lately, but it should raise a couple alarms.

First, what was the reason for the loss?  They were basically gimme games, basically just had to show up and be awake and the Canucks should have beat Columbus, but the Blue Jackets took Vancouver to a shoot out which just happens to be their Achilles heel.  Then there was Carolina, and they just plain ol' out played the Canucks.  Was it because Vancouver underestimated them? Or something more?

Minnesota is suprising everybody this season

Secondly, and this won't matter in the playoffs, but the shoot out.  Unless Vancouver is going to finish every team in the first 60 minutes or in OT, they are going to have to improve on their shoot out tricks.  The Canucks have been notoriously mediocre at them, especially for a team that is among the elite in the league.  This may not seem like a big deal, but with Minnesota being a competitor this year (so far), winning their division is going to take all the extra points they can get.  Beating Minnesota could be the difference between first or second in the conference, to fifth or sixth.  It may come down to only a couple points.

It's a weird feeling, to be watching the Canucks with such confidence, even against other elite teams, but then as soon as OT ends, your heart sinks.  Do you think it's going to matter or will the Canucks pull far enough ahead of the Wild in their division?

Report Card || December, 11th, 2011

This season has already seen ups and downs...and ups..and downs.  So I figured it was a good time to give the Canucks my warranty approved evaluation on the majority of the players.  We'll start from the back end...

Goalie:   Luongo: B -  Lou did have a slow start - which is expected, not tolerated, expected - but he found his game right before that weird "upper body injury".  He has even started to pick up some pointers from the back up, as you slowly see Roberto's game evolve for the better.

Schneider: A - The "Ginger Jesus" has been nothing other than a god send this season so far.  When he was in the back up position, he excelled every time he started.  When he was a starter for that stretch of 6 or so games, he did even better.  Schneider would probably be a starting goaltender today on about 20 other teams in the NHL.

Defense:  Alberts: C+ - When he is a defenseman he does just fine, but that last showing as a forward wasn't the greatest.  That doesn't drop his score at all though, Alberts has been a very steady D-man for the Canucks this year, laying the body into everybody whenever he gets the chance and usually plays the simple plays out of his own end.  I am a HUGE Alberts fan simply because he does exactly as what is expected of him.

Rome:  B - Aahhh Aaron Rome.  What an interesting story you are.  This man is like a robot, never really shows emotion on the ice, just acquires targets - whether its the back of the net or an opponent - and hones in on them.  Other than injury, there isn't much negative to Rome's game.  The only problem is, there isn't much offensive upside either, despite scoring 3 goals in 3 games.  Hopefully that changes though, because in those games he looked very good.

Bieksa:  B - Bieksa is a little like Luongo, in the sense where he can be either extraordinarily great, or just plain ol' bad.  Usually, the bad doesn't show as much as Luongo's would because there is an extra defenseman to cover for him, where there isn't another goalie behind Luongo when he's in net.  Bieksa's physicality and meanness has only emerged recently, but he is most effective when those traits are prominent.  He was a plus 3000 last year for good reason, he should be among the leaders in +\- again this year.

Hamhuis:  A - He logs the most minutes, he is put in every key situation, and now he is showing an offensive side that wasn't there as much last season.  What more can you ask for from a player?  My only gripe, is that he isn't mean enough, but I guess that's why he's usually paired with Bieksa.

Ballard:  C+ - When he wants to be, he can go end to end and beat everybody down the ice.  He could start a rush and get a shot on net, then back check and be the first one back preventing an odd-man rush...when he wants to be.  I never understood why Ballard isn't the best offensive D-man on the roster, I thought that when Ehrhoff left Ballard would be the natural fit, apparently not.

Salo:  A - He's responsible defensively, he's smart, and boy howdy can he ever shoot the puck.  Plus, he only makes 2 million this year, which puts him under the "Bargain" category.  The Canucks are just a much better team when Sami is in the line up.

Edler:  A - Alex Edler picked up where he left off last season before he got hurt.  He was on a Norris trophy pace, but the injury to his back slowed him down.  This year, after all summer to recover, he looks just as dangerous.  He was touted as the next Lidstrom when he was drafted, which is ridiculous because defensemen are going to be winning Lidstrom trophies soon, but Edler is making a strong case for himself.  The plus side, he still has potential to grow.

Forwards:


Sedin's:  A+  - There isn't much you can fault the twins for, they are on a more than point per game pace, and they are the players that set the tempo of the game.  The only real complaint anyone could have is that they aren't "tough" enough, but it's hard to be tough when you have the puck all the time and you're putting up 100+ points a season.

Burrows: B - Took a while for him to find his scoring touch and still hasn't fully returned to his 35-goal form.  He may never get back to that high of a goal total, but he is a great two-way player and is always gives it 100%.  Could tone down the embellishment though, Burrows is probably 50% of the reason the hockey world see's the Canucks as 'divers'.

Kesler:  B - He plays best when he's angry - like we saw against Ottawa - but he isn't angry nearly enough.  Kesler seems to flourish when the Sedin's are being shut down, because the only way to shut down the Sedin's is to get under their skin, and Kesler doesn't like that much.  A big reason why he did so well against Nashville was because the Sedin's ate up all the big defencemen minutes.

Hodgson:  B - One of the more consistent forwards.  Coming into his own form now that he has capable line mates.  He has a great future in the NHL, hopefully the Canucks are able to keep him long term and not just showcase him for a possible trade.

Higgins:  B+  - He scores, he forechecks, and he doesn't complain ever.  Might be the hardest working player each game, Higgins is doing what the Canucks hoped he would do last season.  If Vancouver was able to get three 20-goal scorers on the second line, imagine the nightmare that creates for opposing coaches.

Raymond:  B+  - He hasn't been back long, but since returning from a very scary sounding injury, Mason Raymond has exceeded everybody's expectations.  Hopefully, he can keep this up, because you don't realize how much you've missed Raymond until you see him beat out an icing two or three times a night.

Booth:  B - Like every other Canuck, he had a slow start after getting used to a new team and a new part of the world.  In every way, Vancouver is different from Florida, and that is going to take some getting used to.  His knee injury - on a very dirty hit by Porter - is a tremendous loss because Booth was just starting to catch fire.

Hansen:  B+  - The Danish Army Knife, everybody saw his potential - comparing him to Kesler - but nobody believed that his hands would catch up to his feet.  Hansen has the foot speed, but only recently has he found the scoring finish to become a very good 2nd line player or an excellent 3rd line player.

Lapierre: B - Great forechecker and an even better agitator.  I'm not sure what he says during the games, but I know that if I was playing against him, I'd want to punch him in the face too.  He is the other 50% of the reason why the Canucks are seen as 'divers', so the head-snapping and embellishment has to be toned down, not all the way, just a little.

Weise:  C+  - Could chip in a little more offensively, but what more do you expect from a player who is on the fourth line with limited minutes?  After being brought in off waivers from New York, he has helped out Volpatti with the tough guy role.  Although, he hasn't really won too many fights.

Volpatti: B - Nobody knew what Vancouver had in Volpatti until he went down with season ending shoulder surgery.  He is a big guy who could fight and throw the body around.  Volpatti is really the only thing standing in between the Sedin's and the opponents tough guys.  It's going to be a challenge to find a replacement for him this season.

Malhotra: C - Not quite himself since having that eye surgery.  He was brought for his face off abilities and defensive prowess, but it's hard to justify having him as a centremen when he has lost his face off dominance.  He is slowly getting the timing back and hopefully that comes sooner rather than later because he is going to be seeing less and less minutes if he isn't able to be put into key situations.

Can you spell "toughness" without "Volpatti"? || December, 4, 2011

Aaron Volpatti

Now with Volpatti out for the rest of the season with shoulder surgery, where does that place the Canucks on the "toughness standings"?  Volpatti was Vancouver's only consistent 'tough guy', which should be concerning to those people who blamed the Stanley Cup Finals loss due to lack of toughness.  So what now?

Mike Gillis brought in Dale Weise and he has proven he can throw the body around and fight from time to time.  He has also been a great energy player and makes the most out of every second of ice time he gets, but he can't be the lone hitter on the team.  Lapierre has emerged as a forechecker extraordinaire and will lay into somebody once in a while, but his game has changed - or evolved - into more than someone who runs around with their head chopped off.  Without Volpatti, that dropped Vancouver's list of forwards who are willing to hit on a regular basis by about 25%.  Hansen is the only other forward who will really look for the hit, but it seems he is playing a different role too much of the time to be bothered with that.

Dale Weise

Now the Canucks have about 90% of their roster not looking to finish their checks.  You could argue that their philosophy should be "beat them on the power play", but that is a very dangerous thing to rely on.  Boston won the Stanley Cup because they had a little bit of everybody, and they all did their jobs.  Their fourth line got under our skin, the third line forechecked and shut down top players, their first and second lines scored.  That's exactly what has to be done.  You can't have 3 1/2 lines trying to play like top 6 players, there are roles on a team for a reason.  Sure, every line should help contribute offensively (in a perfect world), but their main goal should be to do what they got hired to do.  We didn't bring in Weise or Volpatti to try and light the lamp, they are there for energy and grit.  Now it's just Weise, and he can only do so much.

So now what?  Who do we bring up to try and strengthen the bottom six?  Right now, the Canucks are as physically intimidating as your grandmother on Christmas after a few too many 'eggnogs'.

Your turn to talk, what do you think the Canucks should do to bring in some toughness?