According to some Canuck fans how can you can a coach that has two PT in three years and a cup final?
- VANTEL

Well yes, I said that last season. Again, I've never been an AV fan, but I said it right after the series was over that AV would not be fired last year and many here
disagreed and thought he was on the hot seat.



However, this year I expect the entire coaching staff to be canned.

I believe he's already met with ownership last week so assuming that ownership has given Gillis the green light to continue, the next logical step in the process would be to evaluate the coaching staff and I'm guessing that Gillis already has a pretty good evaluation in his mind after watching all the games this year.
- Nucker101

Aquillini can be non too pleased. How many more years will he be on the hook for and how much money for AV and the staff?

Aquillini can be non too pleased. How many more years will he be on the hook for and how much money for AV and the staff?
- VANTEL

Good point, firing AV and potentially having to buyout at least one player(Ballard), and maybe two(Booth) isn't going to sit well with any owner. I don't care how rich or competitive you are, nobody likes paying people to stop working for them. That's exactly why think Gillis is really on the hot seat next season, he can't afford another letdown season or another awful contract.


Interesting that reports have surfaced the last few months that Aquilini himself wanted the Luongo contract to be structured that way, if that's true then I guess Gillis gets less blame for that one.

Good point, firing AV and potentially having to buyout at least one player(Ballard), and maybe two(Booth) isn't going to sit well with any owner. I don't care how rich or competitive you are, nobody likes paying people to stop working for them. That's exactly why think Gillis is really on the hot seat next season, he can't afford another letdown season or another awful contract.


Interesting that reports have surfaced the last few months that Aquilini himself wanted the Luongo contract to be structured that way, if that's true then I guess Gillis gets less blame for that one.
- Nucker101

I heard that too FA wanted Lu long term, so Gillis gets a by on that. Booth they are keeping and Ballard will be traded. The Canucks will take on a prospect from another team with a bad contract and buy them out instead.

Don't be surprised if booth goalies are gone ( according to the rumour mill)

Good point, firing AV and potentially having to buyout at least one player(Ballard), and maybe two(Booth) isn't going to sit well with any owner. I don't care how rich or competitive you are, nobody likes paying people to stop working for them. That's exactly why think Gillis is really on the hot seat next season, he can't afford another letdown season or another awful contract.

Interesting that reports have surfaced the last few months that Aquilini himself wanted the Luongo contract to be structured that way, if that's true then I guess Gillis gets less blame for that one.
- Nucker101

Something I find in hockey is that the sport (and I suppose many sports) is almost always reactive in their decision making rather than proactive. A goalie that looks shaky making saves or moving side to side won't ever get pulled until he's let in at least 2 goals but more generally 3 or 4, when the game's already out of reach. Yet often you can tell he's in trouble before those goals ever go in.

With management, either Coach or GM, it's almost like there needs to be a prolonged spell of failure before the decision to sack someone can be viewed as understandable. A bit more insight, intuition, or just gut feel on the direction a team is taking should be taken when making so many of these decisions. McPhee still the GM at WSH, Howson the GM for years longer than he should have been at CLS, Shero still the GM at COL.

Does Gillis need to fail for several more seasons before it's seen as acceptable to replace him or might this be seen as a crossroads for our team that requires a new vision from behind the GM bench?

I heard that too FA wanted Lu long term, so Gillis gets a by on that. Booth they are keeping and Ballard will be traded. The Canucks will take on a prospect from another team with a bad contract and buy them out instead.

Don't be surprised if booth goalies are gone ( according to the rumour mill)
- VANTEL

I don't think Ballard has any trade value whatsoever, even on a cross buyout and trade. He was a healthy scratch for too many important games that I'm not sure how any scout could even remember Ballard's qualities.

Re the goalies, trading both would be (frank)ing hilarious given the constant media circus over the past 2 years. I would also pity the next G that comes to town.

Something I find in hockey is that the sport (and I suppose many sports) is almost always reactive in their decision making rather than proactive. A goalie that looks shaky making saves or moving side to side won't ever get pulled until he's let in at least 2 goals but more generally 3 or 4, when the game's already out of reach. Yet often you can tell he's in trouble before those goals ever go in.

With management, either Coach or GM, it's almost like there needs to be a prolonged spell of failure before the decision to sack someone can be viewed as understandable. A bit more insight, intuition, or just gut feel on the direction a team is taking should be taken when making so many of these decisions. McPhee still the GM at WSH, Howson the GM for years longer than he should have been at CLS, Shero still the GM at COL.

Does Gillis need to fail for several more seasons before it's seen as acceptable to replace him or might this be seen as a crossroads for our team that requires a new vision from behind the GM bench?
- AlexF

I seen somewhere that Canucks make about 25 Mil a year in profit. Times that by 5 years FA has made 125 approx with Gillis at the helm. He has the predidents trophy times two and made the playoffs every year and ended up top in our division.

I think FA is still quite happy with Gillis. Take away the Lu contract seeing that may be FA himself pushing for it. Ballard was a bad deal and I hear the Canucks still have a lot of hope with Booth as a top 6 forward ,so it just comes down to Ballard.

Ballard will be traded for a late pick or packaged, 4.2 for 2 years is not bad seeing some of the UFA signings over the last years. In fact Ballard may still be on the team as a #6 now that AV will go.

I hear a lot of rumbling in the media that Canucks will take on other bad deals with prospects and buy them out instead.

Vancouver sends Schneider Edler Higgins to TB for 2nd over all and Lindback
Vancouver sends Lu Ballard to NYI for Nino and Rocky (Buy out Rocky 24 mil buried in ticket price increase)

Pick up Mike Smith UFA
Draft Mckinnon
Add Nino
Pick up UFA Dman #6 spot.

Sedin Sedin Nino
Burrows MacKinnon Kesler
Booth Schroeder Hansen
Archibald Lain/Lapierre Kassian
Sestito

Hamhuis Bieksa
Garrison Tanev
? Corrado

Smith
Lindback
- VANTEL

According to some Canuck fans how can you can a coach that has two PT in three years and a cup final?
- VANTEL

That has to be one of the 'pros' on their pros/cons list.
I want him gone as much as anyone but as a business person do you consider his achievements when deciding AVs fate or focus solely on his playoff failures?

Aquillini can be non too pleased. How many more years will he be on the hook for and how much money for AV and the staff?
- VANTEL

The Aquillini's are more than happy to talk canucks when out in public. Surprising actually. There's a great story about them partying down in San Jose with fans during our cup final run.
They know exactly what the general public thinks. They have to protect their investment. Hell, they are banking on the nuck's success to drive that condo development they are wrapping around Roger's Arena.

They'll do something to show fans they mean business and nothing less than a cup will be excepted. It's just good business.

That has to be one of the 'pros' on their pros/cons list.
I want him gone as much as anyone but as a business person do you consider his achievements when deciding AVs fate or focus solely on his playoff failures?
- bloatedmosquito

I don't take any of the achievements to mind when deciding his fate, it's about the future and that future is about change, so firing AV is the first change to get to that future.

That has to be one of the 'pros' on their pros/cons list.
I want him gone as much as anyone but as a business person do you consider his achievements when deciding AVs fate or focus solely on his playoff failures?
- bloatedmosquito

I too will be glad to see him gone but if he was to stay, then ownership has strong reason to show he earned it.

I don't take any of the achievements to mind when deciding his fate, it's about the future and that future is about change, so firing AV is the first change to get to that future.
- A_SteamingLombardi

I agree you don't dismantle a team for a coach who has lost he room because of past achievements. He is a good coach that I am sure other teams would love to have. He has developed many good young players but he has also destroyed many that have gone on to be great elsewhere. That being said I don't like AV haven't since the team missed the playoffs last. I never bought into the whole back pass in the neutral zone and defensive zone it slows play it reminds me of the game when they called the 2 line pass and they had to do sh!t like that. This team has speed and its not utilized enough. We need a coach that can adapt better to the changes during a game. (sigh)I am rambling. Needless to say this team would benefit from a fresh face in the locker room. IMO you don't dismantle good team when a fresh coaching vision and system can change the team dynamic easier than making a bunch of deals that can potentially hurt you more than benefit you.

I agree you don't dismantle a team for a coach who has lost he room because of past achievements. He is a good coach that I am sure other teams would love to have. He has developed many good young players but he has also destroyed many that have gone on to be great elsewhere. That being said I don't like AV haven't since the team missed the playoffs last. I never bought into the whole back pass in the neutral zone and defensive zone it slows play it reminds me of the game when they called the 2 line pass and they had to do sh!t like that. This team has speed and its not utilized enough. We need a coach that can adapt better to the changes during a game. (sigh)I am rambling. Needless to say this team would benefit from a fresh face in the locker room. IMO you don't dismantle good team when a fresh coaching vision and system can change the team dynamic easier than making a bunch of deals that can potentially hurt you more than benefit you.
- thundachunk

That has bugged me for some time. You see other coaches make those adjustments right on the bench, Sutter comes to mind last year with LA. AV doesn't coach from the bench, maybe at practice or in the room but you have to make those adjustments during the period not after.

That has bugged me for some time. You see other coaches make those adjustments right on the bench, Sutter comes to mind last year with LA. AV doesn't coach from the bench, maybe at practice or in the room but you have to make those adjustments during the period not after.
- A_SteamingLombardi

Both your and Thunders posts are 100% correct

That has bugged me for some time. You see other coaches make those adjustments right on the bench, Sutter comes to mind last year with LA. AV doesn't coach from the bench, maybe at practice or in the room but you have to make those adjustments during the period not after.
- A_SteamingLombardi

I have been behind the bench on a few occasions and just watched the coaching staff AV never really talks to the players during the game he is alway holding that Fing note pad and the only time I saw him write on it was when one of his players makes a mistake or going into the shootout. No adjustments are being made I assure you. They are made after a bad period when he talks to everyone and makes the changes after its to late. He see's what needs to be done but is not acting on it until its to late. How many games have we lost after 20mins of bad hockey during AV's reign?

I agree you don't dismantle a team for a coach who has lost he room because of past achievements. He is a good coach that I am sure other teams would love to have. He has developed many good young players but he has also destroyed many that have gone on to be great elsewhere. That being said I don't like AV haven't since the team missed the playoffs last. I never bought into the whole back pass in the neutral zone and defensive zone it slows play it reminds me of the game when they called the 2 line pass and they had to do sh!t like that. This team has speed and its not utilized enough. We need a coach that can adapt better to the changes during a game. (sigh)I am rambling. Needless to say this team would benefit from a fresh face in the locker room. IMO you don't dismantle good team when a fresh coaching vision and system can change the team dynamic easier than making a bunch of deals that can potentially hurt you more than benefit you.
- thundachunk

Completely agree that the team shouldn't be "dismantled" but I do think more personnel changes are required than just behind the bench.

Watching SJ play, the thing that has stood out the most for me is that, unlike previous years, they now have 2 solid offensive lines being rolled out with Couture's line as the #1. This has allowed the Thornton-Marleau line to act in support against the second best defensive pairings and they've flourished from it. I'd like to see what we can do to bring in a new, young #1 C to get the Sedins playing as 2nd liners and terrorizing opponents. We're still a 1 line team, no amount of coaching can change that right now.

Completely agree that the team shouldn't be "dismantled" but I do think more personnel changes are required than just behind the bench.

Watching SJ play, the thing that has stood out the most for me is that, unlike previous years, they now have 2 solid offensive lines being rolled out with Couture's line as the #1. This has allowed the Thornton-Marleau line to act in support against the second best defensive pairings and they've flourished from it. I'd like to see what we can do to bring in a new, young #1 C to get the Sedins playing as 2nd liners and terrorizing opponents. We're still a 1 line team, no amount of coaching can change that right now.
- AlexF

I disagree . I don't mean it should be dismantled totally but major changes need to be made.

We seen last time with the WCE line and core ,they changes the coach and left the core in tact with the warning if you lose next year we make big changes. This is not a winning lineup. Change the coach and make a change to at least two core players.

I disagree . I don't mean it should be dismantled totally but major changes need to be made.

We seen last time with the WCE line and core ,they changes the coach and left the core in tact with the warning if you lose next year we make big changes. This is not a winning lineup. Change the coach and make a change to at least two core players.
- VANTEL

I can accept that.

Completely agree that the team shouldn't be "dismantled" but I do think more personnel changes are required than just behind the bench.

Watching SJ play, the thing that has stood out the most for me is that, unlike previous years, they now have 2 solid offensive lines being rolled out with Couture's line as the #1. This has allowed the Thornton-Marleau line to act in support against the second best defensive pairings and they've flourished from it. I'd like to see what we can do to bring in a new, young #1 C to get the Sedins playing as 2nd liners and terrorizing opponents. We're still a 1 line team, no amount of coaching can change that right now.
- AlexF

I think you get the same result with a legit 2nd line.

As long as the opposing team has more than one line to worry about shutting down, it makes the top two lines more effective.

Canucks will have a hard enough time getting another legit 2nd liner, so I doubt a number 1 C is going to be any easier to acquire.

I think you get the same result with a legit 2nd line.

As long as the opposing team has more than one line to worry about shutting down, it makes the top two lines more effective.

Canucks will have a hard enough time getting another legit 2nd liner, so I doubt a number 1 C is going to be any easier to acquire.
- Fosco

Calling a line 1 or 2 is just a name .I think we all agree we need two top scoring lines a shut down line and a tough 4 th line.

Calling a line 1 or 2 is just a name .I think we all agree we need two top scoring lines a shut down line and a tough 4 th line.
- VANTEL

Just going by what Alex called it.

I just don't think that the Canucks can acquire the calibre of player (AlexF proposed a 1C) that makes the Sedin line the second most dangerous offensive line on that team.

The Sedin line will be the highest producing line on the Canucks, whatever you want to call it, until they retire.

EDIT: I'd like to see the 4th line also become the "shut down" line. A third line of Hansen Schroeder Higgins may not be what I'd call a "shut down" line, but it's a line that is still very good defensively, and can also score.

It would be nice to have a 4th line of decent sized players who can bang bodies but also contain the other team's offensive threats.

I disagree . I don't mean it should be dismantled totally but major changes need to be made.

We seen last time with the WCE line and core ,they changes the coach and left the core in tact with the warning if you lose next year we make big changes. This is not a winning lineup. Change the coach and make a change to at least two core players.
- VANTEL

Isn't that what I said? I'm not sure how else anyone expects to get a new #1 C without trading some of the core.

Just going by what Alex called it.

I just don't think that the Canucks can acquire the calibre of player (AlexF proposed a 1C) that makes the Sedin line the second most dangerous offensive line on that team.

The Sedin line will be the highest producing line on the Canucks, whatever you want to call it, until they retire.

EDIT: I'd like to see the 4th line also become the "shut down" line. A third line of Hansen Schroeder Higgins may not be what I'd call a "shut down" line, but it's a line that is still very good defensively, and can also score.

It would be nice to have a 4th line of decent sized players who can bang bodies but also contain the other team's offensive threats.
- Fosco

Let assume that the forwards won't be moved that leave one or two quality D men I think we can acquire the #1 or 2 top line player that we need. Defence is a sellers market. The only D I don't want moved is Hamhuis. Lets make a deal.

Let assume that the forwards won't be moved that leave one or two quality D men I think we can acquire the #1 or 2 top line player that we need. Defence is a sellers market. The only D I don't want moved is Hamhuis. Lets make a deal.
- thundachunk

Maybe my idea of a "top line player" is different.

IMO, the Canucks only have two "top line players." Burrows becomes one by association, but isn't without the Sedins.

The Canucks need one or two more top6 players. They have 4 right now.

I agree, D is definitely a sellers market; however, the only position that is more of a sellers market is top line C.

I don't think any expendable asset the Canucks currently have could acquire a proven 1C. Maybe a younger guy with that type of ceiling, like Schenn.