MG also has interviews set up with Keenan, Crawford, Rick Ley, Tom Renney and Pat Quinn.
- immature_male

u forgot Howie meeker too

Those hoping for Bylsma start looking elsewhere.

http://www.sportsnet.ca/h...mas-job-safe-after-sweep/

I think both are poor fits for the Canucks. Martin for the reason you stated. Torts because the Van roster does not really strike me as the type that fits what Torts wants to do. Torts proved that his current coaching style (which to my eyes is very different than the style he employed to win a Cup in TB) works best with a roster full of youngish, scrappy players like he had with NY last season (i.e., guys like Callahan, Dubinsky, Mcdonagh, Girardi who are young, tough, and still looking to prove themselves). That type of roster responds well to Torts' energy and insistence on throwing yourself at every single shot no matter the situation. But look what happened when NY remade its roster and brought in more highly skilled, established veterans like Gaborik, Nash, and Richards. Two of those guys (Gabby and Richards) didn't buy in fully and were shipped out and benched respectively.

To my eyes, the Vancouver roster looks a lot more like the Rangers roster Torts failed with than the one he succeeded with. Not to say guys like Bieksa, Edler, Hamhuis, Burrows aren't tough, high energy players who would block shots and give themselves up in a Torts' type system. They would. But I don't really see how the Sedins (Vancouver's most important players by far) or Kesler or Garrison or Roy or other guys the Canucks have brought in recently would fit in.

To me, John Stevens remains the best fit for Vancouver.

At the end of the day it is probably killing MG that he will be forced to make some kind of decision. He will wait until the bottom of the 9th on this.

imagine Torts vs neil Mcrae...no arguing, just fista cuffs...galore!

Torts is the kind of coach who doesn't play you because of the name on your jersey. He plays you based on what you show him on the ice. Unfortunately, this usually means scoring 1-2 goals a game with your best offensive players sitting on the bench or in the press-box. Martin is a horrible coach. He's an even worse GM. He is one of the reasons Florida was scraping the bottom of the NHL standings for so long, and we are still recovering from his crap. Once Weiss goes elsewhere.. and he will be going elsewhere.. that, to me, officially brings in the Tallon era.

I keep checking my emails & Skype to see if Gillis has contacted me yet.
- Marwood

He's been busy, you're on next weeks contact list, keep checking.

Bring Tortes, I, for one, am tired of the medocrity that surrounds this 46 year cupless franchise. WE NEED SOME FIRE!

Bring Tortes, I, for one, am tired of the medocrity that surrounds this 46 year cupless franchise. WE NEED SOME FIRE!
- VancouverMax

I agree, but as pointed out, the Sedins and Edler will be Brad Richard`ed and Schnider wont start again with Torts behind the bench.

- 1970vintage

I remember waiting after a game for autographs at the gate where the players drive out during Ley's first year as coach—they were all driving luxury and sports cars, and Ley drove out in a yellow 1982 Honda Civic. Even then I found it funny as poop for some reason...

BTW, nice recommendation on the beer. Picked up some of that Whistler Brewing Company grapefruit ale (think that's the brand you mentioned). Great stuff

I agree, but as pointed out, the Sedins and Edler will be Brad Richard`ed and Schnider wont start again with Torts behind the bench.
- Jimmy_wiener

Why would Schneider not start?

Did he bench Lundqvist a lot in his tenure with NYR?

Why would Schneider not start?

Did he bench Lundqvist a lot in his tenure with NYR?
- Fosco

Because Louongo is Clearly a better goalie *Runs Away*

So...the list of coaches we don't want is building....who does everyone want?

Neither, obviously! Davis Payne, John Stevens or my personal favorite of Glen Gulutzan.

Because Louongo is Clearly a better goalie *Runs Away*
- Jimmy_wiener

Debatable.

But Luongo will have been waived or traded before then, so.....

I think both are poor fits for the Canucks. Martin for the reason you stated. Torts because the Van roster does not really strike me as the type that fits what Torts wants to do. Torts proved that his current coaching style (which to my eyes is very different than the style he employed to win a Cup in TB) works best with a roster full of youngish, scrappy players like he had with NY last season (i.e., guys like Callahan, Dubinsky, Mcdonagh, Girardi who are young, tough, and still looking to prove themselves). That type of roster responds well to Torts' energy and insistence on throwing yourself at every single shot no matter the situation. But look what happened when NY remade its roster and brought in more highly skilled, established veterans like Gaborik, Nash, and Richards. Two of those guys (Gabby and Richards) didn't buy in fully and were shipped out and benched respectively.

To my eyes, the Vancouver roster looks a lot more like the Rangers roster Torts failed with than the one he succeeded with. Not to say guys like Bieksa, Edler, Hamhuis, Burrows aren't tough, high energy players who would block shots and give themselves up in a Torts' type system. They would. But I don't really see how the Sedins (Vancouver's most important players by far) or Kesler or Garrison or Roy or other guys the Canucks have brought in recently would fit in.

To me, John Stevens remains the best fit for Vancouver.
- TheGreatNumber8

What you keyed in on is that Torts can adapt to his team. Richards has been an absolute favourite of Torts for years. It wasn't that he didn't "buy in" so much as that he "got old." He was benched because he was just horrible, he wasn't benched because he didn't play the system.

How would Kesler and Garrison not fit in??? Kesler would instantly become Torts' favourite. He plays hard every night, works hard at both ends of the rink, blocks shots (how do you think he broke his foot this year?) hits, sacrifices his body, and scores.

Roy??? Seriously??? Hasn't someone driven him to the airport yet???

He's been busy, you're on next weeks contact list, keep checking.
- 1970vintage

Good, I've been busy too so timing will be perfect. I'd like to bring in Messier as an assistant.

The thing about Torts as an entertainer is that he is at his best in news scrums when the team is losing so it's win-win. When the fans are treated with a poopty loss they are compensated with an awesome post game sound bite from Torts. Everyone is a winner!
- Jeropotato

If they hire Torts - he has to pick Ron Wilson and Mike Keenan as the assistants. I'd be a gong show but at least the conversations behind the bench and the post game interviews would be interesting.

I agree, but as pointed out, the Sedins and Edler will be Brad Richard`ed and Schnider wont start again with Torts behind the bench.
- Jimmy_wiener

How would the Sedins be Brad Richard'ed??? Your perception of the Sedins on the other side of the country is just wrong.

Torts is not the answer for the Canucks, how did he really do in NYR....fired!

..had Gaborik-traded......Richards -Benched....Torts wont do Van justice...

Torts is a coach who gets a few good years out of teams then is fired. Funny thing is Van only has 1 or 2 more good cracks at it, so why not...

He lights a fire under guys at first, Van needs that.

What you keyed in on is that Torts can adapt to his team. Richards has been an absolute favourite of Torts for years. It wasn't that he didn't "buy in" so much as that he "got old." He was benched because he was just horrible, he wasn't benched because he didn't play the system.

How would Kesler and Garrison not fit in??? Kesler would instantly become Torts' favourite. He plays hard every night, works hard at both ends of the rink, blocks shots (how do you think he broke his foot this year?) hits, sacrifices his body, and scores.

Roy??? Seriously??? Hasn't someone driven him to the airport yet???
- KB3Point0

Fair point about Kesler (who was one of my favorite players before he struggled with injuries these past 2 seasons). But I disagree about Richards and the way Torts handled him. Richards didn't get terrible overnight but Torts treated him that way and basically caused his slump to become permanent. Consider the opposite approach that Claude Julien takes with his players, often to a fault. In the Cup run in 2011 he stuck with Mark Recchi even though Recchi was FAR worse than Richards, and ultimately he was rewarded. Torts gave up on Richards because he was in a slump scoring-wise and because he didn't do any of the other things Torts demanded (e.g. shot blocking). He got in the dog house and couldn't get out even though Richards was a key cog for the Rangers offense (look what happened against Boston when they benched him!).

Notwithstanding that, though, do you think the Sedins are going to be some of Torts favorite or least favorite players? What will happen if one or both of them go into a points slump? The only "star" player who flourished under Torts during his tenure with the Rangers was Nash, and even then he didn't quite live up to expectations, especially in the playoffs. Meanwhile, Torts got the absolute most out of guys like Callahan, Dubinsky, Stepan, Girardi, Staal, and McDonagh. Would you say the Sedins fall more into the Gaborik/Nash/Richards category or the Callahan/Dubinsky/Stepan category?

The Sedins are the Canucks most important players by far. And Vancouver is in "win now" mode with the Sedins window closing. It would be, in my opinion, a mistake to bring in a coach that could compromise their effectiveness.

One of the things that I read (it might have even been on this board) that made a lot of sense is that Gillis is conducting all these interviews to get an outsider perspective on what this teams needs to become successful.

Gillis is basically interviewing an entire group of professional consultants at no cost to help him sort out this mess he has got himself into. I think he probably has a short list of 2-4 guys that he is seriously looking at. The rest are just giving Gillis an alternative perspective.

Fair point about Kesler (who was one of my favorite players before he struggled with injuries these past 2 seasons). But I disagree about Richards and the way Torts handled him. Richards didn't get terrible overnight but Torts treated him that way and basically caused his slump to become permanent. Consider the opposite approach that Claude Julien takes with his players, often to a fault. In the Cup run in 2011 he stuck with Mark Recchi even though Recchi was FAR worse than Richards, and ultimately he was rewarded. Torts gave up on Richards because he was in a slump scoring-wise and because he didn't do any of the other things Torts demanded (e.g. shot blocking). He got in the dog house and couldn't get out even though Richards was a key cog for the Rangers offense (look what happened against Boston when they benched him!).

Notwithstanding that, though, do you think the Sedins are going to be some of Torts favorite or least favorite players? What will happen if one or both of them go into a points slump? The only "star" player who flourished under Torts during his tenure with the Rangers was Nash, and even then he didn't quite live up to expectations, especially in the playoffs. Meanwhile, Torts got the absolute most out of guys like Callahan, Dubinsky, Stepan, Girardi, Staal, and McDonagh. Would you say the Sedins fall more into the Gaborik/Nash/Richards category or the Callahan/Dubinsky/Stepan category?

The Sedins are the Canucks most important players by far. And Vancouver is in "win now" mode with the Sedins window closing. It would be, in my opinion, a mistake to bring in a coach that could compromise their effectiveness.
- TheGreatNumber8

In all fairness to Torts, richards was in a season-long "slump"

In all fairness to Torts, richards was in a season-long "slump"
- Scoot22

Again, I totally disagree....

34 points in 46 games which projects to about 60 on the season which about exactly what he gave them the year before (66 points). Richards was +8, which was better than his previous season. And in 34 games he had almost as many blocked shots as the year before in 82 games (43 versus 49) and was shooting at almost an identical rate (110 versus 229).

Basically, Richards was giving the Rangers almost the identical season he gave them the year before when they finished 1st in the E Conference.