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

I'm not advocating for Torts, but you're comparing the coaching style and structure he brought to the Rangers, while the Canucks are much closer to the Lightning team he coached.

Everyone thinks Torts would compromise the Sedins effectiveness. AV was a very hands off coach. Why don't people think the Sedins could be effective under a coach who attempts to actually motivate? Maybe a little motivation would actually help them, and not hinder them.

Whoever the Canucks bring in, they need to do a better job of motivating the players and they need to be tougher on the players than AV was. Country club's over.

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.
- fiveandagame

SWOT analysis

I'm not advocating for Torts, but you're comparing the coaching style and structure he brought to the Rangers, while the Canucks are much closer to the Lightning team he coached.

Everyone thinks Torts would compromise the Sedins effectiveness. AV was a very hands off coach. Why don't people think the Sedins could be effective under a coach who attempts to actually motivate? Maybe a little motivation would actually help them, and not hinder them.

Whoever the Canucks bring in, they need to do a better job of motivating the players and they need to be tougher on the players than AV was. Country club's over.
- KB3Point0

Another fair point. And it is true that Torts' coaching style was much different with the Lightning than it was with the Rangers. I am not entirely sure why he changed so drastically but he had success with the Rangers and seems to have been committed to that style. It would be odd to see him pull another 180 and go back to the style he used in his formative years. I agree that if he were to do that he would be a much better fit for the Canucks than I currently view him as. But that said, if the Canucks hire him I would assume they'd be doing so in part on the basis of his success in NY. Why then would they hire him hoping he would change that style so drastically?

I just think Torts is, now, what he is and there are better fits out there for Vancouver. Again, John Stevens in my opinion is a much better fit. This Vancouver team could be very effective playing the type of style Stevens used in Philly.

Martin

Another fair point. And it is true that Torts' coaching style was much different with the Lightning than it was with the Rangers. I am not entirely sure why he changed so drastically but he had success with the Rangers and seems to have been committed to that style. It would be odd to see him pull another 180 and go back to the style he used in his formative years. I agree that if he were to do that he would be a much better fit for the Canucks than I currently view him as. But that said, if the Canucks hire him I would assume they'd be doing so in part on the basis of his success in NY. Why then would they hire him hoping he would change that style so drastically?

I just think Torts is, now, what he is and there are better fits out there for Vancouver. Again, John Stevens in my opinion is a much better fit. This Vancouver team could be very effective playing the type of style Stevens used in Philly.
- TheGreatNumber8

I agree. I don't think he's the best fit and I hope they pick someone else (like Stevens). But if they do go with him I think it'll be because he has shown flexibility in the past, not because of how he got his Rangers team to play. Gillis loathed the style the Rangers played. He said if everyone played that way it should be called goalie instead of hockey!

I still don't think there's any way he gets the job, but there's just that remote possibility that will claw at us until someone does!

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.
- fiveandagame

THIS.

SWOT analysis
- Phratz

Nice reference.

I don't think I could handle Tortorella... Reminds me of when we brought in Keenan to crack the whip... Won't end well.

My top 4:

1. Davis Payne
2. Glen Gulutzan
3. Willie Desjardins
4. Guy Boucher

No Stevens, no Torts, no Martin.

For the love of God (or whatever deity you worship), DO NOT HIRE JACQUES MARTIN!!!!!

I'm sure he's a nice guy and all, but he shouldn't be let anywhere near a head coaching job in the NHL. BORING doesn't even begin to define his hockey "strategy".

I don't think I could handle Tortorella... Reminds me of when we brought in Keenan to crack the whip... Won't end well.

My top 4:

1. Davis Payne
2. Glen Gulutzan
3. Willie Desjardins
4. Guy Boucher

No Stevens, no Torts, no Martin.
- DrChristianTroy

I'd be pleased with any of your four.

My top 5:


1. Dave Tippett(if available)
2. Glen Gulutzan
3. Guy Boucher
4. Willie Desjardins
5. Brent Sutter

Bylsma gets an extension!!

I don't think I could handle Tortorella... Reminds me of when we brought in Keenan to crack the whip... Won't end well.

My top 4:

1. Davis Payne
2. Glen Gulutzan
3. Willie Desjardins
4. Guy Boucher

No Stevens, no Torts, no Martin.
- DrChristianTroy

Sounds like a pro wrestler. I like it.

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.
- fiveandagame

He may also be soliciting opinions on other candidates as part of his due diligence. Martin, for example, has been around the league a long time and may have useful information. Or, it's possible that Martin actually initiated the contact and Gillis politely said thanks but no thanks.

My top 5:


1. Dave Tippett(if available)
2. Glen Gulutzan
3. Guy Boucher
4. Willie Desjardins
5. Brent Sutter
- Nucker101

Unfortunately I haven't heard anything out of Vancouver indicating that Gillis has any interest. Not that I'm qualified to make any decisions, but my feeling (at this point) is that the Canucks need a motivator and someone willing to work with young players. Boucher is exactly that.

Unfortunately I haven't heard anything out of Vancouver indicating that Gillis has any interest. Not that I'm qualified to make any decisions, but my feeling (at this point) is that the Canucks need a motivator and someone willing to work with young players. Boucher is exactly that.
- Michael_Stuart

Cause the Canucks have so many young players?

Please sign Torts. Even bigger reason to hate the Nucks.

Please sign Torts. Even bigger reason to hate the Nucks.

Please sign Torts. Even bigger reason to hate the Nucks.
- Smurfs-A-Joke

awe, we like the CAPS...........shucks, no reason to Hate Ovie.....

Cause the Canucks have so many young players?
- KB3Point0

Because of Gillis's post-season comments, and the fact that in today's cap era teams really don't have that much of a choice. Young players have to play a role on most, if not all, contending rosters.

My top 5:


1. Dave Tippett(if available)
2. Glen Gulutzan
3. Guy Boucher
4. Willie Desjardins
5. Brent Sutter
- Nucker101

Kind of like Torts, the biggest concern I have with Tippett is will he try to coach the Canucks as he did in PHX or DAL? If the later, he could be great. If the former, I'll get the best sleep of my life for the years he is here.

everyone check out picks 1-10 in the mock draft we did at HB?

http://www.hockeybuzz.com...-I-Picks-1---10/160/52069

I don't think I could handle Tortorella... Reminds me of when we brought in Keenan to crack the whip... Won't end well.

My top 4:

1. Davis Payne
2. Glen Gulutzan
3. Willie Desjardins
4. Guy Boucher

No Stevens, no Torts, no Martin.
- DrChristianTroy

Boy that's not exactly a list that jumps out at you. I realize MG has to work with what's available but compared to something like:

1. Mike Babcock
2. Paul Maclean
etc

it's tough to raise my hopes on any of those 4 candidates. As Bloated Mosquito said yesterday, why do I get the feeling we'll all be disappointed?

awe, we like the CAPS...........shucks, no reason to Hate Ovie.....
- Canuckfan2006

True. It is kinda sad how everyone in Canada cheered against the Canucks vs Boston. It's because of the way they dive and employ players like Burrows. Not easy to see why you are hated. You can hate Ovie all you want lol He's better than anyone in the history the canucks have got. Enough said.

everyone check out picks 1-10 in the mock draft we did at HB?

http://www.hockeybuzz.com...-I-Picks-1---10/160/52069
- IanEsplen

Can you do the rest of the first round too?