I admit. I was wrong. I said, "Mats Sundin will never be a Canuck" and here he is. I don't believe the hype that this is enough to get them to win a Stanley Cup but it's a serious piece. And the way cap space and player relationships were managed to get here shows that maybe I was wrong, too, about Mike Gillis being the wrong guy for GM. Somehow Alain Vigneualt has become more than a defensive co-ordinator but the on-ice product still has holes either from injury (boy, is Sami Salo susceptible to injuries!) or form lack of energy (up 3-0 against Edmonton two nights ago, the Cannots nearly snatched an overtime loss from the jaws of victory).
Will Mr. Sundin make such a big difference? After the much touted arrival of Mark Messier (which felt like the wrong move from day 1 -- but then I've never much liked Keenan as a coach either), much was expected, little delivered. But I have to admit that we didn't just get Sundin because nobody else wanted him. We got him because our GM knew what he wanted under the tree back in July and did whatever it took to get here. Now, with other injuries freeing up further cap space, perhaps a rugged defenceman to make the injuries mean less? The return, perhaps of Jovanovski? But maybe we can even do better than that.
I'll admit something else, too. I'm more optimistic about this team's chances to go deep into the playoffs than I have been for the last two seasons.
Friday, December 19, 2008
Friday, December 12, 2008
Sundin still not here
It seems reality is finally hitting the local sports media. Sundin will never be a Canuck. It won't happen. He's been in the Eastern Conference too long and he would vastly prefer to have an opportunity to stick it to the Leafs before the Stanley Cup Final, to play alongside other aging Swedes, perhaps, in New York, maybe even join one of the glamour shows in Washington, Ottawa or Pittsburgh? But to put up with Western Conference travel schedules in his declining years as a player? Naaah. I never quite believed it and I doubt it even more now.
Sundin will never be a Canuck. If it matters to you, get that into your thick skull. And count your blessings that we don't spend $23M per annum on one player like the Yankees did today.
Sundin will never be a Canuck. If it matters to you, get that into your thick skull. And count your blessings that we don't spend $23M per annum on one player like the Yankees did today.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Don Taylor made me laugh
One of the regular features at 5:00 PM PST/PDT on our local sports radio station the Team 1040, is "Pratt & Taylor's High Five at 5". One of the stories that made it onto the list today was an allegation by Terrell Owens of the Dallas Cowboys that his quarterback, Tony Romo, was conspiring with the slotback to belittle his contribution to the team. Taylor's comment: "Does he have an imaginary friend, too?" I laughed.
Friday, September 12, 2008
Oh, and by the way: Mats Sundin in Vancouver?
Yeah right.
I thought it would be a cool idea if it ever happened. But I've made
it part of my Skype thought bubble periodically, starting the day
after Sundin said that he wanted more time to think about it, the
first time.
Note to self in organizing a "group" golf game
If I ever have to design a golf outing (Texas Scramble) for a wide
variety of people whose golf game I don't know, here's an idea I'll
want to use in figuring out whom to pair up with whom.
variety of people whose golf game I don't know, here's an idea I'll
want to use in figuring out whom to pair up with whom.
What's your handicap?
a. Retract the question or I'll sue
b. What's a handicap?
c. I don't want to know.
d. Scratch mini-golfer
e. I've begun to wonder what it might be
f. Your number__________
and then hope that at least one quarter of the potential participants answer f.
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
Vancouver exit: Nonis whines, Vigneault makes excuses
It's enough to make anyone say, "And so it begins..."
The Vancouver Canucks are out of the play-offs. Nonis says it's the injuries, it's the schedule. Well excuse me! Vancouver has had schedule problems since joining the NHL. It's an obstacle to manage and overcome. Not an excuse for under-performance.
Vigneault focuses more on the injuries which have been particularly brutal this year, yes.
But I say that people who blame what they couldn't control for the state of affairs they find themselves in are not people who are going to solve the real problems, ever. If Nonis doesn't sack his defensive co-ordinator before June (and named a real coach as replacement!), I say the Aquilinis should sack them both. Vigneault will still be just a defensive co-ordinator and Nonis will have proven that he hasn't moved on from being a management trainee.
But yet another summer of whining and "wait until next year"? I want to hear about it even less than I want to hear about the NBA or interminable baseball scores.
The Vancouver Canucks are out of the play-offs. Nonis says it's the injuries, it's the schedule. Well excuse me! Vancouver has had schedule problems since joining the NHL. It's an obstacle to manage and overcome. Not an excuse for under-performance.
Vigneault focuses more on the injuries which have been particularly brutal this year, yes.
But I say that people who blame what they couldn't control for the state of affairs they find themselves in are not people who are going to solve the real problems, ever. If Nonis doesn't sack his defensive co-ordinator before June (and named a real coach as replacement!), I say the Aquilinis should sack them both. Vigneault will still be just a defensive co-ordinator and Nonis will have proven that he hasn't moved on from being a management trainee.
But yet another summer of whining and "wait until next year"? I want to hear about it even less than I want to hear about the NBA or interminable baseball scores.
Friday, April 04, 2008
Canucks season
Like a bad top 40 tune from the 70s: "It's over... It's over... It's over... yeah, yeah yeah..." And it was over no matter what Vancouver did as Nashville gained a regulation-time win over St. Louis. Too bad.
And as I wrote the last time, I've stopped caring very much. I haven't stopped wishing, nor will I stop cheering for excellence whenever it appears. It's just that right now, the slogan, "We are all Canucks" feels too much like "We are all losers".
And as I wrote the last time, I've stopped caring very much. I haven't stopped wishing, nor will I stop cheering for excellence whenever it appears. It's just that right now, the slogan, "We are all Canucks" feels too much like "We are all losers".
Thursday, April 03, 2008
Oh, the woes of a Vancouver Canucks fan...
It's either woe, or you stop caring very much what the next game will bring. The talent isn't changing from night to night but the coach doesn't know how to bring out their best night after night.
After the trouncing of Calgary on Sunday, it seemed anything, including a Stanley Cup was possible. At least if that team showed up again, finally. But on Thursday, yet again, sure as Stanley Park in rain, a two goal lead goes down the drain and the fans can feel the pain of fate. Fate out of our hands: someone else has to lose now, for Vancouver to get in -- and, like as not, embarrass themselves and everyone else in in bowing to the Detroit Red Wings in five or six, if they're lucky. Most likely it'd be four straight though.
If this team isn't tough to recognize come training camp next fall, I predict falling gates, falling excitement unless the team's commitment to charitable causes keeps them in the hearts of the populace more effectively than their on-ice performance has.
The good news is, the Giants are in the 2nd round in the WHL, with very little of their core mindset disturbed from what it was. Will they own the W's berth in the Memorial Cup again? Who knows! Go, Giants, Go!
After the trouncing of Calgary on Sunday, it seemed anything, including a Stanley Cup was possible. At least if that team showed up again, finally. But on Thursday, yet again, sure as Stanley Park in rain, a two goal lead goes down the drain and the fans can feel the pain of fate. Fate out of our hands: someone else has to lose now, for Vancouver to get in -- and, like as not, embarrass themselves and everyone else in in bowing to the Detroit Red Wings in five or six, if they're lucky. Most likely it'd be four straight though.
If this team isn't tough to recognize come training camp next fall, I predict falling gates, falling excitement unless the team's commitment to charitable causes keeps them in the hearts of the populace more effectively than their on-ice performance has.
The good news is, the Giants are in the 2nd round in the WHL, with very little of their core mindset disturbed from what it was. Will they own the W's berth in the Memorial Cup again? Who knows! Go, Giants, Go!
Sunday, March 30, 2008
The NHL, injuries and suspensions
I wrote yesterday about some of the longterm effects of an injury in the NHL. Today, I'd like to wrte about a gap in the NHL's disciplinary process as it relates to injuries and suspensions.
The Vancouver Canucks have lost a lot of player-games to injury this year, but one of the most galling recent events was the knee-on-knee check to rookie Mason Raymond which could have ended his career before it's properly begun. No penalty was assessed on the play. No suspension handed out subsequently, but even if this weren't the Canucks, my home town team, we were talking about, I would still say that when a single check results in injuries, especially to the head, the kneck, the spine or a knee, something more needs to be done.
Even if the hit itself is "clean" from a hockey point of view, the play should be reviewed for intent to injure. And the standard at that point should turn on its head: guilty (at least to some extent) unless proven innocent beyond all reasonable doubt. The guilt could perhaps be pro-rated but the player causing the injury should be suspended for at least half the games that the victim misses as a result of the injury, at least for one season's worth of games. Some have said that coaches are culpable for the injuries their players inflict when there's cause to believe that the coach said, "Go get him, boys." But if a coach knew that some of his players could be lost to him if they do serious damage to the other players, then they would be less likely to let any dogs of war slip.
By that rule, I know, Bertuzzi would probably have been out for much longer after the Steve Moore incident. But conversely, the Steve Moore incident might never have happened because Moore would have been off for all or most of the games that Näslund was missing as a result of the concussion and there wouldn't have been the sense of injustice that set up that incident in the first place.
In the same way, Mason Raymond's checker would be gone now, too, to the detriment of his team -- and if that had been the potential price, waiting at the boards with knee extended as was done to Raymond, might have been coached out of the perp's common practice. Clean, hard hits are one thing. Clean, hard hits with slew-footed variations are quite another and if the NHL really cared about the long-term health of its players, the punishments would fit the crimes. They wouldn't be subject to the whims of a league office whose decisions are open, all too often, to charges of partiality on grounds that most fans cannot begin to understand, especially those that have watched one or the other of their stars be sidelined for significant numbers of games.
The Vancouver Canucks have lost a lot of player-games to injury this year, but one of the most galling recent events was the knee-on-knee check to rookie Mason Raymond which could have ended his career before it's properly begun. No penalty was assessed on the play. No suspension handed out subsequently, but even if this weren't the Canucks, my home town team, we were talking about, I would still say that when a single check results in injuries, especially to the head, the kneck, the spine or a knee, something more needs to be done.
Even if the hit itself is "clean" from a hockey point of view, the play should be reviewed for intent to injure. And the standard at that point should turn on its head: guilty (at least to some extent) unless proven innocent beyond all reasonable doubt. The guilt could perhaps be pro-rated but the player causing the injury should be suspended for at least half the games that the victim misses as a result of the injury, at least for one season's worth of games. Some have said that coaches are culpable for the injuries their players inflict when there's cause to believe that the coach said, "Go get him, boys." But if a coach knew that some of his players could be lost to him if they do serious damage to the other players, then they would be less likely to let any dogs of war slip.
By that rule, I know, Bertuzzi would probably have been out for much longer after the Steve Moore incident. But conversely, the Steve Moore incident might never have happened because Moore would have been off for all or most of the games that Näslund was missing as a result of the concussion and there wouldn't have been the sense of injustice that set up that incident in the first place.
In the same way, Mason Raymond's checker would be gone now, too, to the detriment of his team -- and if that had been the potential price, waiting at the boards with knee extended as was done to Raymond, might have been coached out of the perp's common practice. Clean, hard hits are one thing. Clean, hard hits with slew-footed variations are quite another and if the NHL really cared about the long-term health of its players, the punishments would fit the crimes. They wouldn't be subject to the whims of a league office whose decisions are open, all too often, to charges of partiality on grounds that most fans cannot begin to understand, especially those that have watched one or the other of their stars be sidelined for significant numbers of games.
Saturday, March 29, 2008
The Real Problem with the Canucks
I am amused to hear the moaning and wailing in the Vancouver sports media over the stumbling of the Canucks. Last night, with a 4-0 loss to Minnesota, Vancouver's current spot is 9th in the west, out of the playoffs. When I said to a friend, who has "Oilers" tattooed on his heart, that I didn't much care about the fate of the Canucks, he said, "What? Off the bandwagon?"
No. But the Canucks have managed my expectations to the point where nothing surprises me, certainly not the under-performance that we see. Vancouver has suffered with over 82 man-games of injuries on the blue line alone, so that any success they've had is surprising. But the problem goes deeper.
It's not Näslund's fault. It's not the Sedins' fault. And it's certainly not Luongo's fault. The problems with the Canucks are behind the bench with Defensive Co-ordinator / Minor Leaguer Alain Vigneault and Management Trainee Dave Nonis. Don't get me wrong. Both of these men have shown flashes of brilliance. Both of them have their strengths and their talents, but neither of them have what it really takes to excel at the positions they occupy.
For Nonis, two things. First, a good GM gets the trades done. He makes gambits and wins some, loses others. Hopefully he wins more than he loses. But this GM has essentially buried what assets he has in the ground, not even depositing them in the bank for interest, hoping the fans, his ultimate masters, don't notice the bits of dirt collecting at the edges of his coins every time he pulls them out of the ground.
Second, a good GM recognizes when his coach isn't getting things done before it's screaming out at everyone else. And he does something about it. I'm not saying he does things like the gotta-be-a-winner-myself antics in New Jersey where the GM takes over the coaching role so that it can be his name on the Stanley Cup, which then disappears into thin air. But a good GM recognizes a coach's limitations before the front office's collective nose is rubbed in it. What is Vigneault's weakness?
He's a defensive co-ordinator masquerading as a coach. Crafting a stifling defense without fostering a sniper or two for every line does not win anything lasting. Last year everything came together and Vigneault's negative effects on his snipers hadn't materialized yet but I'm getting ahead of myself. The common cry in the Sun, on the TEAM, wherever is "Where's Nazzy?" "Why are they paying this guy to do nothing?" I have a theory.
The loyal Näslund has not yet lived-down the unfair treatment of his loyal friend, Todd Bertuzzi. Bertuzzi can be called all kinds of things but to say that he was primarily responsible for Steve Moore's injury strikes me as one-dimensional. To me, the biggest culprit is the league who regularly fail to deal with players who dish out injuries with any consistency or proportionality, but that's another story. If Moore had been suspended after his concussive hit on Näslund, the rest of what's happened since would have been hypothetical.
That not having happened, the Canucks lost sight of the (eventually 9-4!) scoreboard and Bertuzzi went after Moore. Watch the tape again. There's no way that #44's hit on Moore is what injured him. What finished him off was the dog pile, part Canucks, part Avalanche putting pressure on his head at ice level. So the first guy in is the easiest one to punish, the guy with the target painted on his back but to lay all the retribution on that one guy isn't fair, and doesn't appear so to a fair-minded guy like Marcus Näslund. You could argue that he should have gotten past that by now but he hasn't. Real men with a real sense of justice sometimes have that problem. They do eventually put it behind them and probably Marcus will get there eventually. He just hasn't yet.
But great coaches get into their players' heads and get them past this kind of thing. Vigneault's long-term successes so far has been with kids. Judging from his performance with Näslund, he doesn't have a clue about the kind of mental surgery an adult player living with those contradictions needs in order to get him out of a slump. His treatment of Trevor Linden (for heart, easily the Stevie-Y of Vancouver) shows him up in even worse light: that he doesn't know how to motivate any adults, let alone those living with the perception of past injustice.
And that's ironic. In Don Hay of the Giants, we have a guy who did it all at the professional level (not to mention Kevin Constantine behind the bench of his arch-rivals in Everett) but seems to prefer staying at the junior level. In Vigneualt, we have a guy who should have stayed there awhile longer. And above Vigneault we have a GM who can't see how deep and crippling the weaknesses of his coach are.
And surrounding them all we have a cadré of pres who see all the problems as being on the ice and in the locker room, alternately praising Luongo for his brilliance or villifying him for throwing his comrades under a bus and leaving them when his wife is about to give birth after a hard pregnancy. And fixated on Näslund's under-performance: yes it is his problem but we know what's under that skin and good coaches bring the great out of their players by any means necessary.
But the pres is wrong: the problems right now are in the front office and behind the bench. And now that the Aquilinis have finished establishing their claim to legitimate ownership of the team, perhaps they can deal with them in the off-season and turn this team into champions at more than the box office. It's probably too late for us to derive maximum benefit from Luongo and Näslund. It may even be too late in the case of the Sedins, Morrison, Ohlund and Salo. I hope not, but I'm a realist.
All I want is that when the ad says, "We are all Canucks," that I don't have a voice in the back of my mind saying, "We are all Cannots," strapped to a wheel of coulda-woulda-shoulda-mights. And that goes beyond on-ice leadership and performance to the guys behind the bench and in the front office. Gas the GM, gas the coach, but have a plan in place when you do, not like the last time, when Brian Burke was the guy that should have stayed and then maybe none of this circus would have happened.
No. But the Canucks have managed my expectations to the point where nothing surprises me, certainly not the under-performance that we see. Vancouver has suffered with over 82 man-games of injuries on the blue line alone, so that any success they've had is surprising. But the problem goes deeper.
It's not Näslund's fault. It's not the Sedins' fault. And it's certainly not Luongo's fault. The problems with the Canucks are behind the bench with Defensive Co-ordinator / Minor Leaguer Alain Vigneault and Management Trainee Dave Nonis. Don't get me wrong. Both of these men have shown flashes of brilliance. Both of them have their strengths and their talents, but neither of them have what it really takes to excel at the positions they occupy.
For Nonis, two things. First, a good GM gets the trades done. He makes gambits and wins some, loses others. Hopefully he wins more than he loses. But this GM has essentially buried what assets he has in the ground, not even depositing them in the bank for interest, hoping the fans, his ultimate masters, don't notice the bits of dirt collecting at the edges of his coins every time he pulls them out of the ground.
Second, a good GM recognizes when his coach isn't getting things done before it's screaming out at everyone else. And he does something about it. I'm not saying he does things like the gotta-be-a-winner-myself antics in New Jersey where the GM takes over the coaching role so that it can be his name on the Stanley Cup, which then disappears into thin air. But a good GM recognizes a coach's limitations before the front office's collective nose is rubbed in it. What is Vigneault's weakness?
He's a defensive co-ordinator masquerading as a coach. Crafting a stifling defense without fostering a sniper or two for every line does not win anything lasting. Last year everything came together and Vigneault's negative effects on his snipers hadn't materialized yet but I'm getting ahead of myself. The common cry in the Sun, on the TEAM, wherever is "Where's Nazzy?" "Why are they paying this guy to do nothing?" I have a theory.
The loyal Näslund has not yet lived-down the unfair treatment of his loyal friend, Todd Bertuzzi. Bertuzzi can be called all kinds of things but to say that he was primarily responsible for Steve Moore's injury strikes me as one-dimensional. To me, the biggest culprit is the league who regularly fail to deal with players who dish out injuries with any consistency or proportionality, but that's another story. If Moore had been suspended after his concussive hit on Näslund, the rest of what's happened since would have been hypothetical.
That not having happened, the Canucks lost sight of the (eventually 9-4!) scoreboard and Bertuzzi went after Moore. Watch the tape again. There's no way that #44's hit on Moore is what injured him. What finished him off was the dog pile, part Canucks, part Avalanche putting pressure on his head at ice level. So the first guy in is the easiest one to punish, the guy with the target painted on his back but to lay all the retribution on that one guy isn't fair, and doesn't appear so to a fair-minded guy like Marcus Näslund. You could argue that he should have gotten past that by now but he hasn't. Real men with a real sense of justice sometimes have that problem. They do eventually put it behind them and probably Marcus will get there eventually. He just hasn't yet.
But great coaches get into their players' heads and get them past this kind of thing. Vigneault's long-term successes so far has been with kids. Judging from his performance with Näslund, he doesn't have a clue about the kind of mental surgery an adult player living with those contradictions needs in order to get him out of a slump. His treatment of Trevor Linden (for heart, easily the Stevie-Y of Vancouver) shows him up in even worse light: that he doesn't know how to motivate any adults, let alone those living with the perception of past injustice.
And that's ironic. In Don Hay of the Giants, we have a guy who did it all at the professional level (not to mention Kevin Constantine behind the bench of his arch-rivals in Everett) but seems to prefer staying at the junior level. In Vigneualt, we have a guy who should have stayed there awhile longer. And above Vigneault we have a GM who can't see how deep and crippling the weaknesses of his coach are.
And surrounding them all we have a cadré of pres who see all the problems as being on the ice and in the locker room, alternately praising Luongo for his brilliance or villifying him for throwing his comrades under a bus and leaving them when his wife is about to give birth after a hard pregnancy. And fixated on Näslund's under-performance: yes it is his problem but we know what's under that skin and good coaches bring the great out of their players by any means necessary.
But the pres is wrong: the problems right now are in the front office and behind the bench. And now that the Aquilinis have finished establishing their claim to legitimate ownership of the team, perhaps they can deal with them in the off-season and turn this team into champions at more than the box office. It's probably too late for us to derive maximum benefit from Luongo and Näslund. It may even be too late in the case of the Sedins, Morrison, Ohlund and Salo. I hope not, but I'm a realist.
All I want is that when the ad says, "We are all Canucks," that I don't have a voice in the back of my mind saying, "We are all Cannots," strapped to a wheel of coulda-woulda-shoulda-mights. And that goes beyond on-ice leadership and performance to the guys behind the bench and in the front office. Gas the GM, gas the coach, but have a plan in place when you do, not like the last time, when Brian Burke was the guy that should have stayed and then maybe none of this circus would have happened.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)