For the first time in his tenure as Canucks general manager, the topic of firing Mike Gillis is being discussed heavily by a significiant number of Canucks fans. This is ludicrous, of course. Mike Gillis has been in charge of the Canucks for 5 seasons and the results speak for themselves.

The team has won its division 5 times (they had only won their division 5 times since 1970 previous to that), won 2 President’s Trophies (the first 2 in club history), won 5 playoff series (they had 11 playoffs series victories in their history prior to that) including an appearance in the Stanley Cup final (for the 3^rd time in team history).

A lot of people seem to forget that winning as much as the Canucks have won isn’t all that easy. Although most of the impact players in the Canucks lineup were acquired by other general managers, it was still Gillis in charge of deciding to re-sign them, and at a cheap price no less.

I’ll analyze Mike Gillis’ signings at a later date, but for today I want to take a look at his trade history. Mike Gillis has had a very poor last couple of seasons trade-wise, and deserves to be criticized for it. And criticizing is what bloggers do… right?

Here’s a look at the trades made by Mike Gillis. I have omitted low significance trades with no clear winner (like Krajicek for O’Brien) and left out insignificant minor leaguers involved in trades.

His best work

White for Ehrhoff and Lukowich:

This trade was an absolute gem. Gillis stole Christian Ehrhoff from the San Jose Sharks, who were looking to shed salary after acquiring Dany Heatley. Ehrhoff was an impact player in his 2 years with the Canucks. Patrick White, the infamous last 1^st round draft pick of Dave Nonis, has never materialized into an NHL player (he’s currently playing in the German 2nd division). The Canucks were able to swing this deal because they had cap space and because they were willing to eat Brad Lukowich’s contract while he played in the AHL.

Pretty good

3^rd round draft pick for Higgins:

A deadline deal before the team’s run to the Stanley Cup Final in 2011, Chris Higgins has turned out a lot better than expected. Higgins was initially expected to be boost the team’s 4th line as a rental player, but the Canucks liked what they saw and re-signed him. Two years later and he has been given another contract extension and is one of their best two-way wingers.

3^rd round draft pick for Lapierre:

Also acquired at the 2011 trade deadline, Max Lapierre has been very good in blue and green. He had an excellent playoffs in 2011, filling in for the injured Manny Malhotra. He has been the lone stabilizing force on the Canucks 4^th line since then, and has been a decent penalty killer for them as well.

Not so good

2nd and 3rd round draft pick for Bernier

At the time this trade seemed like a good move. The Canucks acquired a big, 23 year old former first round pick who had shown some good promise in the NHL. Bernier, a right handed shot, was supposed to come in and be the perfect fit for the Sedins. Unfortunately, Bernier had hands of stone and has turned into a 3rd or 4th line player.

3^rd round draft pick for Alberts

After a rough start, Andrew Alberts has been a good depth defenceman in Vancouver. But Alberts has never played 44 games in a season, usually due to being a healthy scratch. Giving up a 3rd round draft pick simply is too high a price to pay.

Samuelsson and Sturm for Booth

This was a move to get younger, bigger and faster. David Booth might still become an excellent player in Vancouver, and if he does, this will be a good trade for the Canucks. But for the moment, Mikael Samuelsson has put up more points than David Booth. Samuelsson’s contract was expiring, while Booth’s contract ($4.25 million per year until 2015) is looking like a bit of an anchor.

Connauton and a 2^nd round draft pick for Roy

I applauded this deal about a month ago, and I think it was worth a shot, but it didn’t pan out. Roy had only 6 points in 12 regular season games, and had only 1 assist in 4 playoff games. While I still don’t think that Connauton will become anything special, he had some value, as did the 2nd round draft pick they gave up.

Terrible

Grabner, Bernier and a 1^st round draft pick for Ballard

At the time, I thought this would be a bad deal in the long term, and it has been. What I was wrong about was that I thought it would be a good deal in the short term. When Michael Grabner scored 34 goals in the first year after the trade while Keith Ballard was a healthy scratch, that clearly wasn’t the case. As if that wasn’t bad enough, Vancouver also gave up a 1st round draft pick and have to pay Keith Ballard’s contract ($4.2 million until 2015). This trade is the most disturbing one that Gillis has made because of how many players he was wrong about. He was wrong about Ballard and Grabner, and was also wrong about Mason Raymond, the player chosen to keep over Grabner.

Hodgson and Sulzer for Kassian and Gragnani

While it’s true that Cody Hodgson wanted out, there are still a number of things I don’t like about this trade. The Canucks traded a former 10th overall draft pick who had begun to prove himself, for a former 13th overall draft pick who hadn’t proven anything at the NHL level. One year later and we’re still wondering if Zack Kassian will ever be a top 6 forward while Cody Hodgson was on pace for a 58 point season this year. Kassian might be a good player one day, but he has been a 3rd/4th liner in 2012 and 2013. For a team built to win now, it wasn’t a good acquisition. At the very least, Mike Gillis should have waited until the offseason to unload Hodgson. Instead, they entered the 2012 playoffs with a hobbled Ryan Kesler, a lack of scoring and Zack Kassian in the press box.

After an inconsistent regular season and a complete no show in the playoffs, for Alain Vigneault, it’s time to go. The most successful head coach in Canucks history has been in Vancouver for 7 seasons now, and the players need a new message.

While he has his critics, AV has been behind the bench for the Canucks for the best stretch of years in Canucks history. They have made the playoffs 6 out of 7 years. They have 6 northwest division titles and 2 President’s Trophies. They made it to at least the 2^nd round on 4 occasions, including nearly winning the 2011 Stanley Cup. Through it all, Vigneault was there, and he deserves credit for that.

But the expiration date has passed on this coach.

Unless Vigneault could somehow reinvent himself and have the players buy in, to which nobody in their right mind would bank on, there’s not a lot of new material left for Vigneault to motivate his players. They have heard it all before.

This core group of players has heard what he had to say before game 7 of the Stanley Cup Final. They have heard what he had to say during the Chicago meltdowns in 2009 and 2010. They have heard what he had to say before overtime of game 7 against Chicago when they slayed the dragon. They have heard just about everything.

When and if the Canucks fire their coach, Alain Vigneault will undoubtedly be snapped up by another team immediately and he will be successful. But not with the Canucks. Not anymore.

Coaches have a shelf life and the evidence is out there to support this theory. Just look at the most recent cup winning coaches and how long they were with their team when they won the cup:

2012: Darryl Sutter (year 1)

2011: Claude Julien (year 4)

2010: Joel Quenneville (year 2)

2009: Dan Bylsma (year 1)

2008: Mike Babcock (year 3)

2007: Randy Carlyle (year 2)

2006: Peter Laviolette (year 2)

Vigneault has received a lot of arrows in the last two seasons, but he does deserve credit for a lot. He is criticized for some of his line combinations, but perhaps only he would have paired Alex Burrows (a career checker perceived to not have any skill at the time) with the Sedins. He was behind the bench as many young Canucks turned into excellent players, including the Sedins, Kesler, Burrows, Bieksa and Edler.

Vigneault’s playoff record is perhaps the most troubling to me. They beat Dallas in 2007 on the back of spectacular goaltending from Roberto Luongo, though Dallas had a better team on paper. The following round they lost to a superior team in the Anaheim Ducks.

In 2009 and 2010, the Canucks had impressive first round wins against St Louis and Los Angeles, but bowed out to the Chicago Blackhawks in the second round. In 2010, the Blackhawks were simply a better team, but in 2009 the Canucks appeared to be outcoached as they frustrated the Canucks with their antics and figured out Roberto Luongo.

In 2011, the Canucks were the superior team let their foot off the gas pedal against the Blackhawks and nearly blew a 3-0 series lead. They were able to beat the Predators and Sharks on their way to the Stanley Cup Final, but lost in bizarre fashion to the Boston Bruins (like you needed reminding). Vigneault needs to share in some of the blame of not being able to get the job done in 2011, when given the best team.

Vigneault’s playoff record was decent from 2007 to 2011, but the last two seasons have been downright atrocious. In 2012 and 2013, Vigneault didn’t appear to have his team prepared and the Canucks made quick exits. Sure, they played good teams, but the New York Islanders have more playoff wins in the last two years than do the Canucks.

Alain Vigneault, you have had a great run. You have been of great service to this team and quite a character too. But it’s time to move on. For you, and for the team.

Hug a Leafs fan today. They’ve been through a lot.

Yes, I know about Toronto Maple Leafs fans. They’re rude, they’re cocky. They’re all of that. But you know what? So are a lot of Canucks fans.

And that’s why I think I feel for the Leafs fans today. They remind me of Canucks fans.

Just think about it. They’re cocky, yet they never win. They’re despised, yet they never win.

And when the Leafs blew a 4-1 third period lead after battling back from a 3 games to 1 deficit as playoff underdogs to the big, bad Bruins, how on earth could that not remind you of the Canucks? It reminded me of the 2011 Canucks that lost to Boston amid Bruins cheap shots let go by the referees. It reminded me of the Naslund/Bertuzzi Canucks that had so many heartbreaking early round playoff losses (like in 2002 when they blew a 2-0 series lead to Detroit or in 2003 when they blew a 3-1 series lead to Minnesota or in 2004 when they lost in overtime of game 7 against Calgary).

Never before in my life have I ever wanted a Leafs team to win so much as last night. Perhaps it was because it was against the Bruins (no other team comes close on the hate meter for me) or perhaps it was because they hadn’t been to the playoffs since 2004. But to see a fan base so starved for success to have a series snatched from them right at the very moment that it seemed in their grasp, I could relate.

It was one of the most disappointing first round series in Canucks history and not just for obvious reasons. The Canucks didn’t lose to the Sharks because of a bad bounce (of which there were a few) or bad penalties (of which there were lots). No, they lost because they weren’t good enough. This was not an aberration, it was a revelation. The Canucks aren’t as good as many of us thought they were.

By no means am I suggesting that the Canucks were the odds on favourites to win the Stanley Cup this year, but I certainly thought they were in the mix. But to watch how they lost to San Jose, big changes need to be made.

Sure, the Canucks played San Jose reasonably well at even strength, but special teams matter as well. The Canucks made the Sharks power play (a good power play during the regular season) look like the power play of the 1970s Montreal Canadiens.

Sure, the Canucks had injuries to Chris Tanev, David Booth and Cory Schneider, but good teams don’t roll over at the first sign of adversity.

There are a lot of questions about the core of this team. Can the Sedins be as elite in the playoffs as they are in the regular season? I don’t believe they are too soft or get intimidated, but their style of play does not lend itself well to the playoffs when hooking, holding and crosschecking rules are relaxed by NHL referees.

Can Ryan Kesler be the Ryan Kesler of 2011 again? He will still be an excellent player regardless, but I fear that 2011 will be a career year for him.

Can the Canucks win with this defense corps? Is their shutdown pairing good enough? Do they have a power play quarterback?

Is the Canucks supporting cast good enough? Can they score enough? Are they tough enough?

I ask these questions to myself about the Canucks every year, but the 2011 team showed me a lot and made me believe. The up and down play of the Canucks the last two seasons and their playoff performance this year has me wondering.

One year ago, the San Jose Sharks and Los Angeles Kings played each other in the final game of the regular season and the Sharks won 3-2, giving the Canucks the Kings in round 1. This year, the opposite happened. The Kings beat the Sharks in their final game (by the same 3-2 score) to give San Jose to the Canucks.

It remains to be seen if the Canucks get a better match-up this season, but they’re certainly due for one. In 2011 the first place Canucks got the defending Stanley Cup champion Blackhawks. In 2012 the first place Canucks got the eventual Stanley Cup champion Kings. In 2013, maybe, just maybe the Canucks lucked out by avoiding the Kings and Blues in round 1.

But not so fast. The Canucks have not played well against the Sharks this season, going 0-2-1 in three meetings.

Lets see how these teams match up:

This season

Jan 27 (in SJ): San Jose 4, Vancouver 1

Mar 5 (in Van): San Jose 3, Vancouver 2 (SO)

Apr 1 (in SJ): San Jose 3, Vancouver 2

San Jose was clearly the better team in both games in San Jose, but Vancouver also caught the Sharks at the worst possible time. Both times they played were right in the middle of 7 game winning streaks for the Sharks (who have had a very streaky season). The game in Vancouver was an evenly played game that the Sharks won in a shootout. Cory Schneider and Antti Niemi played in all three games, while Ryan Kesler and Derek Roy did not play in any of the match-ups.

Playoff history

The Sharks and Canucks have only met in one previous playoff match-up, a memorable one for Canucks fans. The Canucks beat the Sharks in 5 games in the 2011 Western Conference final. That series was more even than it appeared, with the Sharks grossly out-shooting the Canucks in game 4 and 5. The Sedins were more dominant against the Sharks than any other team in the 2011 playoffs (Henrik with 12 points, Daniel with 6 points). Luongo was also exceptional with a .931 save percentage in the series.

Forwards

The Sharks have elected to spread out their talent over three lines, while the Canucks (in recent games anyway), have chosen to load up two lines.

San Jose:

Burns-Thornton-Galiardi

Havlat-Marleau-Couture

Torres-Pavelski-Wingels

Burish-Desjardins-Sheppard

Vancouver:

Sedin-Sedin-Burrows

Roy-Kesler-Higgins

Raymond-Lapierre-Hansen

Weise-Ebbett-Kassian

It remains to be seen if the Canucks are more well suited having Roy and Kesler on the same line or spreading out the wealth like San Jose. My thought is that a three line team like the Sharks should be countered with three good lines. The Canucks have the edge with every line, except for the Sharks impressive second line of Havlat-Marleau-Couture.

Defense

Chris Tanev is injured for Vancouver, while the Sharks are relatively healthy. There is a chance that Tanev could return for the Canucks and also a possibility that rookie Frank Corrado sees some action. My guess is that Vigneault chooses to go with his veterans for game 1.

San Jose:

Vlasic-Braun

Stuart-Hannan

Boyle-Irwin

Vancouver:

Hamhuis-Garrison

Edler-Bieksa

Alberts-Ballard

This is a fairly even matchup, and it is certainly an area that the Sharks have improved considerably since the last time we saw these two teams play each other in the playoffs. The Sharks were so happy with their blueline that they were able to move Brent Burns to forward.

Goaltending

Goaltending is the biggest wild card in the series and could well end up deciding who wins the series. Nobody really knows how serious Cory Schneider’s injury is, and that could spell trouble for Vancouver. Roberto Luongo is still an excellent goalie, but he hasn’t had a good season and he certainly isn’t the goalie that Cory Schneider is. Antti Niemi has carried the mail for the Sharks all season and has enjoyed the best season of his career. The Canucks are very familiar with Niemi and have shown an ability to score goals on him, both when Niemi was with the Blackhawks and the Sharks. If Luongo does end up playing, it is probably a good matchup for him personally, but not having Schneider in net will be a huge blow to the Canucks chances.

Coaching

The coaching matchup has to be considered even in this series. Vigneault beat McLellan two years ago, but otherwise both coaches have taken their team to great heights in the regular season but have yet to win the ultimate prize as a head coach.

Special Teams

San Jose: 7th on the power play, 6th on the penalty kill

Vancouver: 22nd on the power play, 8th on the penalty kill

San Jose has the big edge in specialty teams going into this series, based on statistics. The Canucks power play has been anemic for most of this season. With that said, the power play has been without Ryan Kesler and Derek Roy, and has been much better of late.

Prediction

This won’t be easy for the Canucks and if they get poor goaltending, they will lose. If the Canucks stay healthy and match the Sharks power play, they should win. The Sharks will have extra motivation because of their 2011 loss to Vancouver while the Canucks will try not to get upset in the first round for a second straight year. My prediction is Canucks in 7.

It appears the NHL doesn’t think you can have too much of a good thing. The annual Winter Classic held every year on New Year’s Day has been a huge success for the National Hockey League, and there have been rumblings for years that they want to add more outdoor games each year. If reports from TSN are to be believed, the NHL will have 6 outdoor games 2013-14. One of those “outdoor” games will be at BC Place on March 2, 2014.

Here’s a rundown of the games (subject to change):

January 1: Toronto vs Detroit (Michigan Stadium, Winter Classic)

January 25: Anaheim vs Los Angeles (Dodger Stadium)

January 26: New Jersey vs NY Rangers (Yankee Stadium, week before the Super Bowl in NY)

January 29: NY Islanders vs NY Rangers (Yankee Stadium, week before the Super Bowl in NY)

March 1: Pittsburgh vs Chicago (Soldier Field, week after the Sochi Olympics)

March 2: Ottawa vs Vancouver (BC Place, week after the Sochi Olympics)

My first reaction to this was that this obviously is too much of a good thing. What makes the Winter Classic special is that it’s a one time a year thing. The actual caliber of play on the outdoor ice surface is usually substandard and the sight lines for fans are poor as well. It’s the novelty of the game that makes it special. Having 6 games a year reduces the novelty significantly.

Another reason why the Winter Classic works is because it takes the game back to its roots, reminding everyone of playing on the frozen pond. Having a game in California and in Vancouver are unlikely to bring back those memories.

The Ottawa vs Vancouver game is probably the least intriguing of all the matchups. They’re not rivals, they’re not in a cold weather climate (especially in March), and even when the roof is open, BC Place can barely be considered an outdoor stadium. The game will be about a week after the Olympics, which will mean it will probably be overshadowed. It would make a lot more sense to have the Canucks play a team that they have some semblance of a rivalry against also.

Now don’t get me wrong, I will be extremely excited for a hockey game at BC Place. There will be a novelty aspect because I have never seen my team involved in this kind of a game and I think it will be a game that most fans will circle on their calendar. But unless you’re a fan of the Senators or Canucks, you’re not likely to be terribly interested in the game.

With days left before the trade deadline, it’s clear to most that if the Canucks have designs on bringing the first Stanley Cup in team history home to Vancouver, they will need to do something. They have a need for a centre, which I outlined three days ago. That’s their primary need, but that’s not the only need. I believe the Canucks should be looking at a defenceman as well. Their need for another right handed d-man is well documented, as well as their troubles on the power play.

Lets first take a look at defencemen that could help the Canucks ailing power play:

Sami Salo

Remember him? Salo is injury prone and he will be turning 39 years old in September, but he’s having a pretty decent season (14 points in 32 games,+10). The Canucks chose not to re-sign him because they didn’t want to give him a two year contract, but perhaps after seeing his play this year they may be more comfortable with the $3.75 million cap hit next season. He would add another right handed shot, a stabilizing defensive influence and improvement to the power play. He’s also right handed. The only concern with him is having his play drop off significantly next year.

Christian Ehrhoff

Continuing with the ghosts of defencemen past theme I have going here, what about Christian Ehrhoff? Ehrhoff signed a ridiculous contract with the Buffalo Sabres shortly after the 2011 Stanley Cup finals. The Canucks really haven’t been able to replace him ever since. His ability to get quality shots on net on the power play, to skate the puck out of his own end and make smart plays has been sorely missed.

Your first reaction to Ehrhoff might be that his contract is ridiculous, so why would Vancouver want him? In reality, most of the ridiculousness of the contract is over. Ehrhoff was paid $10 million in year 1, $8 million this year (pro-rated), but the remainder of the contract is $4 million or less. So he won’t be getting paid more than the likes of Bieksa and Edler, who have taken a hometown discount to stay in Vancouver.

Ehrhoff’s cap hit is another story. His cap hit will be $4 million per season until he is 38 years old. That means that his cap hit will likely be a bargain for the next three years but it risks being an albatross in the last couple of years of the deal. But if there’s a time to roll the dice, it might be now for Vancouver. There’s also a chance that Ehrhoff could be a player coveted by poor teams looking to reach the cap floor when he is 36, 37 and 38. In those years, teams will have $4 million count against the cap, but will only have to pay $1 million in real dollars.

The Sabres have played Ehrhoff a tonne (25 minutes of ice time per night), but he hasn’t put up nearly as many points as they would have expected (16 points in 32 games). Buffalo might be willing to deal Ehrhoff, considering how terrible they have been in the last two seasons.  I feel like Ehrhoff’s value to the Canucks is greater than it is to the Sabres, and that could be the recipe for a deal.

Dan Boyle

Word out of San Jose is that the Sharks are looking to retool (as evidenced by the Douglas Murray trade), and they are looking at moving right shot d-man Dan Boyle. Boyle would be exactly what the doctor ordered for the Canucks: a right handed power play quarterback who has won a cup and can handle big minutes. The question with Boyle is that he is having a down year this season (averaging 3 minutes of ice time less than previous years), and he is 36 years old. Boyle also has another year left on his deal at a $6.67 million price tag.

Mark Streit

The captain of the Islanders, Streit is a guy that the Canucks attempted to acquire last season. He is a left shot defenceman, but is a power play specialist. Streit has averaged 27 power play points per season in the last three years.

Streit is 35 years old and will be a UFA at year’s end. The Islanders just re-signed Lubomir Visnovsky, which should make Streit a bit more expendable.

And here are some quick hits on the rest of the blueliners that could help:

Adrian Aucoin

The one time Canucks is ancient (39 years old), and is nearing the end of his career, but he might get a jolt of energy joining a good team. He would be a right handed insurance policy with Vancouver, and his contract expires at the end of this season. If (and perhaps that’s a big “if”) he has anything left in the tank, he would be a welcomed addition.

Erik Johnson

A lot of the luster of the former first overall draft pick is gone for the now 25 year old defenceman. Johnson has only 4 points this season and isn’t even being used on the Avs first unit power play. That doesn’t mean that he’ll come cheap, but it may mean that he is available. He still has potential, and would still likely be a top 4 defenceman on the Canucks. He’s also right handed and wouldn’t be relied upon nearly as much as he was in St Louis or Colorado.

Ryan O’Byrne

If you are right handed and on an expiring contract, you are likely attractive to the Vancouver Canucks. Ryan O’Byrne fits this description. He’s only 28 and is a BC boy.

Robyn Regehr

Regehr isn’t the dominant shutdown defenceman he once was, but he is experienced and is on an expiring contract. Players like Regehr are known to play well in the playoffs though, when the pressure and physicality ramps up. He might be worth a roll of the dice.

With just over one week before the NHL’s April 3rd trade deadline, now is as good a time as ever to look at potential players that Mike Gillis and the Canucks front office may be targeting.

The Canucks are in the mix with a bunch of teams in the middle of the pack right now. They haven’t impressed like Pittsburgh, Chicago, Boston or Anaheim, but that doesn’t mean that this is a lost season by any means. Don’t get me wrong, the Canucks (like many other teams) will need a lot of things to go right to have a chance to win the Stanley Cup. The Sedins need to be dominant, as does Ryan Kesler. The defense corps needs to be solid. Their goaltending needs to be great. And they need solid contributions from their role players.

The Need

The Canucks needs are fairly well documented. They desperately need a centre that can play on the third line, and possibly the second line if there’s an injury. They could also use a right handed defenceman and/or a defenceman that could help the power play. A third ‘nice to have’ need would be a scoring winger to help boost the team’s offence on the second line.

Trade Bait

Unfortunately for Canucks fans, the Canucks don’t have a lot that they would be willing to part with in a trade. Roberto Luongo is the most obvious piece that Mike Gillis can dangle, but it remains to be seen if there is a team willing to give up a lot to get him. Apart from that, the Canucks are not in a great position to give up prospects due to the fact that they are an old team with not much coming up in the system.

Today I will be looking at centres. Here are a few players that might be available:

Mike Ribeiro (Washington):

Pro: Ribeiro is the most prolific scorer on this list and with 34 points in 32 games he is having a fine season. He is in the final year of a contract that pays him $5 million per season. Ribeiro would certainly help in the secondary scoring department and would centre the second power play unit. If Ryan Kesler or Henrik Sedin gets injured, Ribeiro would be the perfect fill-in guy.

Con: Washington isn’t likely to want to trade their leading scorer for cheap. The Caps are playing better of late, and probably fancy their chances at making the playoffs. Ribeiro is also terrible at faceoffs (42.5%) and has questionable character.

Rob Says: Unless he comes cheap, no thanks. If he costs much more than a couple of second round picks then it’s a lot to pay for a guy that might not be a great fit in the room, on the ice and is a rental player.

Derek Roy (Dallas):

Pro: An excellent second line centre, Roy would fit in well with the Canucks. He’s having a decent year with 18 points in 26 games, while playing on the power play and the penalty kill. He’s not your prototypical third line grinder, but he would give the Canucks three legitimate scoring lines.

Con: The problem with Roy is that if he is acquired he isn’t likely to stay long term. He wants big money as a UFA at the end of the year and he isn’t likely to want to play third line centre next year either.

Rob Says: I would love to have Roy, but he would cost too much for what the Canucks need him for. The fact that I don’t see any future with him in Vancouver beyond this season is all the more reason why I wouldn’t give up much more than a couple of second round picks, and that isn’t likely to be enough.

Vernon Fiddler (Dallas):

Pro: After dealing their captain Brendan Morrow, I’m going to assume the Stars are willing to part with most of their older players. Fiddler is the prototypical third line centre. He’s gritty, kills penalties (more than any other forward on the Stars) and wins faceoffs (52%). He is on a contract that pays him $1.8 million this year and next.

Con: He doesn’t do a lot of scoring. With only 1 goal and 6 assists, he resembles Maxim Lapierre more than Cody Hodgson.

Rob Says: If he can be acquired for a third round pick, he is the type of player that could help in the playoffs. If nothing else, bringing up his name is a great excuse to show this video again:

Steve Ott (Buffalo):

Pro: Steve Ott does it all. He does everything that Vernon Fiddler does and does it better. Oh, and he can also score too. Ott has 17 points in 32 games for Buffalo this season and is under contract this year and next at a $2.95 million cap hit. He is a player that Mike Gillis tried to acquire last season when he was a member of the Dallas Stars

Con: Buffalo just acquired him and they’re trying to get grittier. He isn’t likely a guy that the Sabres want to part with.

Rob Says: If you’re going to pay for a player, pay for Steve Ott. He is exactly what the Canucks need and he is a playoff-type player as well. I would trade one of their second tier prospects and a second round draft pick for him. Unfortunately, I think the Sabres will want roster players under contract, of which the Canucks don’t have much to give. If they wanted David Booth, that would be nice.

Brandon Dubinsky (Columbus):

Pro: He wins faceoffs (56.3%) and is the most relied upon penalty killing forward for the Blue Jackets. He is only two years removed from a season where he scored 24 goals and 54 points. He makes a reasonable $4.2 million for two more seasons after this year.

Con: After a disappointing season last year with the Rangers, he only has one goal this season (to go along with 8 assists).

Rob Says: The Blue Jackets have a lot of centres on their roster and could afford to part with one, especially considering that Dubinsky isn’t much of a scoring threat this year. If Roberto Luongo ever decided to waive his no trade clause to play there (which I don’t think is likely), Dubinsky would certainly be a piece coming back in return. Otherwise, draft picks and prospects (Jordan Schroeder?) would do the trick. Perhaps Eddie Lack would tickle their fancy as well.

Sam Gagner (Edmonton):

Pro: He has a lot of talent and is enjoying perhaps his finest season in the NHL, playing both on the power play and penalty kill. He’s also only 23 years old.

Con: He isn’t overly gritty and isn’t great on faceoffs. He’s a restricted free agent in the offseason and is due for a big raise.

Rob Says: The Oilers need to do something, and perhaps that’s going after Roberto Luongo. If they do, Gagner is an obvious piece that could be moved. Otherwise, they will want some established players under contract. Unless David Booth or Keith Ballard interests them, that isn’t a fit. Another thing I like about him is he seems to do extremely well against the Chicago Blackhawks:

Marcel Goc (Florida):

Pro: He is the top penalty killing forward for the Panthers and can contribute offensively as well. He is decent on faceoffs (50.8%) and has third line scoring talent (11 points in 27 games). He also had a good playoff with the Panthers last year.

Con: Another Florida Panther! Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

Rob Says: If you get over the fact that the Canucks would be dipping into Florida, once again, Goc might not be a bad fit. He is under contract this year and next for only $1.7 million per season. He shouldn’t cost more than a second round pick.

Jarred Smithson (Florida):

Pro: Smithson is big (6’3″, 205 lbs) and has lots of experience. He kills penalties and is excellent in the faceoff circle (52.4%).

Con: He doesn’t score.

Rob Says: Smithson would be a plan B for the Canucks, as he is better suited for the fourth line than the third line. Still, the Panthers will want to get younger and the 34 year old Smithson is a UFA at the end of the year. Smithson is a BC boy, so there’s that, and having gritty centres can’t be a bad thing in a long playoff run. That said, he should be available for a 4th round (or later) draft pick.

Maxime Talbot (Philadelphia):

Pro: He’s a great character guy that does a little bit of everything. He was a key member of the Stanley Cup winning team in Pittsburgh and always performs well in the playoffs.

Con: He doesn’t speak good English? No, that’s a lie, I can’t think of anything I don’t like about the guy.

Rob Says: I don’t see why the Flyers would want to get rid of Talbot, but they have to do something. They’re on the outside looking in as far as the playoffs are concerned and they need to trade something.

Antoine Vermette (Phoenix):

Pro: He is the second coming of Manny Malhotra in the faceoff circle, winning over 60% of his draws this season. He plays in all situations for the Coyotes and has 14 points in 32 games so far. He had an excellent postseason last year. He makes $3.75 million for two years beyond this season.

Con: He can be a bit inconsistent at times, at least offensively.

Rob Says: Vermette would be an excellent fit with the Canucks, but they will need Phoenix to fall out of contention first. If they’re still in the hunt, I don’t see them dealing him.

Tyler Bozak (Toronto):

Pro: He plays in all situations for the Leafs, averaging over 20 minutes of ice time per game. He’s also excellent on the draw (53.2%).

Con: He’s never played a playoff game and it remains to be seen how he would fit on a third line.

Rob Says: Bozak is a UFA at the end of the year, which means the Canucks won’t want to give up too much for him. The Leafs are trying to make the playoffs for the first time since 2004, so trading for future talent isn’t an option. Mason Raymond might tickle their fancy, as he was drafted by current Leafs GM Dave Nonis.

With the Canucks struggling to win games this season, fans are looking for answers. They see an aging team that appears to be in decline since their near dream season in 2010-11.

The Canucks aren’t getting any younger. They have only four players on their roster under the age of 25 (Zack Kassian, Chris Tanev, Dale Weise and Tom Sestito), and none of them were Canucks draft picks. So the heat has been put on Mike Gillis. But is that fair? Lets investigate…

Mike Gillis took over as Canucks GM in 2008, which means he has been the man in charge for 5 drafts. In that time, the Canucks have produced only one full-time NHL player: Cody Hodgson. Despite the fact that Hodgson is now playing in Buffalo, that pick has to be looked at as an excellent pick. Jordan Schroeder looks like he will probably develop into a capable NHL player, as does Nicklas Jensen. Kevin Connaughton will probably find his way into the show soon, and Brendan Gaunce might also. But with the exception of Hodgson, all there is at the moment is potential.

Having only one player in five years of drafting isn’t exactly something to be proud of, but should it be seen as a blemish to Gillis’ record?

When analyzing the Canucks drafting record under Gillis, we must consider a few things. First, the Canucks have been a good team in the last 5 years and have been picking low in the draft. Also, they traded away their 1st, 2nd and 3rd round picks in 2010 in an attempt to win the Stanley Cup.

Some people might look at teams loaded with a lot of young players and conclude that they’re better at drafting than the Canucks are, and maybe they are. But to credit the Edmonton Oilers to drafting Taylor Hall, Ryan Nugent-Hopkins and Nail Yakupov would be wrong. Anyone would have drafted those players.

To accurately judge Mike Gillis’ drafting record, we must compare Vancouver to other teams with similar drafting positions in the last 5 years.

The teams I have chosen to compare Vancouver to are San Jose, Chicago, Detroit, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Boston and New Jersey.

San Jose Sharks

1st round draft picks: 2

NHL Players: Jason Demers, Tommy Wingels

Conclusion: Like the Canucks, the Sharks have been hurt by trading away draft picks in an attempt to win now. They had only 2 first round picks, and those came in 2010 and 2012. Demers is a decent depth defenceman and Wingels is just starting to show what he can do in the NHL. Both players were picked in 2008.

Chicago Blackhawks

1st round draft picks: 6

NHL Players: Marcus Kruger, Brandon Saad, Andrew Shaw

Conclusion: Unlike the San Jose Sharks, the Blackhawks have kept all of their first round draft picks, and even acquired an extra one in 2011. They have also picked up extra picks in the later rounds, giving their more chances at success. They blew their highest draft pick in 2008 when they chose Kyle Beach (passing on Tyler Myers, Erik Karlsson and others), but they have two players already on their roster from the 2011 draft.

Detroit Red Wings

1st round draft picks: 2

NHL Players: Tomas Tatar

Conclusion: Commonly known as the best drafting team in the last 20 years, the Detroit Red Wings have very little to show in the last 5 years. Tomas Tatar is their only full-time NHLer, and he is only seeing limited ice time in his first NHL season. They only picked in the first round twice, but those picks came in 2008 and 2010 and they are still waiting for those players to develop.

Pittsburgh Penguins

1st round draft picks: 5

NHL Players: Simon Despres, Beau Bennett

Conclusion: Both Despres and Bennett have hardly established themselves as impact players in the league, rather they are just breaking in. Credit the lack of impact players in the fact that they did not have a draft pick in the first 3 rounds of the 2008 draft.

Philadelphia Flyers

1st round draft picks: 3

NHL Players: Luca Sbisa, Zac Rinaldo, Sean Couturier

Conclusion: The Flyers did capably in drafting Sbisa and Rinaldo. Couturier was picked 8th overall, a pick they acquired in the Jeff Carter trade.

Boston Bruins

1st round draft picks: 5

NHL Players: Tyler Seguin, Dougie Hamilton

Conclusion: Thank you Toronto Maple Leafs. Seguin and Hamilton were high draft picks (#2 and #9 overall respectively) acquired from the Phil Kessel trade. Credit the Bruins for picking Hamilton, but anyone would have drafted Seguin with the 2nd overall pick. With the Bruins, credit the trade, don’t credit their drafting prowess.

New Jersey Devils

1st round draft picks: 4

NHL Players: Adam Henrique, Adam Larsson

Conclusion: The Devils have drafted reasonably well. Henrique (picked in the third round)  looks like a good player. Adam Larsson looks solid too, though he was picked 4th overall.

The best players picked by our list of comparable teams in the last five years were mostly players taken high in the draft. The Bruins hit a home run with Tyler Seguin, a second overall draft pick. The only other real impact player is Adam Henrique, a nice mid-round selection by New Jersey in 2008. But the next best of the bunch are players that were high draft picks and are largely unproven at the NHL level in Dougie Hamilton, Adam Larsson and Sean Couturier.

Draft picks in 2008 and 2009 should be making their mark in the NHL soon, if they haven’t already, so we can begin to judge those players. Ryan Kesler is a fine player, but it took him 5 years before he scored 20 goals in a season. Michael Grabner looked like he might be a bust until he scored 34 goals for the Islanders, 5 years after he was drafted.

Dave Nonis was fired in 2008 and had his draft record attacked at the time. But it’s only now that we see how many excellent picks he made in 4 draft years. Nonis picked Cory Schneider, Alex Edler, Mike Brown, Jannik Hansen, Mason Raymond and Michael Grabner. And that list doesn’t include his highest draft pick, the late Luc Bourdon.

So what conclusion can we make about Vancouver’s draft record under Mike Gillis? It’s way too early to tell. Unless you’re picking in the top 10 of the draft, it’s too early to make any conclusions about draft picks in 2010, 2011 and 2012. His picks in 2008 and 2009 look decent, certainly far from terrible.

It’s been over a year since the Cody Hodgson for Zack Kassian trade, and I’m still not happy about it.

I have noticed that there’s an increasingly large faction on Twitter that is trying to re-write history, trying to dismiss Hodgson’s strong play from last season despite what we all saw. Nobody criticized his play before the trade, but after the trade a movement began to theorize that he was put in favourable situations and that’s the reason why he succeeded.

Was Hodgson put in favourable situations last year? The advanced stats people will have you believe this, and I believe them. But Hodgson succeeded with those favourable minutes, and to say that anyone would have succeeded with those minutes is ludicrous. If it was that easy, every team’s third line centre would have 20 goals.

This season, Cody Hodgson is playing on the first line in Buffalo and is second in team scoring (even though he isn’t playing on the first unit power play). He has the plum position of playing with Tomas Vanek, thus putting him in a position to succeed. And succeed he has with 21 points in 25 games. Despite the criticism of being a terrible defensive player, he is a respectable -1 rating on a bad Buffalo team.

The funny thing about being put in a position to succeed is that not everyone does. Jordan Schroeder plays on the power play more than Hodgson and is on the first unit at the moment, yet he has only 5 points.

I don’t like the Cody Hodgson trade, but that doesn’t mean I don’t like Zack Kassian. He is a big, strong player with good hands and is the type of player that is difficult to acquire… That is, if Kassian develops into the player we all hope he will. A big strong winger that scores 30 goals is hard to acquire, a big strong winger that scores 10 goals is relatively easy to acquire.

At the moment, Kassian has good potential. But is he a second line winger on a championship team? I’m not sure he is. I think he shows good vision, but he only has 3 assists. Until Kassian develops into a regular scoring threat and a fixture on the Canucks’ second line, this trade is not good for the Canucks today. And the Canucks are trying to win the cup today.

A big, gritty winger is nice to have. But so is a talented centre who can score.

Cody Hodgson without a doubt would have helped the Canucks more in last year’s playoffs (where Zack Kassian ended up as a healthy scratch) and he would help them more this season. If Kassian ends up being more valuable in the playoffs then I’ll have to reconsider, but I just don’t think he will, at least not this season. And if that is the case, then that is two years of the Canucks window where they have hurt their chances of hoisting the Stanley Cup by making this trade.