The Canucks lost another game in the shootout on Thursday night, losing the game 4-3 to the Detroit Red Wings. While they didn’t deserve to win the game based on their play in regulation time and overtime, the shootout is a different animal. It usually has very little to do with the run of play. They lost the shootout because Detroit is a much better shootout team than the Canucks.

The Canucks are one of the best teams in the NHL but they are one of the worst in shootouts. One would think that a team that boasts a Vezina trophy finalist and a lineup filled with offensive talent would be good in shootouts. Instead, Vancouver has a 3-5 record, are 19th in shooting percentage and are 5th worst in save percentage. And this is not a new problem for the Canucks, it has gone on a few years. They were 4-5 last season and 4-4 the year before and 3-7 the year before that. So what gives?

No Go-To Guy

The shooters that beat Roberto Luongo on Thursday night were Pavel Datsyuk and Jiri Hudler. That should come as no surprise, as these are the Red Wings’ go-to guys in the shootout. The Wings have played in 6 shootouts and Datsyuk and Hudler have shot in every single one of them. If they needed a 3rd shooter, Todd Bertuzzi would have been called upon.

The Canucks quite simply don’t have a go-to guy in the shootout. Mason Raymond and Alex Edler were given the assignment on Thursday, but they don’t shoot all the time. Alex Burrows and Cody Hodgson have shot most often, but they have only shot in 5 of their 8 shootouts.

Alain Vigneault

Alain Vigneault does not stop pucks or score goals, and if he had a guy like Pavel Datsyuk in his lineup he would get questioned a whole lot less. But with that being said, Vigneault has done a poor job of giving his team the best chance of winning in the shootout.

Vigneault needs to recognize who his best shootout performers are, and stick with them. Too often he has played hunches or given opportunities to players just because they are having a good game. What he ought to be doing is identifying his top guys and turning them into shootout specialists. The Canucks’ shooters were never more consistent than when Kyle Wellwood and Pavol Demitra were trotted out in each game, despite their play in regulation time. Last year AV failed to recognize Jeff Tambellini as his best shootout option, as he didn’t select him every game despite his excellent career shooting percentage.

This year, Vigneault needs to realize that Cody Hodgson and Alex Burrows are his two best shootout specialists. Burrows and Hodgson are each 2/5 in the shootout this year and consistently put forth a great effort. A lot of fans and media have been suggesting that Vigneault give Daniel and Henrik Sedin another chance. Perhaps Daniel should get the odd opportunity (after Hodgson and Burrows), but Henrik has put forth some of the worst shootout attempts I have ever seen (including this one).

Roberto Luongo

Quite simply, Roberto Luongo needs to be better. He is too good of a goalie to perform this poorly in the shootout. Luongo has a respectable career shootout save percentage at .663. Currently this year, Luongo has a .476 SV% in the shootout.

Luongo is 49th out of 57 NHL goalies in save percentage. He appears lost in the net, biting on every fake and getting beaten by any decent shooter. But it didn’t used to be this way.

In Luongo’s first season in Vancouver (2006-07), he was pretty good in the shootout. He had the 25th best shootout save percentage out of 71 goalies. Lu was even better the following two seasons (07-08, 08-09), but has seen his shootout save percentage drop in each of the last three seasons.

It appears that either Luongo’s reactions are starting to slow down with age, or shooters have a book on him.

Luongo might want to consider shifting the way he approaches the shootout. Unlike some other goalies, Luongo treats a shootout attempt the same as a breakaway. He stays reactive to the shooter and doesn’t make the first move or keep the shooter guessing. While this is probably the best way to play a breakaway, it leaves him prone to shootout attempts when players walk-in with pre-planned moves in mind. A lot of the successful shootout goalies keep the shooter guessing by utilizing the poke check or mixing up their positioning.

Shootout Philosophy

As I have already outlined, I believe the Canucks should identify their top shootout players, and run with them. This should be done with at least 2 of their first 3 shooters. Even though the Canucks don’t have a stud in the shootout like Pavel Datsyuk or Jonathan Toews, they can still identify a specialist or two.

Maybe above all, the Canucks need to treat the shootout seriously. That means practicing it and scouting it. The Canucks ought to be scouting goalie and shooter tendencies. It boggles my mind every time I see Alex Burrows walk-in and score with the same old move on opposing teams. I mean, if I know the move he’s going to do, how is it that NHL teams don’t?

Perhaps the Canucks already do a lot of scouting for the shootout, but it doesn’t appear so.

The good news out of all of this is that there are no shootouts in the playoffs. But the shootout can be the difference between finishing first, second or third in the conference, and that can be the difference in who hoists the Stanley Cup in June.

I’m not sure if I just wanted to torture myself or if this is part of the healing process, but I watched game 7 of the Stanley Cup Final again on the weekend. I have the game on my PVR, along with a few other notable games from last year’s playoff run (game 7 vs Chicago, game 5 vs San Jose, Game 1 and 2 versus Boston). I’ve watched parts of all the other games before, but this was the first time that I mustered up the courage to watch the most important game in franchise history.

So why did I inflict this pain upon myself? Well, it was because I felt like a lot of myths are starting to develop about the Canucks season last year. For one, people talk about last year as if it was a total failure. Obviously it wasn’t a total success, but it was pretty darn close. For another, people think that the Canucks lost the Stanley Cup Final because of the Bruins toughness. While toughness contributed to it, it’s probably a bit exaggerated.

So I watched game 7 again. I remembered the Canucks getting off to a good start in the game, but I had no idea just how good they were in the first period. Believe it or not, the Canucks were the better team. They carried most of the play, got most of the scoring chances and outshot the Bruins 8-5. Unfortunately the only stat that mattered in the first period was the goals stat, 1-0 for Boston. The goal was a good shot, just inside the post and kind of came out of nowhere. It fooled Luongo, but it was a good shot. It wasn’t a shot that resulted from a defensive breakdown or sustained pressure by the Bruins.

The second period wasn’t as good for the Canucks, but it was far from terrible. The Canucks played the Bruins fairly evenly, but couldn’t score on Thomas. Luongo let in a wrap around goal make the score 2-0. Luongo probably should have had it. But even after the game was 2-0, the game was not over. The Canucks continued to play decent, and earned the game’s first power play late in the second period. That’s where puck luck took over. A couple of bad bounces on passes at the blueline stalled their man advantage. Then, late in the power play the Bruins got a fortunate bounce off a stanchion and scored on breakaway. At that point, the game was 3-0 and the Canucks were buried. That’s when I turned the PVR off.

In the most important game in franchise history, the Canucks lost 4-0 (including the empty net goal) but they honestly didn’t play that bad. They outshot the Bruins in every period (37-21 overall), generated scoring chances and limited chances by the Bruins. Unfortunately Tim Thomas was super human and Roberto Luongo wasn’t. Also, the Canucks fourth line was completely useless, and sapped momentum every time they were on the ice. The Bruins fourth line conversely did just the opposite.

The reason I’m pointing all of this out is not to suggest that Boston was lucky to win the Stanley Cup, but it’s to make people realize that the Canucks did not lose game 7 because Boston was too tough and/or better in all facets of the game. The main reason that Boston won the game was because Vancouver wasn’t able to beat Tim Thomas.

Alain Vigneault announced his starting goalie today, and for the sixth straight time Vigneault will be giving Cory Schneider the nod. Giddy sports writers immediately hopped up and down at this news, with the prospect of the hottest controversy in this town since the Dickenson-Printers saga.

While I can certainly understand the giddiness of the media, this situation is a little different from the Printers-Dickenson situation the BC Lions faced in 2004-05. At least initially.

For now, Roberto Luongo and Cory Schneider are saying all the right things. Luongo has been very complimentary to Schneider and vice versa. Luongo had this to say about Cory Schneider:

Cory has unbelievable talent. He has been working his bag off for the last two years. He never complained and was always 100 per cent behind me so same thing goes for me. He deserves what he’s getting right now.

Cory Schneider getting six straight starts is a big deal in Vancouver because something like this has never happened to Roberto Luongo before. Of course, he’s never had a backup like Cory Schneider before. Luongo missed the first two games of this streak due to injury, but he’s been healthy for almost a week now. Schneider in the meantime has been exceptional, save for the Chicago game.

So head coach Alain Vigneault has decided to ride the hot hand, giving Luongo another night off against Columbus tomorrow night. If you ask me, it’s the right decision, and Schneider should be kept in until he loses or isn’t exceptional between the pipes. It’s not an unheard of philosophy and you only need to look at the Pittsburgh Penguins last season.

Last year Marc-Andre Fleury of the Penguins got off to a terrible start. He lost 6 of his first 7 games and had to watch Brent Johnson start a lot of games because of it. Brent Johnson started 8 of 12 games in late October/early November before Fleury finally turned his game around and had an exceptional season. Fleury ended up with great numbers and was a big reason the Penguins fared so well despite the absence of Sidney Crosby and Evgeni Malkin.

What Alain Vigneault has to figure out is if he ultimately will do everything possible to try to ensure that Roberto Luongo is playing at full capacity by the time the playoffs roll around. It’s all fine and dandy to give the keys to Cory Schneider in November and ask him to carry the load while he’s playing well. Luongo gets some rest and has a lot of time to get in the groove before the playoffs start. But what happens if Schneider is outplaying Luongo in February or March? It’ll be then, not now, that the real tough questions will have to be answered.

Today is the first installment of a new feature I like to call “Arguments I Hate”. The premise is simple. I will present something that a lot of people say or believe is true, and tell you why it’s nonsense. Today we’ll look at the assertion that Vancouver is a ‘goalie graveyard’.

The term ‘goalie graveyard’ was a term first coined by former Canucks general manager and quote machine, Brian Burke. What Burke was suggesting was that Vancouver was among the toughest cities on goalies. At the time, the Canucks were in the midst of rolling through a whole bunch of goalies and were currently trying out Dan Cloutier. The Canucks were unable to solidify the goaltending position since having Kirk McLean between the pipes in the mid-1990s. Despite the catchy name, the goalie graveyard argument is a myth.

The ‘goalie graveyard’ argument is an argument that I hate because it has been used to suggest that the Canucks have had a lot of good goalies that fans are overly critical of. Since Kirk McLean was traded away in 1998, the Canucks have had the following goaltenders play 10+ games for the team: Arturs Irbe, Sean Burke, Garth Snow, Corey Hirsch, Kevin Weekes, Felix Potvin, Bob Essensa, Dan Cloutier, Petr Skudra, Alex Auld, Johan Hedberg, Dany Sabourin, Curtis Sanford, Jason LaBarbera, Cory Schneider, Andrew Raycroft and Roberto Luongo. Of those goalies, only Sean Burke, Felix Potvin and Roberto Luongo were considered the number one goalie from the team they were acquired from. Of those goalies, I would suggest that only Roberto Luongo has been treated unfairly by the fans, and that has only been the case in the last couple of seasons. Previous to that, Luongo could do no wrong in Vancouver.

Have Canucks fans criticized goaltenders in Vancouver? Absolutely. Was it warranted? You bet. Felix Potvin was basically run out of town in 2001 after being outplayed badly by Bob Essensa. Potvin proved that he had something left in the tank with the Los Angeles Kings afterwards, but his play was not up to par in Vancouver and the fans knew it.

Goalies like Dan Cloutier and Kevin Weekes drew the ire of fans because of their play. But at the same time, goalies like Arturs Irbe, Corey Hirsch, Alex Auld, Andrew Raycroft and Cory Schneider played well in Vancouver and were rarely criticized. Fans in Vancouver are hard on their starting goalie when he struggles mightily for long periods of time, but show me a market that isn’t? The problem in Vancouver was that they didn’t have a good goalie, not that the fans ruined good goalies.

If Vancouver is a goalie graveyard, then certainly Philadelphia is one too by the same logic (look at their list of goaltenders recently, it isn’t impressive). Surely Montreal is a goalie graveyard too. They jeered hall of famer Patrick Roy before he got traded. Jose Theodore fell apart in Montreal despite being a former Hart Trophy winner. Is the Atlanta Thrashers/Winnipeg Jets franchise a goalie graveyard because they trusted Damian Rhodes, Milan Hnilicka, Pasi Nurminen, Johan Hedberg, Kari Lehtonen and Ondrej Pavelec to tend their goal? Surely after the failures of Patrick Lalime, Ray Emery and other legendary Senators goalies makes Ottawa a goalie graveyard.

‘Vancouver is a goalie graveyard’ is an argument I hate. If you bring bad goaltending to this city, you’ll get criticized and eventually traded. Just like every other hockey market.

Don Cherry did something that he rarely does on Coach’s Corner yesterday, he talked about the Vancouver Canucks. Cherry said the Canucks weren’t paying the price (actually he said ‘playing the price’, but we know what you meant Don). He also said that people were unfairly pointing the finger at Roberto Luongo (actually, he said Lulongo… he said Bieska too in case you’re wondering), that the Canucks need to block more shots and that they need to stop whining. And you know what? He’s right… Mostly.

Skip ahead to the 5:15 mark for Cherry’s Canucks rant:

So are the Canucks ‘paying the price’ enough? No, I don’t think they are. I don’t necessarily think that this is something people should be overly concerned about yet, it’s still early after all, but they’re not playing up to their potential yet. I don’t say this because for statistical reasons, I say this because I watch the games. Their effort could be better, and I expect that to improve.

What Cherry is out to lunch on was using the blocked shots stat as an indicator of a team’s desire to win. Blocked shots can depend on a whole host of factors. A team will have more blocked shots when they give up more shots against, are shorthanded a lot or play a tight defensive system that allows shots from the outside, but not many odd man rushes. It’s also a poor indicator when you consider that the Canucks were ranked 25th in blocked shots last season, and the Stanley Cup champion Bruins were ranked 15th. The New York Islanders led the league in blocked shots last season, and the Maple Leafs were second. Both of those teams missed the playoffs.

And what about Cherry’s assertion that the Canucks are whiners, and that’s one of the reason that everyone hates Vancouver? I’m not sure that the Canucks have a lot more whiners on their team than other teams in the league (Chris Pronger whines all the time, but never gets called a whiner), but that’s definitely the perception. To borrow a phrase from David Pratt, in this case, ‘perception is reality’. It doesn’t matter if the Canucks do a lot of whining, if that’s the perception, it won’t help their case with the referees.

The Canucks have a reputation as being whiners and divers and that needs to stop. Ryan Kesler, Alex Burrows and Maxim Lapierre don’t and won’t get the benefit of the doubt on borderline calls. It’s part of the reason they didn’t get calls in the Stanley Cup final. It’s also the same thing that happened to former Canucks Todd Bertuzzi and Jarkko Ruutu. Bertuzzi was perceived as a whiner (probably because he complained about EVERY penalty and offside call against him) and Ruutu was perceived as a diver. I don’t think the current Canucks are as bad as those two, but the perception is as such.

What the Canucks need to do is be squeaky clean in the area of diving and complaining to the refs. Cut out every bit of nonsense, because any shred of diving or whining will get magnified. If the Canucks can shred that reputation, it’ll help them win games come playoff time.

After a day of listening to irate callers on the Team 1040 today and receiving some nice feedback on my blog from yesterday’s article ‘Why Everyone Hates Luongo’, I think it would be interesting to take a closer look at Roberto Luongo, by the numbers. Everyone has their opinion on Luongo, and there are a whole lot of misconceptions. Some fans believe that Luongo stunk last year (despite an appearance in game 7 of the final, a bunch of playoff shutouts, a Vezina nomination and a Jennings trophy), which is clearly not accurate. But was he great last year? Average? Is he terrible this year? Is he playing like he always plays in October? Lets answer those questions.

The most important stat for goaltenders is save percentage. Goals against average gets a lot of play, as do wins, but they are far more dependent on the team in front of you than the save percentage stat. That’s not to say that save percentage is a flawless stat. It can be skewed if you’re on a defensive team that only allows shots from far away or if you’re on a team that allows a lot of breakaways and odd man rushes.

In my opinion, an excellent season for Roberto Luongo is if he ranks in the top three in save percentage among starting goalies. A good season is if he ranks in the top 10, an average to below average season is if he ranks 10-20 and a bad season is if he ranks 20-30.

Save Percentage – Regular Season with Vancouver

2006-07: .921 (rank among starting goalies: 3rd)

2007-08: .917 (rank among starting goalies: 13th)

2008-09: .920 (rank among starting goalies: 5th)

2009-10: .913 (rank among starting goalies: 15th)

2010-11: .928 (rank among starting goalies: 3rd)

Quite simply, Roberto Luongo has been a reliable number one goalie. His numbers have been consistently good and he has been one of the best goalies in the league year after year.

So should fans be worried about his poor start to this season or should they be comforted in the fact that he always has a slow start? Lets look at the numbers.

Save Percentage – First Four Starts or the Regular Season with Vancouver

2006-07: .941

2007-08: .883

2008-09: .895

2009-10: .865

2010-11: .920

2011-12: .856

So the notion that Luongo always has a slow start is somewhat true (although not so slow in 2010 and 2006), but he has never had a worse save percentage through the first four games. I don’t think that fans should be alarmed by his start, but it’s not completely par for the course.

Luongo’s regular season numbers always end up being very good, but his playoff numbers have not been quite so sparkling. When looking at starting goalie rankings, remember that only sixteen starting goalies make the playoffs.

Save Percentage – Playoffs with Vancouver

2006-07: .941 (rank among starting goalies: 2nd)

2007-08: did not make playoffs

2008-09: .914 (rank among starting goalies: 9th)

2009-10: .895 (rank among starting goalies: 12th)

2010-11: .914 (rank among starting goalies: 8th)

Analyzing those stats, one can come to the conclusion that Luongo has been average when it comes to the postseason (other than the 2006-07 playoffs when he was spectacular).

But what about last year’s playoffs in particular? Was he good? Bad? Somewhere in between?

Save Percentage – 2011 Playoffs

vs Chicago: .903

vs Nashville: .933

vs San Jose: .931

vs Boston: .891

These numbers aren’t surprising to look at. Luongo was great against Nashville and San Jose (particularly San Jose, because they have a lot of fire power) but was average to below average against Chicago and Boston. Of course that doesn’t tell the whole story against Boston though.

Save Percentage – 2011 Playoffs vs Boston

Game 1: 1.000

Game 2: .933

Game 3: .789

Game 4: .800

Game 5: 1.000

Game 6: .625

Game 7: .850

Luongo was terrible in three games, spectacular in three games and below average in game 7.

So what conclusion can we come to with all of these numbers? We can come to the conclusion that Luongo can be relied upon in the regular season but he has been inconsistent in the playoffs. He has had great playoff moments and forgettable ones. And for that, he deserves some criticism. I have no trouble with fans criticizing Luongo, but before you do so, get your facts straight.

Roberto Luongo is one of the most beloved and hated players to ever play for the Vancouver Canucks. He’s the best goalie the team has ever had (with apologies to Kirk McLean and Richard Brodeur), has been a Vezina finalist, a Hart Trophy finalist, won a gold medal and almost won a Stanley Cup in his 5+ seasons in Vancouver. Last year might have been his best season statistically, and yet, he’s hated now more than ever. If you weren’t already familiar with Luongo’s situation in Vancouver, this wouldn’t make any sense.  But if you do, strangely it makes perfect sense. So why does everyone hate Luongo?

To clarify, not everyone hates Luongo, but there’s a whole lot that do. I’m kind of on the fence with him. He’s not as great as I thought he was/would be, but he’s still a top ten goalie in the league. But ask your local yahoo at Rogers Arena these days and you’d think Peter Skudra had made a comeback with the Canucks.

People hate Luongo for a few reasons, but only some of those reasons are legitimate. Lets investigate:

A lot of fans think that Roberto Luongo is overpaid. How many times have you heard Luongo haters remind everyone of the fact that he made $10 million last season? The fact of the matter is that the only number that should matter to everyone not named Francesco Aquilini is $5.3 million, the amount that counts towards the salary cap. Luongo has the seventh highest cap number among NHL goaltenders, which is appropriate.

Luongo, fairly or unfairly, is classified as a bit of a jerk by fans. For me, it’s hard to argue this point. He doesn’t seem like the nicest guy in the world. When players like that are playing well, nobody cares what their personality is like, but when they’re playing poorly, it doesn’t help their cause. Kirk McLean (often seen as a nice guy) in his final couple of years with the team was downright terrible (considerably worse than Luongo has ever been), yet he never felt the wrath of the fans like Luongo is right now.

Fans hate Luongo because they perceive him as a choker. They think that when times get tough, that Luongo can’t deliver. And when he does deliver, they say that the team win in spite of his goaltending, not because of it. There’s an element of truth behind this, but it’s vastly exaggerated. Luongo has had some spectacular moments in the postseason, but has also had some forgettable moments. His struggles against the Chicago Blackhawks are well publicized, but how quickly we forget that he stole a playoff series in 2007 against the Dallas Stars (the Canucks were shutout in three games but still won the series in seven games). He was out-dueled by Tim Thomas in last year’s playoffs, yet still posted two shutouts in the finals. Luongo isn’t a choker, but he has been inconsistent in recent years, which is frustrating to fans.

The real reason why fans hate Roberto Luongo is the fact that he hasn’t lived up to the hype. Luongo burst onto the scene in 2006-07, leading a very poor Canuck team (that team had Jan Bulis on the second line and Josh Green on the third line) to a Northwest Division championship. Luongo was spectacular that season and was the only reason the Canucks accomplished anything. Luongo could do no wrong in his first few seasons in Vancouver, but he’s now a victim of his early success and the hype that surrounded him. Now Luongo is seen as overrated and everything is exaggerated.

Everyone in Vancouver for the moment needs to take a deep breathe and realize what Luongo is. He’s an excellent goalie, but he’s not without fault. He will have slumps and he will have moments of brilliance.

So I’m a little different than a lot of people in Vancouver. A lot of people think he’s great, a lot think he’s terrible. For me, he’s ehhhh pretty good.

Remember this time last year? The Canucks were Stanley Cup favourites. They were picked by many to not just contend for the Stanley Cup, but to win it. And they came pretty darn close.

The Canucks had a dream season in 2010-11, save for four games in the Stanley Cup Final. They were the best team in the regular season, had the best power play, scored the most goals and had the lowest goals against. The Canucks had just two significant losses in the offseason (Christian Ehrhoff and Raffi Torres), yet the pundits don’t seem to like their chances nearly as much this season. The TSN Power Rankings has the Canucks ranked fifth. It seems like a lot of people don’t think the Canucks can make it back to the Stanley Cup Final, and I think they’re wrong.

Of course, winning the Stanley Cup is a tall order. A lot needs to go right, and you need some luck along the way. The Canucks certainly had their fair share of luck last season, and they’ll need a bit more this year. But luck aside, the Canucks have a lot going for them.

A lot of talk has been centered around what the Canucks have lost. The Canucks will be without Christian Ehrhoff and Raffi Torres (both lost to free agency), as well as Mason Raymond who is out long term due to injury. Yet, once Ryan Kesler returns in November, the Canucks will have an improved  lineup than the one dressed for game 7 of the Stanley Cup Final.

Game 7 Lineup:

Bieksa-Salo

Edler-Ehrhoff

Alberts-Tanev

Sedin-Sedin-Burrows

Tambellini-Kesler-Higgins

Hansen-Lapierre-Torres

Glass-Malhotra-Oreskovich

2011-12 November Lineup:

Bieksa-Hamhuis

Edler-Salo

Ballard-Tanev

Sedin-Sedin-Burrows

Sturm-Kesler-Samuelsson

Hansen-Malhotra-Higgins

Volpatti-Lapierre-Weise

A lot of people forget that the Canucks were without Dan Hamhuis and Mikael Samuelsson during the Stanley Cup Final. A lot of people also forget that Chris Higgins and Maxim Lapierre were not with the team for most of last season’s record breaking regular season. Missing Mason Raymond will hurt, but Marco Sturm should be able to fill his shoes aptly. Chris Tanev looks to be improved and Keith Ballard can’t possibly have a worse season than he did last year, can he?

My argument is not that the Canucks are without warts, far from it. But this team is in the mix with about seven or eight other teams as the top contenders for the Stanley Cup in 2011-12. The Sharks, Kings and Blackhawks should be much improved this season and along with the Red Wings (who are always good) will be the toughest competition in the west. Should the Canucks get back to the final, the Capitals and Penguins appear better as well.

If Roberto Luongo is strong in net, their defence stays healthy and their forwards continue their scoring prowess, the Canucks will be the best team in the Western Conference. And that’s not a bad position to be in.

Due to the Canucks long playoff run, the team is in for a very short offseason. The NHL entry draft is in four days and free agency begins in only eleven days. Mike Gillis has some work to do, as all GMs do. Luckily for the Canucks, most of their core is locked up long term, but there are a few key players that will become restricted free agents. Kevin Bieksa, Christian Ehrhoff, Sami Salo, Andrew Alberts, Raffi Torres, Chris Higgins, Tanner Glass and Jeff Tambellini are all unrestricted free agents on July 1st. Maxim Lapierre, Jannik Hansen, Victor Oreskovich and Alex Bolduc are all restricted free agents.

While who Mike Gillis decides to sign and not sign will affect the look of the 2011-12 Vancouver Canucks, he may also be in the market to make a trade or two. He might need to make a move to free up cap space, or to find the missing piece of the puzzle.

Today we will look at the Canucks’ goaltenders and defencemen. Later in the week I will look in depth at their forwards and before July 1st I will look into who the Canucks can go out and sign from elsewhere.

Lets start with the most polarizing figure on the team, Roberto Luongo:

Roberto Luongo

Despite his critics, he is still one of the premiere goaltenders in the NHL. There’s no doubting his skill, and he has done everything short of winning a Vezina and winning a Stanley Cup. But despite this, you can’t argue that he has had a strange propensity of getting into slumps at inopportune times. His play in game 4, 5, and 6 of the Chicago series left some room for concern. He gave up some bizzare goals against Nashville. And in the Stanley Cup finals he had four sub-par games. One could argue that he was outplayed in 3 of the 4 series. It seems strange to say, because when he was good, he was VERY good. But unfortunately the good does not erase the bad. Despite all of this, I believe Luongo is an excellent goalie that can win a Stanley Cup. And because he has a no trade clause, he won’t be going anywhere.

Cory Schneider

I believe in Roberto Luongo, but I also believe in Cory Schneider. Schneider is unproven of course, and it would remain to be seen if he could carry the mail as a number one netminder. In a perfect world, the Canucks would trade Luongo, clear cap space and go with the younger/cheaper Schneider. That would give them approximately $4 million more to play with. Because of Luongo’s no-trade clause, that would be a risky proposition, given that he could say no and then you have a rift in the relationship between your top goalie and management. They could also choose to trade Schneider and find a journeyman goalie to backup Luongo. While that could possibly fetch them a good second line winger to play with Ryan Kesler, but Mike Gillis will likely play it safe and keep both of his goalies for at least one more year. He stays.

Dan Hamhuis

No doubt here, he stays. He was their best offseason acquisition and is their best shutdown defenceman.

Kevin Bieksa

He is an unrestricted free agent and will surely get a raise on the $3.75 million he made last season. On the open market, he would command over $5 million for sure, but it seems like he might be willing to take less to stay in Vancouver. If the Canucks could convince him to sign for the same as Hamhuis ($4.5 million), it would be a steal. I think he stays.

Christian Ehrhoff

Like Bieksa, Ehrhoff is an unrestricted free agent. Like Bieksa, he will command over $5 million on the open market. He says that he might take less to play in Vancouver, but I don’t think he will as much as Bieksa. Ehrhoff is their most talented offensive defenceman and he is one of the most important players on their potent power play. The Canucks would be wise to re-sign him, but it might not fit in their salary structure. If he doesn’t stay, then a likely destination for him would be Detroit. Without Brian Rafalski, Ehrhoff would be a fine replacement. It’s probably 50/50, but I think he goes.

Alex Edler

He isn’t going anywhere, and if the Canucks are unable to re-sign Christian Ehrhoff, his role as an offensive force will likely expand.

Sami Salo

It will be very interesting to see what happens with Sami Salo. One of the longest serving current Canucks, Salo made $3.5 million last season. As you might be aware of, he is quite injury prone. He has also lost a step and is also 36 years old. I can’t imagine the Canucks locking him up for more than one year, and if they do, what will be the price? He played well after returning from injury, but I don’t think the Canucks can afford to pay him big money given his lack of reliability due to injuries. If he accepts a one year, $2 million deal, I think it would work. Otherwise, he leaves. I think Salo stays.

Aaron Rome

Rome has one more year left on his contract at a very affordable $750,000 cap hit. He is a favourite of Alain Vigneault, and we found out why after he was suspended in the Stanley Cup final. The team missed his reliability and grit. He is a dependable depth defenceman, and will be back next season.

Andrew Alberts

Alberts had a strong season and the Canucks would probably like to have him back, but I’m betting that he will want more playing time and will sign elsewhere.

Keith Ballard

The most intriguing decision that Mike Gillis will make this offseason will probably be with Keith Ballard. To say he had a disappointing season is putting it nicely. He has four more years left on a deal that pays him $4.2 million per season. That likely means that his contract is impossible to trade. Gillis can decide to keep him and hope he has a bounce-back season, or dump him in the minors in order to re-sign Christian Ehrhoff. The problem with dumping in the minors is that it likely won’t please Francesco Aquilini, who would be on the hook for paying Ballard $16.8 million dollars for a minor leaguer! My best guess is that he stays and has a bounce-back season, but it’s a toss-up.

Chris Tanev

Chris Tanev has all but locked up a spot on next year’s roster, given his strong play in the Stanley Cup Final. His calm, cool demeanor was great to see. Having a good, young, cheap defenceman is a nice thing to have in a salary cap system. He makes just $900,000 next year.

I’m not one to use Canucks marketing campaign slogans on a regular basis (I’ve never said that ‘we are all Canucks’), but never has ‘this is what we live for‘ been more true. Game 7, Stanley Cup Final, at home. This IS what we live for. It’s what the players live for, it’s what the fans live for. Quite simply stated, it’s the biggest game in Canucks history. It’s bigger than 1994. There will probably never be a bigger game for this franchise. This is their time. They will become legends if they win, or be labeled as chokers should they come up short.

Making Sense of Game 6

If you’re like me, you were angry at the Canucks performance in game 6, then went into a deep depression for over 24 hours and it’s only now that you’re getting excited for game 7. So just what happened in game 6? As funny as it sounds, I don’t think the Canucks were that bad in game 6. Obviously they weren’t spectacular, but they needed a save from Roberto Luongo. With each goal let in, the Bruins received an enormous surge of momentum. The Canucks couldn’t weather the storm, and it became 4-0 very quick. In game 7, the Canucks will need their goaltending to be air tight, especially early.

Injuries

By now you’ve probably heard about Mason Raymond’s injury. He won’t be in the lineup for game 7, and the health of Andrew Alberts and Alex Edler are uncertain also (though I expect both to play). Ryan Kesler is banged up, as is Henrik Sedin, Chris Higgins and a whole host of others. I expect Jeff Tambellini to spot in for Mason Raymond, but the rest of the walking wounded will likely play, and will need to dig down deep for the game of their lives.

What worries me most about these injuries is that maybe the Canucks are no longer the better team on paper. With Dan Hamhuis injured and Christian Ehrhoff hobbled with a bad shoulder, their defense is in shambles. Their high end talent up front is severely banged up. Who is the better team right now?

Keys to Victory

1. Roberto Luongo. He has been spectacular at home and terrible on the road. He needs that to continue. Momentum has been so huge in this series, Luongo has to play the game of his life.

2. Goals. The Canucks haven’t scored enough in this series, and they need that to change (duh). The Canucks power play has to get it together. They need to solve Tim Thomas. I think the way to do that is to throw a whole lot of pucks on goal and hope they get a good bounce. If they get too picky, they will shoot themselves in the foot.

3. Sedins must show up. They’re the Canucks best players and it’s time for them to step up. I feel like the key for them is to quicken up their cycle. Because Hudson Bay rules seem to be in play during this series, if the Sedins spend too much time on the cycle, they will get crosschecked off the puck. Daniel Sedin predicted that the Canucks will win game 7, and now it’s time to back it up.

4. Don’t anger the hockey gods. Before game 6, the poll question on Team 1040 was “who will Henrik Sedin give the Cup to first?”. They can’t afford to think along those lines. The team that deals with the distraction of being one win away from the Stanley Cup the best will be best suited to actually winning it.

5. Heart. There’s not likely to be a lot of power plays and scoring chances, as is the case in most game 7s, so the Canucks will probably have to win this in the trenches. Who has more heart? We will find out.

As a longtime Canucks fan I just feel like ONLY the Canucks could put us on such an emotional roller coaster, such as this. To do what they did against Chicago in the first round and then have such a bizarre series against the Bruins, who’d have thunk it? But in a way, isn’t this how you knew it would be? If the Canucks were to lose this year, you know they would do it in absolutely the most painful way possible, just when you think they’ve got it won. But on the flip side, if they were to win the Stanley Cup, you just knew that it wasn’t going to be easy. One of two scenarios will play out on Wednesday night. This is what we live for.