Let's start today with some required reading. Ed Willes from
The Province does a good job of breaking down yesterday's words from Mike Gillis
here. Here's a taste:
On Thursday, he was telling ownership ‘you want to bring me back, fine, but if you do, stay out of my way.’
Who he was talking to is the next question, and it seems those remarks were addressed as much to Luigi Aquilini, the patriarch of the family, as any of his sons.
Could yesterday's address have been Gillis' last-ditch attempt to circumvent Francesco Aquilini and attempt to reach papa Luigi's ears directly? It certainly seemed like a call for the coach and players to fall into line with Gillis' vision, but can also be read as a request for more autonomy when making player-personnel decisions.
As a few of you mentioned yesterday, Gillis' position certainly doesn't tell the whole story of the Vancouver Canucks for the last six years. It ignores the undisputably bad moves like the Mats Sundin signing and the Keith Ballad trade, to name a couple. It also ignores the times after 2011 when Gillis said that he "misread" the direction that the NHL was headed and that the team would need to acquire the right personnel to adjust to the game's changing style.
Now, he seems to be back to the belief that the 2011 team was constructed correctly after all, and we can simply turn back time to regain that success.
This also glosses over the fact that the whole reason why John Tortorella was brought in and, thus, the playing style changed, was because the old style hadn't been working for the previous two seasons—especially in the playoffs. Yes, Torts' team is way more of a mess than the 2011-12 squad that won the Presidents' Trophy before collapsing against the Los Angeles Kings, but the team had distinct problems that predated the coaching change.
The Canucks will practice at Rogers Arena today at 11 a.m. As Willes points out, it'll be interesting to hear what Torts has to say about all this, and whether he moves from "I just have a game to prepare for, like any other." Does he feel attacked or called-out by Gillis' words? Have they talked privately behind the scenes?
With the fabric of the situation changing almost daily, let's hear from you. What changes would you like to see before next season?
This is about what you *want* to happen, not what you expect to happen:
A friend and I were musing the other day about whether or not a coach's contract could contain performance clauses. If, for instance, Tortorella didn't achieve a certain target like, say, making the playoffs, could that trigger a clause for termination or something similar? We wondered if there might be some fine print that would allow the team to let him go without having to pay out that remaining $8 million.
I think ownership would resist the idea of terminating the long-term deals because of what that represents—a rudderless franchise that isn't sure where it's headed and could be bringing in its third coach in three seasons. (Watch out, Edmonton—we're coming for you!) It's a pride thing, but I don't think the actual money would be a stumbling block.
The value of the Canucks franchise has increased enormously since the Aquilinis took over and there's another new phase of construction now getting underway at Rogers Arena, which will generate another sack of cash for the family.
All this drama is wildly entertaining, but it's damaging the Vancouver Canucks' brand more and more every day—and that affects the franchise's value.
The big question now: Who has the right blend of smarts and likability to get the team back on track and get the fans feeling positive and spending money once again?
Vancouver Canucks Blogger • 
Join the Discussion:
»