Canucks Pre-Season Schedule

• Tuesday, September 21st vs Calgary (7:00 PM)
• Tuesday, September 21st @ Calgary (6:00 PM - SNP)
• Wednesday, September 22nd vs Edmonton (7:00 PM)
• Saturday, September 25th vs Anaheim (7:00 PM - CBC)
• Sunday, September 26th @ Edmonton(5:00 PM - SNP)
• Tuesday, September 28th vs San Jose (7:00 PM)
• Wednesday, September 29th @ San Jose (7:30 PM - TSN)
• Friday, October 1st @ Anaheim (7:00 PM)

All games are supposed to be televised, however not all games are officially scheduled to be televised. Sportsnet should be picking up the remaining games. All games are available on the Team 1040 and on Canucks.com

Canucks Open Training Camp in Penticton

It's that time of year again, training camp has officially opened!

For the hardcore fans you can actually watch the camp scrimmages live on Canucks.com

The Vancouver Canucks Hockey Blog will have new content soon and is currently being re-designed (so things may look a little strange at the moment)

Canucks Sign Dan Hamhuis and Manny Malholtra

On the opening day of free agency the Vancouver Canucks went out and got the two guys they wanted, defenseman Dan Hamhuis ($4.5m 6yrs) and centre Manny Malholtra ($2.5m 3 yrs). Prices and term are always higher than what players are "really worth", but Mike Gillis just addressed the two biggest needs of the Canucks and still has cap room to fill in the rest of the roster.

Dan Hamhuis $4.5 million over 6 years

Dan Hamhuis was one of the more sought after free agents on the market, his rights were traded twice and there were reportedly many other teams interested, however he chose to play for his "home town" team at a salary which is likely less than what others had offered. Six years is a long time, but at 27 the Canucks are paying for his prime years, so term should not be an issue. A salary of $4.5m is a relative bargain for a sought after free agent defenseman, but may be a little over priced for a player who has yet to prove he can be a top pairing guy and who is joining a team whose salary structure has limited defensemen at the $3.5m mark.

Like the recently acquired Keith Ballard, Hamhuis is a legitimate top 4 defensemen who can play at both ends of the rink, but perhaps the most important adjective to describe the two players is "durable". In his 6 year career Hamhuis has missed only 9 games. For a team who saw their playoff chances dissipate due to injuries on defense, durable defensemen are a welcome sight.

With the addition of Hamhuis someone is obviously on the way out. The general consensus is that Kevin Bieksa will be traded with Shane O'Brien likely being moved as well. But that's not necessarily a sure thing. There may be enough minutes to spread around on defense and there is even the small possibility of Bieksa playing up front if needed. Logically Bieksa seems to be on his way out, but there's still a possibility of the Canucks hanging on to him if they can find the cap room.

Manny Malholtra $2.5 million over 3 yrs

Let's get this out of the way... yes the salary is at least $500k too much and the reported no trade clause isn't great. Ok, now that that's done with Manny Malholtra is exactly the player the Canucks needed... a 6'2" 215 lbs centre who can also play the wing, kill penalties, win faceoffs (62.5% last year) and chip in offensively (14g 19a vs Wellwood's 14g 11a).

Malholtra had a very good playoff run for San Jose and will bring some much needed size and grit to the Canucks bottom 6 forward group and to the penalty kill. Should Cody Hodgson make the team as a centre Malholtra has the ability to move to the wing.

Other Moves...

The Canucks also signed former first round pick Jeff Tambellini to a 1 year deal and centre Joel Perrault to a 1 year deal for $510k. Perrault may have a chance at the 4th line centre spot, but both will be in tough to make the team out of camp especially with Gillis likely still in the market for another bottom 6 forward.

In other news Canuck fans are still ecstatic that Darryl Sutter still has his job in Calgary.

Canucks Trade Grabner, Bernier and 1st for Keith Ballard

The Canucks made their first big move of the off season yesterday by trading their 25th overall pick along with Michael Grabner and Steve Bernier to Florida in exchange for Keith Ballard and Victor Oreskovich.

At first glance the price looks very steep from a Canucks perspective, but in the end this is a good trade for both teams. Remember trading isn't about "winning" the trade, it's about making your team better.

Heading to Florida:

Michael Grabner

It always sucks when you give up a player with Grabner's skillset. In their 40 year history the Canucks have had few players with Grabner's combination of speed, goal scoring instincts and shot. Grabner looked a little overwhelmed in the playoffs, but he showed flashes of star talent during the regular season. Also keep in mind he missed most of the season with a freak pre-game injury. It's hard not to see Grabner being at least a 20 goal scorer with the potential to one day approach the 40 goal mark. But you've got to give to get and the Canucks dealt from a position of strength, with Raymond in the top 6 and Shroeder and Hodgson knocking on the door someone had to go. With Grabner being at the tail end of his entry level contract and the emergence of Raymond, he was the logical one to move.

Steve Bernier

Bernier was a disappointment in Vancouver, but he was a serviceable bottom 6 winger with size. Unfortunately last season his injury issues took away his physical game and he wasn't effective on the forecheck. At $2m he was simply too expensive for his role.

First Round Pick 25th Overall

The value of a draft pick is a funny thing. At the trade deadline or during the season a first rounder has pretty high value. However come draft day when you have knowledge of who exactly is available at your slot the value can be a lot less. When Jarred Tinordi was snatched up by Montreal at #22 the Canucks did not see anyone else they really liked at #25, so they decided to trade the known commodity (this year's pick) instead of next year's. A pretty shrewd move on Gillis' part. Holding on to next year's pick also keeps the option of an RFA offer sheet intact.

Coming to Vancouver

Keith Ballard

Ballard is a huge addition for a few reasons. 1) He fills a desperate need, a need which will be very difficult to fill through free agency. 2) He's under contract during his prime years at a time when the Canucks are set to lose key components of their defense core via free agency or declining ability. Sure there's a risk Ballard's contract (5 more years at $4.2m) could be a problem down the road, but that risk is minimal when you consider his skill set (skating and puck moving ability).

There have been some complaints about his size, but he plays a gritty game, blocking a lot of shots and delivering a lot of hits. If he was 5'12"(aka six feet) people probably wouldn't be complaining half as much.

Guess how many defensemen played 82 games last year... 28, Ballard's done it in 4 out of 5 seasons in the NHL. Guess how many defensemen had 28 points last year... 58, that's less than 2 per team, in the Canucks system over 82 games Ballard should have no problem hitting 35 points.

Victor Oreskovich

Oreskovich is an interesting player. A big winger (6'3", 215), who quit hockey altogether before returning to the game last season, will add some much needed size to the bottom 6 forward group. After quitting hockey some may legitimately question his character, on the other hand the fact that he was able to come back so quickly has to count for something both in the character/work ethic department and in his physical ability to do so.

Ballard makes the Canucks a better team today and there are still plenty of moves to come. Another defenseman is a must, perhaps Dan Hamhuis will be available on July 1. The futures of Willie Mitchell, Kevin Bieksa and Shane O'Brien are up in the air, at least one possibly two will likely not be back next season. The 3rd line still needs to be addressed and Gillis seems intent on getting tougher and harder to play against. It's going to be an interesting summer, the fun is just getting started...

Game 3 - Kings 5 - Canucks 3 - Game Notes

Some quick notes before a pivotal game 4...

• The Canucks penalty kill has been beyond terrible in this series. The PK is at the point where they may as well just concede a goal and save themselves the 2:00 off the clock. Vancouver absolutely needs to be better on the PK or they are done, simple as that.
• And the guy who can help the PK get it done is Roberto Luongo. Just when I thought Luongo had turned a corner he comes up with another brutal performance. That fourth goal, no matter how poor a play it was by Wellwood, is inexcusable from the supposed leader of the team. I don't want to see Luongo take one look or have one conversation with an official. Focus on the puck and stop the puck.
• The Canucks power play was just as bad as the PK. Christian Ehrhoff was awful and showed none of the strong play we saw in the regular season. He handled the puck like a grenade and could not handle the pressure.
• As strong as Wellwood has played down the stretch and even in the first two games of this series, the fact that the Canucks have a 3rd line centre who does not produce offensively and cannot kill penalties is really hurting then right now.

• Finally the disallowed goal... The best part about the NHL replay system is it's consistency. Whatever game you are watching when you see a goal reviewed the vast majority of the time you know what the call is going to be. In the past they have always been consistent - the puck might be across the line but if you can't see it on video it's not a goal etc. etc. - that's why this decision is so aggravating to Canuck fans. This same play has been called a goal over and over and over, that was until Monday. The fact that the decision overturned the on-ice call, favoured a large US market team and was made by an ex-King, and now has Colin Campbell claiming he actually made the decision even though it was pretty clear it wasn't his decision (yes the same guy who supposedly "investigated" the Burrows-Auger incident) - well it really brings into question the credibility of those involved.

  The Canucks are behind in this series because they haven't played well enough, but it's hard to ignore the fact that they have had two calls go against them even though those calls directly conflict with the language in the official rule book. The explanation of the Sedin non-goal was ridiculous. It's debatable whether Sedin even saw the puck come off Burrows' stick let alone attempted to kick the puck. But I guess by slowing the replays down enough and by looking at all the angles Mike Murphy somehow managed to get inside Daniel Sedin's head and determined that yes he intentionally kicked the puck in.

  But hey it must have been the right call right? Otherwise why would you have to take the unprecedented step of having to go on hockey night in canada to defend a video review call immediately after the game?

Game 2 - Kings 3 - Canucks 2 - Game Notes

After game 1 the question was how would the Kings react after getting a game under their belt? On Saturday night the Kings were much better while the Canucks lacked the sense of purpose they played with in game one. The result was a 3-2 loss in overtime on an unlucky, if not questionable, too many men on the ice penalty.

I don't like to blame officiating for a loss, but penalties in overtime are a different animal. First you had the non-call on Ryan Smyth's high stick which was somehow deemed a follow through even though he was not taking a shot, he was simply flailing at a lose puck and got his stick up... what happened to being responsible for your stick? The refs let that go and I would have been fine with that, until the too many on the ice penalty (called by a linesman no less). Did the Canucks have too many men on the ice? Yes, that was obvious. However, 1) the puck was shot towards the Canuck bench by the Kings; 2) It hit Bieksa who was coming off the ice and was not played by a player coming on to the ice. In the NHL those types of plays are usually not called, let alone called in overtime during the Stanley Cup playoffs.

That said it wasn't the officiating that cost Vancouver the game. They simply didn't play hard enough. The Kings were better in that department and in the end their hard work got them the breaks they needed to win the game.

• If their was one silver lining for Vancouver it would be that the real Roberto Luongo made an appearance at GM Place for the first time in 2010. That is the Luongo we are used to seeing. He was razor sharp all night and for the first time in a long time I felt 100% confident in him.
• It has become apparent that this series is going to be determined by special teams. The Kings power play has been lights out and the Canucks have taken far too many penalties. Vanocuver's PK needs to be much much better. Right now they are giving too much respect too the points and it has resulted in the Kings easily moving the puck across the ice through the middle and down low. The Canucks need to tighten up and make some adjustments.
• Andrew Alberts is an awful defenseman. There's a reason one of the worst teams in the NHL wouldn't give him any important minutes. The Canucks needed a defenseman at the deadline, but Alberts for a third is looking like Gillis' worst move as GM. In his first few games Alberts seemed to be on the ice for half the team's goals against. He looked a little better in the final few games of the year, but two games into the playoffs he has been a disaster. Alberts has nearly single handedly kept LA in this series.
• Where was the 4th line? If you can't get them some ice at home how are you going to do it in LA? Three minutes of ice isn't enough. Mike Gillis chose not to get any help for the bottom 6 and so far it has resulted in Vancouver playing a 3 line game. Pretty tough to go 4 rounds doing that.
• The Sedins were great in game one, and not too bad in game two, however it was Henrik Sedin being late on the backcheck which allowed the Kings to tie the game up.
• Where has Demtira's game gone? Maybe the Canucks should put a Slovak jersey on him and see what happens. If he doesn't show signs of life soon, I'd like to see Grabner moved up to play with Kesler.
• Alex Edler was great in game one and solid in game two, but he's got to hit the net. Edler missed the net 5 times on Saturday night.
• The Canucks found an edge in the faceoff department, which should help as they head down to LA.

Game three goes Monday at 7:00 pst. Let's hope we don't get stuck with that stupid high camera angle that is used so often in California.

Game 1 - Canucks 3 - Kings 2 - Game Notes

Time to post again...

The Canucks opened their quest for the 2010 Stanley Cup with a very strong, even dominate, performance against the Los Angeles Kings. Vancouver was by far the better team 5-on-5 as the Kings rarely sustained any pressure. Special teams were a different story as the Kings scored twice on the power play and were dangerous when they didn't. On to the game notes...

• Alex Edler was the big story after game 1 and deservedly so. While most of the talk was about the big hits, especially the great one on Doughty, it was the defensive play against Anze Kopitar that was most impressive. Edler stayed right on the talented forward and didn't allow Kopitar to score as Luongo was flopping around like a beached whale. That play may have saved the game for Vancouver.
• Speaking of Luongo, while he made a huge save in overtime, he didn't exactly do anything to show that his struggles are behind him. While Quick looked confident and inspired his teammates, as soon as the Kings scored Luongo appeared to be fighting the puck again and lost the swagger he was displaying early in the game/pre-game. The second Kings goal wasn't a "bad goal", it developed quickly, it's still one that Luongo should stop. If he can't stop those the Canucks won't be getting out of the second round.
• What more can you say about the Sedin's? They are superstars in this league and if anyone tells you different... well there an idiot.
• Andrew Alberts was the one black mark in the Canucks performance. In the last week or so of the season Alberts had finally gotten his game to a point where he wasn't a total liability. However his two dumb penalties resulted in two goals against and were the only reason the Kings were in the game. Hopefully Rome is ready to go tonight.
• The officiating in game 1 was decent, at least they let them play, however there were numerous non-calls on high sticks, how they didn't see Kopitar's stick through Henrik's visor is mind boggling.
• Both teams are good in the faceoff department and they split the draws 50-50 in game 1. As the series progresses it will be interesting to see if one team can find an advantage in this department.

Game 2 goes tonight and should be interesting. The Kings were happy with their game on Thursday (at least that's what they were saying), but it will be a short series if they don't make some adjustments (especially breaking out of their own zone).

You have to wonder how much of a factor experience will be for the remainder of the series. In game 1 the Canucks were confident and played with a purpose, while the Kings were often on their heels. No one ever admits it, but for young teams making their first playoff appearance their is often a subconscious feeling of being "happy to be there." Is that a factor in this series? Maybe. The Kings season is already a success, while the Canucks' core has experienced early playoff failures and is hungry to go deep into the playoffs.

Tonight we'll see if the experience of that first playoff game will help the Kings, or if the Canucks are truly the dominant 5-on-5 team...