The Canucks finished their brutal 14-game Road Trip From Hell(tm) earlier this week, and they did so in style. Despite being worn down from the longest road trip in league history [Ben Kuzma, The Province] and starting backup Andrew Raycroft, Vancouver gave a very solid Phoenix Coyotes team all they could handle Wednesday, eventually falling 4-3 in the sixth round of the shootout at the hands of former Canuck Adrian Aucoin. They finished the road trip with an amazing 8-5-1 record, which has to be considered a huge victory, especially after they were 4-4 in the games before the Olympic break and barely pulled out those wins against some of the league’s worst teams.

By and large, the Canucks involved in the Olympics played well, though, and that provided some optimism coming out of the break. Particularly encouraging was the resurgence of Pavol Demitra; as I wrote last week, Demitra had been quite effective as a defensive player in his limited appearances this year, but hadn’t done much to find the net. He seemed to rediscover that offensive touch during the Olympics, leading the tournament in points, and he brought that back to the Canucks. The other Olympians have played pretty well, and the rest of the team has also stepped up, leading to a 4-1-1 stretch since the break that brought back memories of the team’s most recent hot streak.

This road stretch has been even more impressive when you factor in that the Canucks haven’t been very good away from home this year. They’ve put up a dominating 23-7-1 mark at GM Place, but even after this recent spate of success, still sit at just 18-16-2 on the road, a .500 winning percentage. They were .571 on this last trip, an incredible mark considering the brutal travel schedule involved. That bodes well for the future, but they’ll have to keep it up.

The Canucks have now played 67 games, or 81.7 per cent of their regular-season schedule. They have a 41-23-3 record, good enough for 85 points (first in the Northwest Division, tied for fourth in the Western Conference, tied for fifth in the entire NHL). What’s even more impressive is their goal differential, though; they’ve scored 220 goals while allowing only 174, a difference of +46, which is the fourth-best mark in the league. Vancouver fans are used to seeing the team pick up their wins in close games, but that hasn’t been the case this year, and that’s a very positive development; sure, blowouts aren’t worth any more points than close wins, but that kind of goal differential suggests your team is prevailing on skill, not luck.

On that note, it’s interesting to look at the league-wide goal differentials and the potential parity gap they present. Washington is first, with a ridiculous +75 mark. After the Capitals come Chicago (+57), San Jose (+52), and Vancouver (+46). Below the Canucks, there’s a huge drop to the fifth-place L.A. Kings (+24), and there are only six more teams (Pittsburgh, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Colorado and Buffalo) even above par. That’s right, 19 of the league’s 30 teams have allowed more goals than they have scored.

That doesn’t necessarily mean that the Canucks and the others in their goal-differential class are head-and-shoulders above everyone else; goal differential has its limitations. However, it certainly bodes well for their success down the stretch and in the playoffs. Their road success is also encouraging, given how that appeared to be one of their weaknesses early on. At the moment, they’re looking like killing machines.

[youtube=9RieEBdEF1s]

Linemates often have a considerable influence on a player’s success, though, and for much of his Canucks’ career, Demitra hasn’t exactly received the cream of the crop. The best offensive player who he’s seen regular time with is probably Ryan Kesler. Kesler can be very good offensively at times, but he often plays as a two-way guy with a focus on defence. Still, he’s much better than some of the other players who have been paired with Demitra, guys like Taylor Pyatt and Jannik Hansen who are capable in their own right but hardly offensive dynamos.

What often flies under the radar is that Demitra can be an effective defensive player, though. Using Behind The Net’s advanced stats, we can take a look at how many goals the Canucks scored per 60 minutes of even-strength time that certain players were on the ice (GFON/60) and how many goals they allowed (GAON/60) during that same period. This gives you a sense of how the team would do if they played that player for the entire game (without fatigue), and allows for a more effective isolation of a particular player’s skills than the standard plus-minus system. This season, Demitra has an unremarkable 2.21 GFON/60, but a sparkling GAON/60 of 0.74. That’s the best mark on the team (except for Evan Oberg and Guillaume Desbiens, who both saw brief ice time in the one game they played without having a goal scored against them). Demitra also has a +/-ON/60 of 1.47, the seventh-best mark on the team. His numbers are necessarily prone to small sample size, given the limited number of games he’s played in this year, but they suggest that he can be a capable and useful player even when he isn’t registering points.

Demitra’s performance in the Olympics showed that he still has that offensive talent, though, and gave plenty of hope that he can contribute offensively during the playoff push. He also has three points in his three games since the break. However, even if he doesn’t display the same sort of scoring prowess he did during the Olympic tournament, don’t write him off yet. His contributions this year have gone well beyond the offensive end, and that bodes well for the Canucks. Despite his limited presence on the stat sheet and his injury concerns, there’s every reason to believe this won’t be a wasted year for Demitra.

Ryan Kesler (USA): A

Kesler’s contributions haven’t always been noticed, as he only has one goal (an empty-netter against Canada) and no assists for the U.S. so far. However, that’s partly due to his role; he’s been employed mostly as a checking centre, and he’s done quite well with that. His most impressive showing has come in the faceoff circle, where he’s won 38 of his 50 draws (76 per cent, the best mark in the tournament). Faceoffs are often underrated, but they can play a huge role in a team’s success, especially on special teams where a draw can be the difference between a solid power-play scoring chance or a puck safely cleared by the penalty-killing team. I’d like to see Kesler contribute a little more offensively, but he’s been playing his assigned role very well and has been a big part of the Americans’ success so far.

Pavol Demitra (Slovakia): A

Somewhat surprisingly given his injury struggles this year, Demitra is the only Canuck to crack the top 30 in Olympic scoring leaders. He has one goal and three assists in four games for the Slovaks. He still doesn’t seem to be in top form, especially defensively, but he’s given a much better showing than I thought he would. We’ll see if he’s able to continue that down the stretch.

Roberto Luongo (Canada): A

Luongo started Canada’s first game, shutting out the Norwegians, but then was replaced by Martin Brodeur. He got the call again for Canada after Brodeur’s dismal outing against the Americans Sunday, and stopped 21 of 23 shots in a 8-2 victory over the Germans last night. He’s second in save percentage in the tournament with a .947 mark, behind only the perfect-so-far Henrik Lundqvist. However, Luongo doesn’t get an A+ because of the poor quality of competition he’s faced so far and the two goals he allowed yesterday. In my mind, he remains the Canadians’ best option in goal going forward, but we’ll have to see how he does against the ever-dangerous Russians tonight.

Daniel Sedin (Sweden): B+

Daniel has a goal, two assists and a +3 rating in four games for the Swedes, which certainly isn’t bad. However, given the way he’s played for the Canucks this year, it definitely isn’t as dominant as many might have expected. He’s also only received 45:07 of ice time, well below most of the Swedish forwards, and he’s been overshadowed offensively by the likes of Loui Eriksson and Nicklas Backstrom. I wouldn’t count Daniel out yet, though; his brand of offence may come in handy against the Slovaks tonight.

Henrik Sedin (Sweden): B

As per usual for the Sedins, most of what’s written about Daniel can also apply to Henrik. However, Henrik’s been slightly more disappointing in this tournament, as he has only two assists in 48:53 of ice time. He and Daniel haven’t been anywhere near as threatening as they normally are, and I’m not quite sure why. We’ll see if they can work the kinks out as the Olympics progress.

Sami Salo (Finland): B-

Salo has been a consistent minutes-eater for Finland, receiving a team-high 71:21 of ice time in three games so far. That’s reassuring given his usual fragility and recent injuries; it suggests that he’s in good physical condition. He’s been reasonably effective defensively as well, and is +1 on the tournament. However, I’d like to see him do more offensively; he has no goals and one assist so far. He is shooting the puck, as his seven shots place him fourth on the team, but he hasn’t produced the results many would hope for yet. He’s got a terrific shot, so I’d expect more from him on the offensive end in the games to come.

Christian Ehrhoff (Germany): C-

Germany was the most disappointing team of the tournament, in my mind. They had more NHL talent than most of the underdog teams, with seven current NHLers on their roster, but they just never seemed to click. Part of that blame can be placed at the feet of Ehrhoff, one of the Germans’ top stars. He had been playing tremendously well with the Canucks and led all German skaters with 89:06 of ice time in their four games, but did next to nothing offensively, firing nine shots without recording a single point or coming particularly close to scoring. He was better defensively, and finished at -1 for the tournament (not bad when you consider that the Germans were outscored 12-3 in the round-robin portion and 8-2 in their playoff game last night), but more was expected. Hopefully, he’ll be able to return to solid play at both ends after the break.

What’s even more worrisome is how the Canucks barely squeaked out three of those four wins against Boston (18th in the league), Columbus (25th) and Toronto (29th). Their only decisive win was a 3-0 victory [Nucks Misconduct] over the injury and trade-depleted [Trevor Presiloski, The Internet Trashcan] Florida Panthers (26th in the league) Thursday. Losses happen, but Vancouver just isn’t playing well at all right now, and they easily could have picked up less than eight points from this road trip.

One of the chief areas of concern has to be the play of Roberto Luongo. Luongo started the year slowly, but then rounded into form, and his overall numbers (.919 save percentage, which is tied for 12th in the league, a 2.35 save percentage, 10th in the league, and four shutouts, tied for sixth in the league) certainly aren’t too bad. However, his recent play has been very hit-and-miss, and the way he allowed five goals on just 32 shots before getting pulled against the Wild Sunday definitely wasn’t impressive.

That loss wasn’t entirely Luongo’s fault, though, and the team’s poor play goes well beyond the crease. The Canucks took 36 penalty minutes Sunday and allowed four power-play goals. They also were outshot 41-29 and only registered two shots on goal in the second period. They’re not going to win many games that way.

What do the Canucks need to do to get better? For one thing, they need to come out of the gate ready to play; as I wrote last week, they’ve allowed other teams to score first way too often. To me, that’s symptomatic of the bigger problem, though; they’ve started to believe their own hype and are coasting on their reputation. The team has a tremendous amount of talent, but there’s enough parity in the NHL that they can’t take anyone lightly. Hopefully, they’ll realize that after the Olympics.

The Olympic break could be an excellent opportunity for the team, though. For one thing, it gives them time to think and time to heal; with the slew of defensive injuries and the recent report by Jim Jamieson of The Province that Henrik Sedin has been suffering from a back injury for the last 10 days, that time could be a huge benefit. The break also provides a rest for the players who aren’t involved in Olympic competition. In my mind, it’s the [a href="http://communities.canada.com/THEPROVINCE/blogs/kurtenblog/archive/2010/02/14/roasting-the-olympic-bound-canucks-not-named-roberto-luongo.aspx">seven players [Orland Kurtenblog] who will be in the tournament that could really benefit, though; many of them have been playing poorly lately [Brad Ziemer, Vancouver Sun], and they might just be jolted out of their comfort zone by playing for their country, with different teammates, and potentially in elimination games, where you’re forced to give it everything you’ve got.

Furthermore, most of the Canucks competing are expected to play significant roles. The Sedins will likely be on one of Sweden’s top lines and collect a fair bit of power-play time, while Ryan Kesler may be a crucial two-way forward for the Americans. Christian Ehrhoff is probably Germany’s best player, while Sami Salo will see plenty of ice time with the Finns. Pavol Demitra may have a more limited role with Slovakia, as he’s just returned from injury, and Roberto Luongo’s chances at the starting spot with Team Canada are still up for debate [Greg Wyshynski, Puck Daddy], although there’s a case that can be made for him, particularly when you consider Martin Brodeur’s recent struggles [J.J. Guerrero, Canucks Hockey Blog]. Still, it looks like these guys will be important components of their Olympic teams, and that experience, plus the chance to play with other elite players, may help them when they return to the NHL.

Moreover, the Games are in Vancouver and the schedule isn’t that tough, so it’s like a regular two-week homestand for the Canucks who are participating. Hopefully, if they can use that time wisely, they can learn from the Games and bring a more aggressive mentality back to the NHL after the break to give the Canucks a great finish to the regular season. The bell is tolling for them; the question is if they’ll step up and answer the call.

If you think I’ll sit around as the world goes by/You’re thinking like a fool cause it’s a case of do or die/Out there is a fortune waitin’ to be had/You think I’ll let it go you’re mad/You’ve got another thing coming.

-Judas Priest, “You’ve Got Another Thing Coming”.

The Canucks could take a lesson from Judas Priest these days. They’re certainly sitting around as the world goes by, as they haven’t scored the first goal of a game in three weeks [J.J. Guerrero, Canucks Hockey Blog]. Counting Tuesday’s game against the Lightning, they’ve given up the first goal in their last seven games and in 12 of their past 14 contests [Gordon McIntyre, The Province]. After that game, they’d also led for a grand total of two minutes and four seconds [McIntyre] on this Road Trip From Hell ™. That’s certainly a worrisome trend.

What’s to blame? Well, the Sedins have cooled off recently and they’re sure not getting a lot of support from the bottom half of the lineup. Guys like Kyle Wellwood [Nucks Misconduct] and Steve Bernier [Mike Halford, Orland Kurtenblog] haven’t lived up to their promise. At least the third line’s been okay defensively. The fourth line, on the other hand, is producing next to nothing [Trevor Presiloski, The Internet Trashcan] at either end of the ice. In fact, the Canucks just aren’t scoring goals at the moment; they have 185 goals in 58 games so far this year, a healthy average of 3.2 goals per game, but in their last four games, they’ve scored one goal against Tampa, two (not counting the shootout winner) against Boston, one against Ottawa and two against Montreal. That isn’t going to lead to a lot of wins, considering how even the best goaltenders (and Roberto Luongo is certainly in that class) tend to have a goals-against-average above two (Luongo’s is 2.33).

Perhaps the bigger issue at play is the Canucks’ tendency to play down to the level of their opponent, though. The teams they’ve played on this road trip are ranked 29th (Toronto), 17th (Montreal), 11th (Ottawa), 21st (Boston), and 19th (Tampa Bay) in the league in overall points. As I wrote earlier this year, this is something we’ve seen over and over again from this team; they tend to perform well against top teams, but they often take it easy against the bottom feeders, hoping their talent will carry them through. Sometimes it does; they wake up after allowing early goals and storm back to win, the way they did against Toronto and Boston. More often, they dig themselves into a hole and can’t find their way out.

However, all is not doom and gloom. Despite this abominable stretch of recent play, the Canucks are still somehow 2-3-0 on this road trip and 7-3-0 in their last 10 games. They’re also only two points behind the Avalanche for the division lead. They still have one of the best lines in the league, one of the league’s top goaltenders and a solid defensive corps. Sure, there are issues that need to be worked out, but most of them are effort issues as opposed to talent issues, and those are much easier to overcome in general. It’s easier to get a good team to play like an elite team than to get a bad team to play like a good team. Tonight’s game against the 26th-ranked Florida Panthers should provide an excellent measuring stick. Will we see a new and improved Canucks’ squad, or the same team that’s slow out of the gate and caught up in circles time after time?

After a tough loss to a red-hot Senators team Thursday and shootout win against Boston on the weekend, the Canucks continue their Road Trip From Hell ™ tonight against the under-new-ownership Tampa Bay Lightning.

It should be an interesting clash. The Canucks are 8-2-0 in their last 10 games, while the Lightning are 7-2-1. Vancouver has 72 points this year with a 35-20-2 record, while Tampa Bay has 61 points with a 25-21-11 record. There’s more to it than just those numbers, though; Tampa Bay’s looked very impressive lately, while the Canucks have been in a bit of a slump despite their 8-2-0 mark in the last 10; they suffered two bad losses and then squeaked out a win in Beantown thanks to a superb effort from Roberto Luongo. Based on recent form, it looks like the Lightning have the edge.

One positive for the Canucks is their superlative record against the Eastern Conference this year; they’re 11-3-0 in their out-of-conference games. Vancouver’s a dismal 12-13-1 on the road, though, and they’re only 2-1-0 against the Southeast Division. However, the Lightning are only 5-5-5 against the Western Conference and 2-2-1 against the Northwest Division. Also, Tampa Bay has taken a ton of games to overtime this year, which might not be such a bad thing for the Canucks; they’re not competing against the Lightning for a playoff berth, so taking at least one point away from this game would be a desirable outcome. We’ll see which trends will follow through later tonight.

Another element that comes into play here is that this is the first game the Canucks will play against Mattias Ohlund since he left the team last summer as a free agent (amid tampering allegations, to boot). Ohlund was a tough loss for the Canucks; sure, he had only six goals and 19 assists last season, but he played all 82 games for the Canucks (a rarity in this era of fragile Vancouver blueliners), and the advanced stats from Behind The Net show he was better than the simple stats show. He led all Canucks’ defencemen with a 2.94 goals for on/60 rating, and posted a respectable 2.34 goals against on/60 rating.

In my mind, the Canucks were wise to let Ohlund walk, though. He’s 33, and Tampa Bay offered him a 7-year, $26 million deal, with an annual cap hit of $3.6 million. That didn’t look like a bad deal for them, as he provides valuable experience for their blueline; he’s the only one over 30, and he can help tutor their young stars like Victor Hedman. He’s durable and was probably the best defenceman on their roster going into the season, but his skills were almost certain to decline either this year or in the coming years, and the Canucks couldn’t afford to spend that much on a defenceman who probably wouldn’t even crack their top pairing, especially considering the importance of getting good value for money in today’s NHL.

The move’s certainly looking pretty good about now, as Ohlund has struggled in Tampa Bay. He has no goals and 10 assists in 50 games, and has posted a -8 rating. His advanced stats are even worse; his GF60ON is only 2.00 and his GA60ON is 2.50, meaning that Tampa Bay allows .5 more goals than they score per 60 minutes of ice time he receives. Sure, part of that might be due to Tampa’s spotty goaltending and weak lineup of forwards, but the Lightning score 2.21 goals per 60 minutes when Ohlund’s off the ice and allow 2.48. Thus, he’s part of the problem, not part of the solution. The effects his experience and leadership have on the team are more difficult to quantify, but early returns suggest the Canucks were wise to let Ohlund walk. Many players do tend to step their game up a notch against their old team, though. We’ll see if Ohlund can pull that off tonight, and if vengeance will be his.

A.B.: The Senators have used several goalies this year, including Mike Brodeur, Brian Elliott and Pascal Leclaire. Who do you think deserves to be the top goalie at the moment? If they make the playoffs, who should be the team’s No.1 going into the postseason?

DHS: A goalie dilemma in the nation’s capital? Sky blue. Bears shitting in woods. I think the first thing to point out is it’s a shame that the 10 game winning streak started with 2 big wins by Mike Brodeur who is now back in the AHL. Unfortunately (for Brodeur), Elliott got in net and had a hot streak of his own. I would have liked to see Brodeur get a chance to start his own streak, but you can’t question management for not wanting to hand the reigns to a 26-year-old career AHL guy who just had a modest two-game win streak in his first NHL experience. Keep in mind, the Sens were just pulling out of a losing streak and Elliott had some success of his own last year, so I don’t think the team wanted to gamble with playoffs in sight. A lot of people are questioning whether Elliott can sustain his play and keep up his current level of performance in the playoffs; good questions, for sure, but as long as he’s hot I’d like to see him given the chance to start. He was a NHL 1st star and then a 2nd star the following week, so he’s doing something right even if people are finding a few flaws in his game reminiscent of a certain Swedish netminder. Ultimately I’m assuming that once Pascal is healthy (crazy talk, I know), he’ll be given every opportunity to start because as we know sometimes it’s not about who is hot as much as it’s about who was traded for who and how much they make that justifies ice time. For the playoffs, I guess if Leclaire can stay in net and play with any kind of consistency without poopy sheets he probably will be the starter. Any bump in the road with him however and I’d like to see Elliott back in there until he fails. Ahhh, it’s almost as if I’ve had to answer this kind of question before. *puts on Patrick Lalime jersey, drinks*

A.B.: Do you think Ottawa can keep up this performance down the stretch, or is this streak just a flash in the pan?

DHS: I believe in the the old adage you are never as good as your best winning streak and you are never as bad as your worst losing one. Obviously I don’t think Ottawa is the juggernaut that has currently laid down 10 W’s (over some pretty good teams to boot), but I don’t think they are any longer a fringe playoff team. They are probably one of those teams on the threshold of sneaking into the top 4 in the East and are distancing themselves from the ones trying to sneak in to the playoffs. Around Christmas time I was ready to concede the division to the Sabres, but after last night’s game I’m starting to think anything is possible. Jumping up to the 3rd spot in the East would be huge in terms of avoiding the likes of the Caps, Penguins or Devils in the first round. I’m really not sure they can keep up their success though in a 7-game series against any of the big guns in the East. Pittsburgh is just in autopilot until April, I’m convinced.

A.B.: Are you expecting the Senators to make any trades before the deadline? What would you like to see them do?

DHS: Now starting at Left Wing, Number 17… ILYA… KO-VAL-CHUK!!! Just kidding. We all know getting a star player from the Thrashers ultimately ends in disappointment. /rimshot.
Seriously, the Sens don’t have anywhere near the kind of cap space for a rental like him and there isn’t anyone on the roster I’d be willing to give up that would be needed to land an impact guy like him. As always, I’d like to see the Sens add some scoring depth. I wouldn’t mind if they could shed some of the soft goo on the blue line for an upgrade to maybe someone a little more competent with the puck who is comfortable playing in a rink with corners. I guess as long as Oleg Saprykin or Tyler Arnason aren’t walking through the door it will be more successful than trade deadlines of yore.

A.B.: Finally, any predictions for tonight’s game?

DHS: The forecast calls for flurries of passion, followed by extended periods of gettin’ it on. GO SENS GO.

Thanks to DHS for taking the time to answer my questions! In honour of his now-somewhat-dated nickname, here’s a now-somewhat-dated music video:

Those kinds of hot streaks can’t last forever, though. Four out of those seven wins were by one goal, and there were signs of weakness even in the lopsided victories. The NHL has enough parity and a long enough season that most games can go either way, depending on a few bounces. You can’t just go through the schedule checking off the teams below you in the standings as guaranteed victories; in fact, as I wrote earlier this season, one of the Canucks’ frequent issues has been been competing hard against the lesser teams.

The Montreal Canadiens aren’t an awful team, as their 58 points currently have them in playoff position, but they are 12 points behind the Canucks and it’s hard to argue that their roster possesses more talent. Still, Tuesday’s game showed that standings and individual skills don’t always make the difference. The Canucks played reasonably well and launched a season-high 47 shots at the Habs’ net, but Jaroslav Halak did an excellent job in goal for Montreal, the Canadiens got a few bounces and the Canucks made some mistakes. In the end, that was enough to give the Habs a 3-2 victory.

That doesn’t mean there’s anything particularly wrong with how the Canucks are playing, though. Sure, there are a few issues here and there,
such as the lack of secondary scoring, the poor performance by the third line and the amount of injuries they’re dealing with. There’s always tweaking that can be done, even when you’re winning, and this loss will hopefully be a reminder that they can’t take anyone lightly. However, the Canucks are doing a lot of things right at the moment; they’re leading the Northwest Division with 70 points, they’re 7-3-0 in their last 10 games and they have perhaps the best forward line in the league. Above all else, they need to stay medium and not get too wrapped up in individual wins and losses. There are a lot of games left, and this massive road trip will test them, but things aren’t all that gloomy. It’s a long way to the top, but these boys can rock and roll.

This Alex Burrows – Stephane Auger saga just continues to spiral. In terms of Vancouver versus the league, the NHL’s already come out with their “nothing to see here, move along” line, and it doesn’t look like much of anything further will happen on that front. The Canucks versus CBC story is much more interesting, though, and it hasn’t quite wrapped up yet.

Flash back to the Canucks’ Jan. 16 game against the Penguins on CBC’s Hockey Night in Canada. Before the game started, Ron MacLean and company aired an 11-minute segment on the Burrows-Auger controversy, featuring the comments of MacLean and NHL VP Colin Campbell. If you haven’t seen it yet, here’s the video of the first seven minutes of that segment:

Everyone’s entitled to their own opinion on that segment. Personally, I thought it was unfair and irresponsible. One of the key elements of journalism is giving both sides a chance to state their perspective. In news stories, that’s done by talking to (or attempting to talk to) both sides. With opinion pieces, that’s usually done by providing space for rebuttal; in print or Internet pieces, that can take the form of letters to the editor or comments on a story, while in television, it’s usually accomplished by talking to someone with a different perspective or at least suggesting that there is a different perspective out there. It’s ironic that MacLean failed to do this, as he frequently provides that balancing information in his Coach’s Corner segments with Don Cherry. This time, though, MacLean gave a league official (Campbell) eleven minutes of free air time to state the league’s position and fell all over himself agreeing with it. The Canucks were provided with no opportunity for rebuttal until coach Alain Vigneault’s segment on After Hours. Vigneault did an excellent job of defending Burrows, but I’m sure his defence was noticed by a lot fewer people, as After Hours doesn’t air until around 1 a.m. Eastern. That’s not a particularly fair and balanced way to look at things, in my mind, and MacLean’s pompous and unapologetic defence of his actions after the fact didn’t help matters.

The Canucks agreed with this take, promptly boycotting all Hockey Night In Canada interviews this past Saturday against the Blackhawks. Here’s the key part from Ben Kuzma’s piece, linked just above:

“It was an organization’s decision,” said Vigneault. “Any time we feel that one of our players has not been treated fairly, as an organization we have to take a stand and we did that last night and we’re moving forward.”

My background is as a traditional media reporter, and I usually hate the idea of players or teams deciding not to talk to organizations to make a point. I particularly hate boycotting a media organization over the actions of a columnist or an editorial board, as usually they’re not the ones trying to get quotes from you afterwards. Making the beat reporter’s life difficult doesn’t accomplish anything. However, I do agree with the reasons behind this particular boycott, especially considering that top CBC executives seem unwilling to consider that the Canucks have a point; Bruce Dowbiggin reports that CBC Sports head Scott Moore is standing by MacLean despite other CBC employees questioning the piece, and HNIC executive producer Sherali Najak said “There are no agendas”. This isn’t a lone media member going beyond the pale; it’s his organization backing him to the hilt and refusing to address the improprieties in his work. Because the CBC didn’t consider Burrows’ side of the story and refused to address the topic in a balanced matter, a boycott seems like the only way for the Canucks to launch an effective protest.

That doesn’t mean they should continue the boycott indefinitely, though, and that’s why it’s reassuring to see that the Canucks are involved in discussions with Hockey Night In Canada ahead of this Saturday’s game against the Leafs. They’ve made their point effectively on the issue; now hopefully they can move forward and put it to bed. Everyone now knows what they were fighting for, and hopefully that will put pressure on Hockey Night In Canada to be more fair and balanced in the future.

Regardless of what HNIC does, though, it will be more valuable to have Canuck players and coaches give their opinions on games on the air than continue a boycott over a past slight; that would just force HNIC to provide one-dimensional coverage of their games, and multiple biased pieces only make things worse. Plus, the Canucks should heed Charles Brownson’s famous saying, “Never argue with someone who buys ink by the barrel”. It’s airtime instead of ink in this case, but the principle is the same; protracted fights with the media don’t usually work well. The Canucks need to move forward and get this over with.

However, it is refreshing to see that the team did conduct this boycott against one of the most powerful media entitites in Canada on behalf of one of their players. Rather than hanging Burrows out to dry, they’ve stuck with him through this entire incident. Burrows has received tremendous support from his teammates, his coaches and his organization, and that’s good to see. He’s continued to score at a ridiculous pace despite the scrutiny, and I’d venture part of it is because of the backing he’s getting. That can inspire a team to come together, and it shows the players that this organization is willing to defend them. United, they can do far more than they ever could apart.