With just over one month until the start of NHL free agency, I figured this would be a good time to start profiling some of the best free agents that the Canucks may have their eye on. Today, lets take a look at Ryan Suter.

Over the last couple of seasons, Canucks nation has been scheming of ways to get their hands on Shea Weber. Maybe the Predators won’t be able to afford him? Maybe he’ll demand that he comes back to his home province. But it’s another all star Nashville Predators defenceman that every Canucks fan should have their eye on.

Unlike Shea Weber, Ryan Suter is scheduled to be an unrestricted free agent this summer. Even if Shea Weber is somehow available, you’ll have to rip your team apart to get him. To get Ryan Suter, all you need to give up is money.

Shea Weber is a better player than Ryan Suter, but not by much. Suter can do it all. He is a shutdown defenceman that can play big minutes and contribute offensively. He may be the #2 defenceman in Nashville, but he would be the #1 defenceman on most teams in the NHL. And he’s only 27 years old.

Suter averaged 26 minutes a game for the Preds last season. That’s well ahead of the time minute man on the Canucks and third in the NHL overall. Most of those minutes were played with Shea Weber, so some might suggest that his numbers were aided by that, but I don’t think there’s any doubt that Suter is the real deal.

Consider this: when in Nashville, Dan Hamhuis had trouble getting ice time because he played behind Shea Weber and Ryan Suter. Dan Hamhuis is (in my mind) the Canucks best defenceman. Also consider that Suter was the shutdown defenceman for Team USA at the Olympics two years ago. And he’s a better player now.

So without a doubt, Mike Gillis should do whatever he can to convince Ryan Suter to play on the west coast. In Vancouver he would step in as the team’s number one defenceman right away. He would play big minutes against the other team’s top lines, penalty killing and on the power play. I invision pairing him with Dan Hamhuis, which would be one of the best shutdown pairings in the NHL.

The problem with signing Suter is that there are 29 other teams in the league that will want him also. If Suter doesn’t re-sign in Nashville (which is a possibility), he’ll likely want big money with a contender. The Canucks are a contender, with the ability to offer big money. If Vancouver has a chance to get Suter, they should worry about cap space later. Guys like Keith Ballard and Mason Raymond could be dispatched for nothing if need be.

The other problem with Suter is that unlike when the Canucks signed Dan Hamhuis two years ago, he isn’t a BC boy. If he wants to play close to home (he’s from Wisconsin), then there’s nothing the Canucks can do. But if he wants to win, I can’t think of too many other places that would be a better fit than Vancouver.

So how much money will Suter command? If I were to guess, I would say $6.5 million. Shea Weber is the highest paid defenceman in the league at $7.5 million, and there’s a handful of d-men that make more than $6 million. If Gillis can get him on a 5-6 year deal at under $7 million, I would do it. He is exactly the type of player the Canucks need, and if they have to overpay a little bit to acquire him, it’ll still be worth it.

Alain Vigneault was given a two year contract extension on Wednesday. I’m torn on the decision. I don’t love it, but I don’t hate it either.

If you were to have a town hall style debate on Alain Vigneault, it would be easy to make a compelling argument on why he should stay. Two straight President’s Trophies and five division titles in six years would suggest he is an outstanding head coach in the regular season. What about the playoffs you say? Well his record in the postseason is impressive as well.

In five playoff appearances, the Canucks have been good (not great) under Vigneault. For the most part, the Canucks under AV have beaten the teams they should have in the playoffs, and lost to the teams they should have. They beat St Louis (2009), Los Angeles (2010), Chicago (2011), Nashville (2011) and San Jose (2011) as they should have. They were clearly not as good as Anaheim (2007) and Chicago (2010), and lost as expected. They beat Dallas (2007), even though the Stars were probably the better team that season. But it’s the tough losses to Chicago the first time (2009), Boston in the Stanley Cup final (2011) and eight seed Los Angeles that have the anti-Vigneault people upset.

This season’s loss in the first round was particularly concerning. Playing Mason Raymond on the first line to start the series was ridiculous. A lot of other moves can be questioned too, but that might be unfair. Most teams that get eliminated in the first round can have a number of things second guessed.

The thing I haven’t liked about Vigneault in his tenure in Vancouver is that he doesn’t seem to make adjustments within a series in order to combat what the other team is doing well against them. The Canucks have seemed like a team that are what they are, and their opponent has 7 games to figure them out. Sometimes they do (like Boston in 2011), and other times they don’t (like St Louis in 2009). The flip side to this is that teams under Vigneault are usually well prepared to start a series. They have won game 1 in 9 of 11 tries.

It’s very hard to come up with a reasoned argument against Vigneault. His detractors would point to the team not being prepared for game 1 of the playoffs this season. But if you want to do that, you also have to give him credit for his sparkling record in game 1s before this season. With every bizarre line change that doesn’t work out, just remember that he was the only one who thought that Alex Burrows would fit on a line with the Sedins. There’s an argument that young players don’t flourish under him, yet the core group of this team grew under Vigneault.

Vigneault’s record should speak for itself, but somehow I’m conflicted. He has done well in Vancouver, but has he run his course? Every coach has a shelf life, and perhaps he is getting near the expiration date. I don’t think the players will quit on him, but the core of the team has to have seen every motivational tool at his disposal by now.

Another coach could have given the team another dimension and reduced complacency. But that coach would have needed to be competent also. If someone along the lines of Mike Babcock, Joel Quenneville or Dan Bylsma were available, I think it would have been a no brainer to let Vigneault go. As it stands, I don’t see an obvious replacement for Vigneault, so bringing him back is probably the right decision… although I’m biting my lip as I type this.

Hi everyone, I am writing this blog as I listen to the Game of Thrones theme song in a circular loop. This makes blog writing sound even more epic than it already is. This is my first blog entry so go easy on me. Just pretend you’re AV and I’m your son, Aaron Rome. Now that I’ve got introductions out of the way here is my blog.

It has been a few days since Canuck nation felt the stench of defeat sink in so that we can take a look back and dissect this carcass called the Vancouver Canucks 2011-2012 season. Where did it all go wrong?

Well according to bandwagons the world basically ended during the month of October. They wanted Luongo lynched and fed to the wolves. Everyone’s grandmother started to panic but then they started to win in November. Then everyone became a fan again. While the team did not dominate like they did the year before, they got their wins.

Then came January 7, 2012. Canucks vs the Bruins. The most entertaining friggin’ regular season game in documented human history. The only sporting event that came close to this level of intensity documented on film was this:

The game against the Bruins had it all: playoffs atmosphere, intensity, goals and some rough stuff. Canucks won 4-3 but something happened in the weeks and months that followed that game.

Gillis had been preaching a more puck position, offensive dynamic but defensively responsible team would be the way to go. They essentially had three scoring lines that they could roll. He would not change his team to play any other way just in case they MIGHT face Boston again in the playoffs. He wanted to follow the Detroit model.

After that regular season game I think the organization decided to change their tunes internally.

AV hungered for the more traditional line up of two scoring lines and two checking lines. CoHo simply did not fit. Watching Aladdin with David Booth and scoring timely clutch goals did not cut it. The media and radio callers kept hammering the point that the Canucks weren’t tough enough all season long. They were out hustled in the Boston series. Canucks needed more grit. They needed to get tough like a Chrysler Eastwood ad.

The team started to progress into a more defense team and lost their offensive flair and swagger. The confidence was gone and you could tell. Then came the trade deadline, which didn’t help.

Liev Schreiber or is it Cody Hodgson? I dunno but I bet AV hates both of them!

The Canucks traded away their well prized prospect Cody Hodgson for Kassian and added Pahlsson for good measure. AV now had his traditional NHL line up. Canucks got tougher with Kassian (or so they thought) and the fans and media yearning for more physicality cheered. Fans and media pundits felt the Canucks had a more balanced team but they were wrong. The trade was stupid and I’ll tell you why.

The Canucks are trying to win now and trading CoHo away for a project prospect like Kassian is not what the Canucks needed. Pahlsson was a failure because the year is 2012 and not 2007.  He could not win a faceoff and they ended up using Manny and Kesler for defensive zone faceoffs anyways so Pahlsson actually did nothing. They traded away secondary scoring, which they needed with more checkers and grinders than they know what to do with.

The reason the Canucks lost the Cup to the Bruins was not cause Daniel Sedin got punched in the head by Marchand (media/fans have this image ingrained in their heads) but because of inconsistent goaltending, injuries and the inability to score. Edler had hamburger fingers, Ehrhoff had a bummed shoulder and Hamhuis and Kesler’s hips lied to them. MayRay got crunched like an accordion and Samuelsson was done as well. The twins were shut down and we did not have another line to score.

You may argue that Coho aka Liev Schreiber wanted out but CoHo could’ve been packaged for a player for the now or traded in the off season. Note to Gillis, if Rich Winter was that annoying; just block his number until this summer. I’m sure he won’t tweet about it.

Hansel to Gretel: “This is where AV keeps his coveted offensive zone starts!”

This during the Gillis presser, he told the media that he and AV fattened him up like Hansel and Gretel so that he’d look delicious for Buffalo to eat with stellar offensive zone starts but come on. They made it sound like anyone could’ve benefited from those plump minutes, taking credit away from Hodgson’s skills and accomplishments. I’m sure they tried to fatten Bernier up but look how well that worked out. If it were all about the plump starts then MayRay could’ve scored or Kesler this season using that strategy…and we all know Canucks could’ve used some goals during the playoffs. This throwing Cody under the bus strategy and saying he wasn’t all that great, it was the system was Gillis and AV just them spinning the media so that they forget that this trade was a terrible one.

Not an offensive zone start:

The Canucks’ impotent limp down the stretch to win the President’s Trophy was well documented. They couldn’t score and AV decided to have his team play defensive hockey down the stretch. They were in hibernation mode since the Boston game, Gillis admitted as much so what the hell was the coach doing all this time? Isn’t a coach paid to motivate a team? He had four months. He had weeks to figure out a new top line without Daniel near the end but Game 1 Round 1 AV had nothing. The only thing he had at the end of this season was the satisfaction of icing a bottom six line up of grinders and a picture of Aaron Rome in his heart shaped locket.

Canucks could use a swagger coach this offseason:

About a year ago I began thinking of ‘the rules of trash talking’. It started at a Canucks game at Rogers Arena. It was a game late in the season during the Canucks assault on the National Hockey League. The Canucks were number one in the league, showing no signs of slowing down and were winning the game. And that’s when I heard two people behind me talking. A woman and a man were talking, she was a Kings fan and he was a Flames fan. They were running their mouth about the Canucks and weren’t making much sense. I had to say something, considering the fact that the Canucks had JUST beaten the Kings the year previous. [Rule #1, you can't trash talk a fan of the team that just beat you in the playoffs, you have NOTHING to say]

So the Kings fan says “OHHHH you guys are going to lose in the first round!” [Rule #2, you can't trash talk what you think is going to happen in the future. You can only trash talk what has happened or what is happening]

I have found a lot of people in violation of the most fundamental rules of trash talking of late. What rules you ask? Well there are rules. You can’t just go off trash talking whoever you want whenever you want. It has to make sense. If your team just won a Stanley Cup, you can talk a little more. If your team won a cup recently, you can talk too. If your team beat another team recently, go ahead, run your mouth. If you’re a fan of the Toronto Maple Leafs, you can’t say much at all right now.

The Boston Bruins just got eliminated from the playoffs today, but sorry Canucks fans, we can’t talk. I mean, we can be happy (and I am HAPPY), I certainly cheered when my man Joel Ward eliminated the Bruins in overtime (side note, I correctly predicted that Ward would score the winner). But trash talk the Bruins? Sorry, but they took our Stanley Cup.

Some people think that Stanley Cup riot jokes are crossing the line. I don’t. It’s fair game. People in our city acted like idiots, so we get ridiculed. Fair enough. I don’t think the jokes are funny but other people do and that’s fair game.

Bruins fans have their own shame now after their loss to the Capitals. Apparently they have a lot of racist fans that let their feelings known after Joel Ward scored the winner.

Trash talking is a great pastime between fans, but it ought to make sense. I thought Flyers fans were pretty brave when they chanted “you can’t beat us” when they were on their way to taking a 3-0 series lead versus the Pittsburgh Penguins.

After the Canucks were eliminated from the playoffs this year, I had a few Oilers fans chirp me on Twitter. I’m not exactly sure on the rules of trash talking, but I think there needs to be some kind of statute of limitations on celebrating your Stanley Cups. The Oilers have 5 of them, but none in the last 22 years. Add to that the fact that they’ve been the worst team in the NHL over the last three years and I think Oilers fans need to zip it for the time being.

I’m also not sure how much we can trash talk the Blackhawks. Sure, the Canucks beat them in game 7 last year, but they beat us twice before that and they won a Stanley Cup.

So there you have it, the rules of trash talking. It’s not a black and white rule book (easy Bruins fans), rather there are shades of grey. Go out, run your mouth, but have some sense.

The Canucks got great news on Tuesday, as Roberto Luongo revealed that he is willing to waive his no trade clause. Now don’t get me wrong, Roberto Luongo is an excellent goalie and I believe in him, but having the ability to trade him as well as Cory Schneider is huge for the Canucks.

Luongo has handled the goalie controversy with a lot of class. He has often been criticized for saying the wrong thing at the wrong time, but in this situation he has shown a great attitude. Luongo sounded humble and aware of the fact that Cory Schneider is an excellent goalie.

In my opinion the right move for Mike Gillis is to move Roberto Luongo and keep Cory Schneider. I would have been in favour of this before last season as well, and it has nothing to do with “hating” on Lu. Schneider is younger, cheaper, and perhaps better. Luongo is 33 years old, and has perhaps 2-3 years left as a top flight goalie before his talent is likely to diminish (if it hasn’t already). Not only that, but Luongo is an ‘old 33′ given he has been in the league since he was 20 years old and played 70+ games in a number of seasons. Schneider conversely, has a lot less wear and tear on his body at age 27.

If you keep Schneider, you will retain the better goalie (though this is arguable) and you will have him for many more years in his prime. The move would help the team in the short term by having a lower cap hit, and help long term solidifying the goaltending position for years to come. Even if the Canucks only get a couple of draft picks in exchange for Luongo, shedding his $5.3 million cap hit would allow the team to make a large offer to an unrestricted free agent. Perhaps they would be able to attract Ryan Suter, which would give the team a legitimate stud defenceman for years to come.

Roberto Luongo is one of the greatest players in franchise history, and certainly the greatest goalie in franchise history. He has been criticized a lot in recent years, but people ought not forget the number of exceptional years he has had in Vancouver. If he does indeed get traded, he deserves a standing ovation from the crowd in Vancouver upon his first return.

Interesting news in Canuckland on Tuesday. Mike Gillis held a press conference to address the state of the franchise. Gillis addressed a number of issues, the most intriguing was about the Cody Hodgson trade.

Mike Gillis confirmed what was speculated a lot at the time of the trade, Cody Hodgson wanted out. Gillis then offered up this tid bit: “I spent more time on Cody’s issues than every other player combined on our team the last three years”. Gillis also indicated that the plan was essentially to showcase Hodgson this year, giving him favourable ice time (time on the power play, starting shifts in the offensive zone, etc).

Hodgson was traded to the Buffalo Sabres at the trade deadline in exchange for Zack Kassian and Marc-Andre Gragnani. I didn’t like the trade at all at the time, and I don’t like it any better now. Gillis traded one of his leading scorers for two players who didn’t help the team in the here and now. Sure, Hodgson may have been difficult to deal with behind the scenes, but he was playing well despite this.

Looking back on the trade, it definitely hurt the team. The Canucks had insurance in goal if there was an injury to Roberto Luongo. They had insurance on defence if any of their defencemen got injured. But if one of their scoring forwards got injured (see: Daniel Sedin), they didn’t have much of an insurance plan with Hodgson gone (see: Mason Raymond). News also came out today that Ryan Kesler had been playing with a couple of different injuries, explaining why he wasn’t very effective offensively.

Imagine if the Canucks could have entered the playoffs with Hodgson filling-in for Daniel Sedin on the top line. Or imagine if Hodgson could have played on a line with David Booth, leaving the hobbled Kesler to centre a checking line. Maybe it would have made a difference, maybe it wouldn’t. But it just made no sense then or now to hand the third line centre position to a player who doesn’t score (Pahlsson) and give away a solid point producer, especially on the power play (Hodgson).

My biggest problem with the Cody Hodgson trade is that they got nothing in return to help them for this season. Hodgson may have been unhappy, but he was playing well. I don’t see any reason why Mike Gillis couldn’t have acquired Pahlsson, kept Hodgson as insurance and make the trade with Buffalo in the offseason.

After a second straight President’s Trophy, not many predicted the Canucks would be gone in the first round of the Stanley Cup playoffs. Even fewer would have predicted that they would be gone in only 5 games. So where did they go wrong? Lets investigate.

To start off with, this upset is probably not as big of an upset as you might think. To start off, the Kings finished the year with 95 points. That’s more than the winner of the Southeast division (which isn’t saying much I know) and only 2 points back of the Pacific division winner. That point total was also earned in a more difficult division than the Canucks play in. So perhaps the gap in points between the two teams is not as large as it may seem. The Canucks are also much less of a favourite without Daniel Sedin in their lineup.

But still, despite this, the Canucks had the more impressive regular season, no doubt. But the Canucks and Kings were not the same teams in October, November, December and January as they were in February, March and April. The Canucks lost Cody Hodgson and added Sammy Pahlsson. The Kings lost Jack Johnson and added Jeff Carter and made a coaching change. The Canucks’ power play finished the season with impressive numbers but the last half of the season it wasn’t very good. Meanwhile, the Kings finished very low in goal scoring, but were scoring at a higher rate near the end of the regular season.

This is all hindsight of course, and despite this, the Canucks should have put up a better fight.

I place most of the blame in game 1 on Alain Vigneault. To start Mason Raymond on the first line goes against all logic. While Daniel Sedin was out of the lineup late in the season, Vigneault had an excellent chance to have auditions for Daniel’s spot in the lineup. Not much was on the line (they were going to finish either first or second, and would have been better off finishing second as it turned out), and Vigneault experimented. Raymond spent little to no time on the top line, and the only guy that looked at home was Max Lapierre. Instead of starting game 1 with Lapierre with Burrows and Henrik Sedin, Vigneault decided to experiment during the most important time of year. Not surprisingly, Raymond didn’t look good on the first line. Vigneault also mixed up his pairings for game 1 (also against all logic), playing Kevin Bieksa with Alex Edler and Sami Salo with Dan Hamhuis. Luckily Vigneault learned his lesson after game 1, but he didn’t give his team the best chance to win right out of the gate.

Game 2 was a case of the Canucks giving the game away to the Kings. They carried most of the play, yet lost the game 4-2 because of a couple of inexplicable blunders while on the power play. The Canucks outshot the Kings 48-26, but I think that stat was inflated. They got a lot of shots on Jonathan Quick, but many were from the perimeter without traffic in front.

In game 3, the Canucks played like a desperate team, but also a team without confidence. They outshot the Kings 41-20, once again many of their shots came from the outside. Conversely, a lot of the Kings’ shots were difficult shots to stop.

In game 4, the Canucks gained more confidence and were able to make plays (having Daniel Sedin back helped). They also gave up a lot of chances to the Kings but got great goaltending from Cory Schneider.

In the final game of the series, game 5, I thought the Canucks were lucky to send the game to overtime. They got a fortunate bounce to take the lead 1-0, but were outplayed. Cory Schneider kept the team in it, but that only delayed the inevitable.

The Canucks couldn’t score in the 2012 playoffs. Daniel and Henrik Sedin were point a game players in the playoffs, but the secondary scoring went flat. Ryan Kesler was unimpressive, despite 3 points in 5 games. Every other one of their forwards had 0 or 1 point in 5 games. Kesler’s line was largely ineffective throughout the series, as was their fourth line which was grossly outplayed by the Kings’ fourth line, particularly in game 4 and 5. The Canucks’ third line was supposed to be their shutdown line, but they failed to shutdown anything. The Kings’ top line looked dangerous throughout the series.

So what went wrong? In short, everything except for goaltending.

Great stuff here from Kevin Bieksa. Apparently a reporter in Los Angeles (Mike Dunsmore from Fox Sports) thought he was Ryan Kesler, so he just went with it.

Let me start by saying that I don’t think the Canucks will win this series (ok maybe this article isn’t THAT positive). They’re down 3 games to 0 and that’s a near impossible deficit to erase. Even if they play excellent in the next four games, they’ll still need some luck.

But right now everyone in Vancouver is talking like the Canucks have already lost the series. Not so fast.

To win this series, the Canucks will need to fix some things. They will need to get more traffic in front of Jonathan Quick to manufacture some goals. They’ll also need to figure out a way to score on the power play. They will to limit the Kings chances and get great goaltending, as they did in game 3. The Canucks were the better team in game 3, but found a way to lose. If they show that same kind of effort and get some confidence and puck luck, they will be hard to beat.

So how can the Canucks come back? Well, the return of Daniel Sedin would be a good start. He has flown to Los Angeles to practice with his teammates. That suggests to me there’s a decent chance of him playing in game 4. Of course, the mere presence of Daniel Sedin does not ensure a Vancouver victory.

In order for Vancouver to win this series, here’s how it will have to go down:

Game 4: The Kings start the game overconfident, knowing that teams don’t often blow 3-0 leads and taking the Canucks for granted. The Canucks on the other hand come out with a chip on their shoulder, outwork the Kings in every facet of the game and score some goals.

Game 5: The Canucks have a lot more confidence and are still desperate, but now they have the attention of the Kings. The Kings increase their level of play and make things difficult for Vancouver. The Canucks use the emotion of their now boisterous crowd as a catalyst.

Game 6: The Kings now have all the pressure on them. They have blown two straight chances to close out the series and now are desperate not to go back to Vancouver. The Canucks are on a roll.

Game 7: The Kings have lost three in a row and the Canucks have won three in a row. The Kings are petrified of blowing the series and look nervous and tentative.

This probably won’t happen, but if it does happen, that’s how I think it will go down.

Alain Vigneault was a little out of character with his game 2 post game press conference. He went out of his way to mention that goaltending was not the problem in game 2. When asked about who his goalie would be in game 3, he sounded angry and said that he wouldn’t discuss it. Today, when asked who his goalie would be, he wouldn’t say. If you ask me, those are clues that Cory Schneider will start game 3.

Roberto Luongo was excellent in game 1. He made a lot of key saves and was the biggest reason why the Canucks had a chance to win. In game 2, it was hard to blame him on the first two goals, but the last two goals were not unstoppable. I’d give Lu a B+ for game 1 and a C+ in game 2. He wasn’t the reason they lost, but he didn’t stand on his head either.

If I’m Alain Vigneault, I would start Schneider in game 3. This isn’t about blaming Luongo, it’s about crediting Cory Schneider. Luongo had a B+ in game 1, but what if Schneider had an A+ game? They’re getting good goaltending, but what if they could get great goaltending? Schneider had a better goals against average and a better save percentage than Luongo this year. He won big games. Now it’s time to give him the ball and let him run with it.