The Pros and Cons of Mike Gillis's Trade Deadline Options

If Gillis's first name was Jack, and he made all the best trades, the headline could be, "Jack of All Trades."

The Vancouver Canucks have been one of the NHL's best teams for most of the season and, barring a major collapse, will go into the playoffs as a Stanley Cup frontrunner. They've never been better constructed or positioned to win. With that in mind, as the NHL trade deadline nears, general manager Mike Gillis faces tremendous pressure to do everything he can to fix any possible areas of weakness within his team.

But everything is questionable. Any move he makes or doesn't make comes with risks, and no matter what he does (even if he does nothing, maybe even especially if he does nothing), he will be immediately questioned and criticized. Let's examine his three choices and weigh the pros and cons for each:

1 DO NOTHING

Pros: No paperwork.

Additionally, you avoid the bidding wars. Mike Gillis has gone on record as saying he's not a fan of the NHL trading deadline, and for good reason: it's the exact opposite of a sale. Everything costs too much, especially when you know it'll be cheaper later. If you have to have it now, you can stomach it, but Gillis doesn't have to have anything. His team, as presently constructed, is on top of the NHL, and their chemistry is fantastic.

Holding fast at the deadline is a way to tell them that, too. Sometimes a simple vote of confidence is more effective than any player acquisition.

Cons: Sometimes it isn't. If the players don't get the job done, you have to answer to everyone for your inability to get them that final piece. For example, the Canucks need a fourth-line center. Granted, they could go into the playoffs with Cody Hodgson or Alex Bolduc or whomever in the middle and it might work, but if the team can't get past the second round, Gillis is going to face a lot of criticism for failing to acquire a better option.

The worst con, though, is that you've completely wasted James Duthie's considerable talents by giving him nothing to report.

2 MAKE A DEPTH MOVE

Pros: You can address any small area of need, or simply get a piece that puts your team over the top. Often, your players can read this as a sign you believed they were a piece away, so the vote of confidence angle holds up. A small trade shows you're still hard at work to piece together a winner.

It also serves to get the fans off your back, and considering everybody has a trade proposal, at least one guy is going to be convinced you read the e-mail he sent you.

Plus, even if you overpaid, it didn't cost that much, and the immediate benefit is a player that can help you right away.

Cons: Whatever you get, you likely won't have it for long, and the team with whom you deal will almost certainly have their piece of the trade for longer. Eventually, that draft pick or prospect you traded is going to be somebody. If he turns out to be somebody significant, well, you're not the guy who traded a pick or prospect for a rental, you're the guy who traded Superstar X for a rental.

Heck, if any superstar is drafted within twenty picks of a draft pick you traded, someone will claim you technically traded away that superstar as well, since you traded away the right to draft him, (even if you still wouldn't have). All of this is exacerbated if the guy you acquire turns out to be pretty useless. Then you're the guy who traded Milan Lucic for four games of Mika Noronen.

3 MAKE A SPLASH

Pros: Everyone will love you. On paper, your team simply gets better. You get a major asset.

Cons: You probably have to hold a press conference. On a Monday. Who wants that?

Additionally, when you trade for somebody good, you generally have to give away some good stuff. You can't give a little and get a lot. Unless you're this guy (or trading with Joe Nieuwendyk).

Worse, even if you're comfortable with what you traded and you get the big name you want, the threat to team chemistry is always looming. A big trade typically means tampering with the delicate core of your team, and a lifetime of Saturday afternoon movies has taught me it's never a good idea to tamper with unstable cores--you run the risk of accidentally blowing everything up.

If that happens, then you look like a complete idiot, your team looks stupid for losing despite being stronger, on paper, than before, and suddenly those pieces you were comfortable trading turn out to be four Lucices. That's when you get fired, and in the years to come, you find yourself on the TSN panel reporting on trade deadline day, like some sort of ironic, repetitive, purgatorial punishment for your hubris.

The Dreaded Two-Goal Lead: It Ate Everybody

Canucks news comes fast and furious, and sometimes we find ourselves playing catchup. Thankfully, the Dreaded Two Goal Lead--often called "the worst lead in hockey"--is super easy to come back from. Everybody knows it's a guaranteed death sentence for those that hold it. Well, much like an ice hockey team coming from two goals down, PITB will now effortlessly catch up.

• Harold Snepsts' Moustache (and Harold Snepsts, by Association) To the Ring of Honour

The Canucks announced early on Wednesday morning that Harold Snepsts would be the fourth former Canuck to see his name in the Ring of Honour. Snepsts is a worthy recipient, currently holding the franchise records for games played and penalty minutes. Also, he looked like this. I've heard criticism that Snepsts, a depth guy of sorts, doesn't deserve the honour--that if he didn't look the way he did, he might not be remembered as fondly. Well, Halle Berry endured similar criticism, and she's got an Oscar. Admittedly, Snepsts' look did give him a certain notoriety, but you can't fault a guy for riding his remarkable unattractiveness into the annals of Canucks' history. Somewhere, Brent Sopel is wondering if the same strategy could work twice.

• The Monster That Ate Everybody Ate Kevin Bieksa

News broke early this morning that Kevin Bieksa might be the latest devouree of The Monster That Ate Everybody, the creature that's picking offf Canucks' defenseman at a rate of one per game. It turns out that, Tuesday night in Minnesota, when Bieksa stepped in front of the large rubber disc traveling at approximately 100 miles per hour, he got hurt. Juice reportedly has a foot fracture that may keep him out of the lineup, and Evan Oberg has been recalled. Jeff Paterson points out that, if Bieksa doesn't go, Christian Ehrhoff will have 7 more NHL games played this season than the rest of the Canucks active d-corps combined. Hopefully, this occurs to Ehrhoff before he jumps into the rush.

• Surgeries For Everybody!

If you're looking for good news on the defensive front, the best anyone can do is report that everyone's surgeries went well. Edler's back surgery was successful, and Andrew Alberts' wrist surgery was as well. Normally, this wouldn't be big news, but I imagine that the recent string of bad luck had everyone a little concerned something would go wrong on the operating table. Example: Alex Edler blocked a shot during the procedure and wound up being awake through the whole thing. He's out indefinitely with incoherent rambling. Seriously, though, the way they're doling out surgeries these days, the Canucks' doctors must feel a bit like Dr. Nick Riviera. Rumour has it every patient got a free nose job.

• Ian White Not Traded to the Canucks; Everyone But Ian White is Relieved

And finally, perhaps you heard the yesterday's non-news that Ian White had been traded to the Canucks. Obviously, he hadn't, and the news was actually just a Twitter rumour that spread out of control, but still, it was scary for awhile. Reports circulated that Jannik Hansen was headed the other way, and everyone freaked out a little, which is a testament to how far Hansen has come. He wasn't a lock to make this team in the preseason. Now he's a vital cog. Anyway, the news was eventually debunked by way of a Mike Gillis tweet, which is impressively progressive, from one perspective. On the other hand, others suggested Gillis simply did it that way because he didn't want to take a call from TSN.

This is Not "Our Year"

You've got to hand it to a lot of Canuck fans. They really know how to get their hopes up. True, it's not as bad as last year, when the White Towel was already planning the parade route after the first round, but there's still a lot of ridiculous "this is our year" nonsense going around. This is NOT "our year."

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying the Canucks won't win the Stanley Cup. They very well might. And if they do, all the yahoos going around saying "This is our year!" and "It's destiny!" will feel justified in saying so, even though, as some people point out, people say that every year. There's nothing wrong with saying it, except that it will never be true.

Teams don't have years -- they have windows. They'll win the Cup during those windows, or they won't, and then it'll be a while before they're in contention again. Pittsburgh fans thought they were going to make a good run at the Cup this season. If Crosby doesn't return, it's unlikely that they'll be a big playoff force without their two big superstars. Still, you won't expect them to behave like it's the end of the world because this was supposed to be their year. Look at Detroit. After they signed Hossa, they were ordained to win the Cup. They were the best team that had signed the best free agent. They didn't win.

Even the Blackhawks didn't have a year. It's easy to look at their team that year, and all the contracts about to kick in and the salary cap issues, and say, "If it's not this year, it's not going to happen." And that's true -- sort of. Their cup win pushed their bonuses up which created a lot more cap issues, but that's a different argument. The point is, there was never a time when the 'Hawks were guaranteed a Cup. There were several legitimate contenders. The Canucks could have stopped them in the second round if they were more disciplined at home. More importantly, the Blackhawks might not have made it out of the first round. Recall game 5 of the first round between the 'Hawks and the Predators, when the Preds were leading 4-3 with a little over a minute to go. Hossa's hit on Dan Hamhuis could easily have been called a hit from behind -- probably should have -- which means Hossa is assessed a game misconduct and isn't on the ice to score the game-winner. Then the Predators maybe take a 3-2 lead in the series, and who knows what happens after?

Can you imagine how much that would suck? Go for broke and things don't go your way, and then next season all that cap trouble means you dismantle the team anyway? Think about how the Sabres felt after losing in the '07 Eastern Conference Finals. Oh man. Goodbye, Drury. Goodbye, Briere. Soon they'd say goodbye to Campbell as well. Goodbye, window.

There's no such thing as having a year, but the Canucks have something few teams don't -- an almost guaranteed playoff berth before the season begins. On paper, at least, the Canucks can expect to make the postseason. This is a huge boon. It means you can hold on to your core and make tweaks to the team that will have instant payoff, rather than trading for picks and prospects. Once you're guaranteed in the playoffs, you can make moves to improve the team, now, rather than later, and you can do it in the off-season rather than making last-minute deadline deals that may disrupt team chemistry. Thanks to a strong core group of players, Gillis can make moves based on how things play out during the postseason.

In '09, the Canucks weren't fast enough on the back end. Goodbye Ohlund, hello Ehrhoff. In '10, the Nucks' 3rd line wasn't enough of a difference-maker physically, and the team lacked discipline and composure. Goodbye entire third line, hello Malhotra and Torres. Goodbye Shane O'Brien, hello Dan Hamhuis. Also, Gillis had a meeting with the team, forbidding Kesler and others from getting involved between the whistle.

If the Canucks are knocked out this season, many fans will whine about how this was our year, and how much it sucks. Gillis, on the other hand, will walk out of the building with a plan. One that involves addressing a small issue that he pinpointed. But really, while he's always looking to improve, he knows that you can't improve enough to have a guaranteed Cup. You can only stay competitive long enough that things go your way. Eventually, the bounces, the calls, the breaks will go Vancouver's way. Eventually, the right guys will be healthy, the right guys will step up, and things will work out. That may well happen this year.

But it might not. And if it doesn't, that's okay, because this is still our window. The dude at the top has shown some amazing poise and aplomb in working the roster. The Canucks have a real shot to hoist the Cup some time during his tenure. In the meantime, forget the buzz, forget who's the Cup favorite, and forget how often the top team in the league wins it all. Nothing is guaranteed, but this is our window.

The Purpose of the Canucks' Fourth Line? Prospect Development

For much of the season, the Canucks' 4th line has been a target for criticism. It's been a patchwork unit all year long, with little in the way of consistency (save the presence of Tanner Glass). Worse, the players the Canucks have placed on it have had such varying skillsets and playing styles that we once speculated that the team had no idea what we they wanted from the 4th line.

Guys like Guillaume Desbiens and Aaron Volpatti indicated a desire for toughness; guys like Peter Schaefer and Mario Bliznak indicated a desire for a checking line; guys like Joel Perrault and Cody Hodgson indicated a sudden hope of tertiary scoring. The personnel and personality of the 4th changed so drastically from night to night, it often seemed as though the Canucks were simply hoping to trip over the answer.

On Thursday, Mike Gillis was on the Team 1040 morning show with Scotty Rintoul and Ray Ferraro, and while querying him on the somewhat puzzling timing of the Cody Hodgson callup, Scotty finally asked him directly about the seeming inconsistency of the 4th line. Gillis's response was more than a little interesting:

The 4th line--there's been a lot made of it--but we've intentionally brought players in and out to give them experience, and to get them familiar with what goes on here and play in games here. We've used it as a little bit of a development tool, because we want to get these young players into game experience in the NHL. And, even if they're not ready to be as consistent as we'd like, you still want them to get familiar with everything that goes on: game days, how it works, getting on the plane, familiar with the training staff, familiar with their teammates. So we've used that as a little bit of an experiment the whole year, and now we feel pretty confident that we have young players [for whom] it won't be a big surprise if we have to use them down the stretch or in the playoffs. [...] Even though we might have wanted more consistency out of that line, we have used it for different purposes at different times, so it's a little unfair to say we've been searching for something.

In short: the Canucks aren't searching for something. They're prospecting.

Gillis admits here that the line has lacked consistency to the naked eye--that it's appeared, at times, the Canucks were on a bit of a mapless treasure hunt--but he also gives a solid explanation. The primary purpose of the Canucks' 4th line under Gillis and Vigneault isn't to provide checking, grit, or additional scoring--it's to provide development and experience to the players in the Canucks' prospect system. As for what the Canucks expect of these young players, it's simply this: to play their game, and to gain the experience necessary to improve it.

Friend of Tanner Glass and exceptionally cool tweep @RayDerge recently pointed out that The Scrabble Champ has been on the ice for the first NHL goal of four separate guys this season, as Mario Bliznak, Alex Bolduc, Aaron Volpatti, and Cody Hodgson all lit the lamp on his line (begging the question of whether Glass is being intentionally utilized as a mentor, especially considering his leadership history). Bearing in mind what Gillis has told us about the purpose of the 4th line, this has to be a win for the Canucks. In fact, through this new lens, the Canucks' 4th line appears to be doing exactly what it's supposed to: giving invaluable experience to a long list of young'uns.

Three Things That Happen When You're Good

The Canucks have been good for awhile now, and I think I speak for everyone when I say this is relatively novel territory. It's not usually like this. I'm not used to caring very little how the other Northwest teams fared on a night-to-night basis, or clicking "League" instead of "Division" when I look at the standings. I'm not used to so many amusing quotes coming from such a happy dressing room. I'm definitely not used to hearing fans act reasonable about losses because they know the team is better than one bad game. It's strange.

But, as an amateur sociologist, it's also an opportunity for anecdotal observation. Here are three things I've observed, as a fan of a good team:

Your Prospects Look Pretty Impressive

So far, this season, we've seen some remarkable performances from Cory Schneider, as well as impressive debuts from Sergei Shirokov and Chris Tanev. We've seen first-ever NHL goals from Shirokov, Alex Bolduc, and Mario Bliznak. But, before you start praising the Canucks for the depth of their prospect pool, realize that it's a lot easier to look good when you're playing for a good team. This is no disrespect to these kids, who have shown NHL ability, but they couldn't have asked for a better situation.

The motivation to succeed is greater. They're surrounded by winning, and like the teams that test their ability to play against the best, these prospects, too, can test their ability to play with the best.

Expectations are lower as well. Unlike poor Nazem "Luke Skywalker" Kadri, for instance, who looks like a failure because he wasn't ready to save a team for whom he was the only hope, the Canucks' kids have merely been asked to play to their abilities. Rather than losing confidence because they can't meet impossible expectations, they can gain confidence because management believed they could fit on a talented team. It's one thing to make a bad team--someone had to. It's quite another to make a good, deep team that had other options.

People Rush to Take the Credit

Just like when time traveling, if there's a way, be sure to take the credit.

There are a litany of nuances to being an NHL General Manager but, if you take a step back and look at the big picture, it all boils down to one thing: building a winner. However you do it is fine. Winning covers all manner of sins. That said, if you're presently not building a winner, the only way to cover this sin is to cloak it in past accomplishments and point to past winners you've built.

Problem is, this goes the other way, too. General Managers presiding over losers don't want to take the hit to their reputation, so they blame everything on the past regime. This has put Brian Burke, for example, in a bind. He can't point to the cup-winning Anaheim Ducks, an organization still blaming him for the lack of depth that has them mired in mediocrity. So, instead, he glosses over that and points to the Vancouver Canucks, who are currently winning.

Everyone rushes to take credit for a winning team. It's easy to do in the NHL's slot machine culture among GMs. Nobody gets to hold a position long enough to see it through to the big win, so, inevitably, someone will win with a team primarily constructed of other people's acquisitions. Consider that Dave Nonis, Brian Burke, Mike Gillis, Mike Keenan, and Mike Milbury can all take credit, in some manner, for Roberto Luongo. It hardly means a thing. The reality is that it's an insular, incestuous league, with over 30 general managers who probably played some part, however small, in the construction of the team that wins the cup. But only one GM gets the cup ring, and the rest are just posturing.

Opponents Try Harder

In case you missed the Canucks' shutout loss in Madison Square Garden, let me remind you of what transpired: the Rangers played out of their minds. They battened down the hatches, threw their bodies in front of every shot, finished checks, and battled all night to keep the Canucks to the outside. Then, when they won, they celebrated as though they'd just won the Battle for Middle Earth.

Now, I don't know much about the New York Rangers, but I feel I can safely assume that, when the Associated Press calls your performance "All Heart", it's an indication you don't always play like that.

People can tell you teams treat every team like any team, but we all know that's rubbish. Against the best, you don't play your game; you try to outplay their game. The Rangers were jacked up to face the Canucks, and they went all out to test themselves against the best team in the NHL. This is what happens when you play the best. You put everything you've got into stepping up your game in order to see if you can.

When you're good, every team treats you like a final exam. It can be exhausting. This is why great teams don't stay great for long, and why Detroit's generation-long dominance is so downright impressive. Year after year, the Red Wings have the hardest schedule in the NHL by virtue of simply being the Red Wings.

This is what the Canucks have had to deal with since they vaulted to the top of the NHL standings. Consistently meeting and dealing with the sudden level-up of every opponent is what separates great teams from elite teams. Now that the Canucks are on top, everybody wants to bring them back to earth, and it can be exhausting fighting off the downers. But elite teams are capable.

It remains to be seen if the Canucks are as well.

An Embarrassment of Riches Makes the Canucks Hard to Shop For

Other General Managers had no idea what to get this guy for Christmas. He's just hard to shop for right now.

You remember a month ago when someone asked you what you wanted for Christmas? Some years, you have the answer right away, but some years, you just don't know. You're perfectly content. You can't think of any glaring need in your life that could be filled, or even anything you'd kinda like to have. Sometimes, you can't, for the life of you, put together a wish list. It sucks, because normally, being happy is a good thing. But now, here are people trying to figure out what to get you and you can't help them out. You become one of those people who's hard to buy for, and everyone hates those people who smugly say "I don't know" whenever asked about their Christmas list. You hate trying to buy for those people. Screw those people. And now, here you are, one of them, because life's going too well for you right now.

Is it too much to ask for a glaring hole in your life?

This is how Mike Gillis must feel around now. With Salo's impending return, the cap situation sort of necessitates a trade. Great news, though! The Canucks have plenty of assets to move around. Gillis is undoubtedly getting calls from around the league, asking, what do you want?

And what answer could he possibly have? No part of the roster really needs help.

The offense is more than complete. The Canucks have eight forwards that can fit into the top 6 -- the obvious Sedins, Burrows and Kesler, plus Raymond, Samuelsson, and now Tambellini and Hansen. Six of those players scored 25+ goals last season. This season the Canucks' offense is even deeper. Samuelsson was playing on the 4th line last game. Cody Hodgson can forget the possibility of a call-up this season. It doesn't matter if he's ready, the Canucks are just too deep.

Even the 4th line is clicking right now. Bolduc isn't a perfect 4th line center, cause there's no such thing -- once you've got a requisite amount of skill, you belong on the 3rd line. Remember that Rick Rypien may be back for the playoffs, and he can do the job. Tanner Glass is a dependable 4th line checker who helps to kill penalties, knows what to do in offensive situations (although he rarely creates them himself), and manages to hit everything in sight. The Canucks won't find a better 4th liner for his price. They're unlikely to find better than Bolduc at his price. Volpatti we can do without, but keep in mind that when the Canucks are healthy, it's Tambellini, or Samuelsson, or Hansen or Torres playing on the 4th line, and all of them can handle the job and more.

But let's ignore all that and imagine there's a magical "perfect" fourth line out there, ready to be traded for. Are the Canucks really going to trade guys like Cory Schneider and Kevin Bieksa for someone who'll play 5 minutes a game come playoff time? Nope.

On defense, the Canucks have too many guys as well. Ehrhoff, Edler, Ballard, Hamhuis, Bieksa and Salo are all potential top-four D-men in the league. The Canucks have six of them. Even if they traded away Alberts and Rome, they wouldn't have the cap space for all six, so one of them has to go. I'm not sure who it'll be, except that it shouldn't be Bieksa. Or Edler, obviously. Or Hamhuis or Ballard. And of course we shouldn't trade Ehrhoff. And the Canucks are always a better team with Salo, so they shouldn't trade him either. Should the Canucks go after a top-tier D-man? The very thought gives me a headache.

Of course, in goal the Canucks have assets they could part with as well. Luongo, obviously, is the goaltender Vancouver's going with. He, like Mike Gillis, is God. Since we don't know which defenseman the Canucks are going to send off, Cory Schneider is the most likely player on the team to be traded. He's going to be a starting NHL goaltender somewhere, and those don't grow on trees. The Lightning just went after Dwayne Roloson -- don't tell me there isn't a market for goalies. Really, though, even if the Canucks traded Schneider, and needed a backup in return, the backup's only job come playoff time is going to be to keep the bench warm and maybe make interesting faces to keep us entertained (in which case I vote for Pascal Leclaire). Still, just because the team doesn't need anything this season, I expect Schneider will remain the Canucks' backup till the off-season. What the Canucks especially don't need is a goaltender.

So what else is there, the Canucks could possibly want? The Canucks seem to have a full roster, plus one goaltender, one high-end D-man, and at least one top-six forward. With no holes, the only real roster move the Canucks could make is to upgrade. Swap all the excess assets and a guy like Samuelsson for someone like Jeff Carter (just for the sake of the argument -- I know Carter isn't going anywhere). Problem is, even if a team WAS willing to make that kind of deal, the Canucks don't have the cap space for it, so in order to manage a move like that, they'd have to create a hole in the lineup. What's the likelihood of Gillis making the team less complete just to get a little bit better at one position? Even if there were no risk of damaging the already killer chemistry of this team, I'd say it's still an unlikely scenario.

With a full roster, there's always picks and prospects, I suppose. But even there, there's a problem. Sure, hockeysfuture only has the Canucks ranked at No. 22 in the league when it comes to the strength of their prospect pool. So what? The site acknowledges that the main concern is the dropoff after the top 5 prospects of Cody Hodgson, Jordan Schroeder, Anton Rodin, Sergei Shirokov and Kevin Connauton. That's sorta true, although I'm not ready to discount Bill and Lee Sweatt, as well as Yann Sauve. Still, even if it's a 100 percent dead-on assessment of the Canucks' prospect pool, the Canucks still have at least three or four prospects who might deserve an NHL position, that they just don't have room for. It's a shame when a player like Hodgson can't earn a roster spot no matter how good he is, because the team's got too many players signed. Why would the Canucks trade valuable roster players just to put more prospects in that position?

And why would the Canucks want draft picks? True, you can never have too many, but that doesn't mean you trade roster players like Schneider for them. Most players aren't Phil Kessel and most GMs aren't Brian Burke -- it's unlikely that the Canucks will score two first rounders. Even if they did, a situation like the one in Toronto, where they wound up giving away a lottery pick, is rare. More likely, the picks are going to be the second half of the first round -- still good, but not amazing. From the 1990 to the 2005 drafts, only about three players in four play more than 100 NHL games. So in the best-case scenario, the Canucks trade guaranteed NHL players for 75% likelihood NHL players. Even if the Canucks' great drafting continues, at best they wind up with more prospects they don't have room on the team for. Why would the Canucks trade away roster players just to make the Manitoba Moose better?

Ultimately, something's going to happen. The Canucks can either keep a healthy Salo on IR, or make a trade, and something's going to come back the other way. Probably NHL-calibre defensemen, because Gillis is well-known for thinking you can't have enough NHL-calibre defensemen in the system come playoff time. Either way, the Canucks have extra parts that can fetch a good price, and it's a mystery* what will come back in return. Really, what do we want?

*It's a mystery to everyone but Gillis. Mike Gillis always has a plan, and like God's plan, it's often a mystery to mere mortals.

Keeping Track of Puck Battles: Can Puck-Strength Be Quantified?

I think Jannik Hansen wins puck battles, but I don't know if I can prove it.

Tuesday morning on the Team 1040, Scotty Rintoul and Ray Ferraro held their regular weekly interview with Mike Gillis. These interviews tend to range in their entertainment value, depending on whether Gillis feels like needling Scotty for the inanity of his questions or not, but there was one particularly interesting moment. Because Gillis attended the Moose/Heat game on Saturday, he was asked about what he looks for in a young prospect in terms of bringing them up to the NHL. He didn't hesitate to answer¹: "the one most telling test is their puck-strength and their ability to win puck battles...that's what really separates guys from the American League and the NHL." He talked about strength in protecting the puck and winning puck battles as being the number one thing he looks for on the ice. Not skating, not shooting, not defensive positioning, not stickhandling - puck-strength.

I was intrigued by this, as puck-strength is one of those qualities of a player that seems to defy quantification: there are no statistics that track how strong a player is on a puck, yet it is one of the foundational abilities that leads to success at the NHL level. It's also one of the most easily discernible differences between a rookie and a veteran in the NHL: rookies tend to be knocked off the puck easily and lose puck battles along the boards, while veterans do not. They've got old-man strength. I'd like to look at the one particular area of puck-strength that Mike Gillis mentioned: winning puck battles.

Earlier this month, Justin Bourne wrote an article on Hockey Primetime on the topic of puck battles, stating that they are "hockey's most underrated non-statistic," and identifying some of the abilities that help win puck battles. He talked about turning 50/50 pucks into 60/40 pucks, the tiny difference leading to tremendous success. Unfortunately, there currently is no statistic keeping track of puck battles won--at least no statistic that is publicly available. I have a hunch that savvy coaches and general managers do keep track of this, or at least try to, though coaches may simply rely on their impressions in the moment. It's easy to watch a game and get frustrated with a player who seems to consistently lose puck battles and it's clear that Mike Gillis watches games with an eye for puck-strength and who wins those battles. It's unclear, however, whether anyone in the organization is actively tracking won and lost puck battles.

Instead, statisticians are far more concerned with keeping track of results: shots, goals, assists, etc. or, if they are especially keen, missed shots, blocked shots, and points in relation to time-on-ice, teammates, and opponents. The issue is that many of these statistics are the result of winning puck battles. A statistic that purports to measure puck possession, such as Corsi, is profoundly influenced by consistently winning puck battles. Is there a way to get to the source and quantify puck battles with a statistic?

On the surface, the task seems easy enough. Statistics are already kept for faceoffs, which are just a particular breed of puck battle. It's simple: the team that gains possession off the faceoff has won the faceoff. The issue is one of identification. Identifying a faceoff is easy: the play has stopped and the linesman drops the puck to re-start play. There are two clear players involved who oppose each other: the winner of the faceoff is the one whose team gains possession, even if his teammates played a key role in gaining that possession. There is a clear beginning to a faceoff and a somewhat muddled, but still identifiable, ending.

Identifying a puck battle is far more difficult. When does a puck battle begin? When does it end? It's a problem of segmentation, which is a common problem for hockey statistics. Baseball, which easily has the most advanced statistical analysis in sports, is easily segmented. Every pitch is a separate event that can be analysed relatively easily. Each pitch has a distinct result that can be further segmented: if the batter reaches base, it could be from a hit, error, walk, or other circumstance that can be quantified. In hockey, the continuous flow of play resists segmentation: there is no distinct beginning or ending to any given event. Has a puck battle begun when two players meet with the puck on one of their sticks? Then a hit is a type of puck battle, which seems counter-intuitive. Perhaps a puck battle can be defined as when more than one player has the puck on their stick at the same time or within a given timeframe, but this is also not without its difficulties.

If the problem of identifying when a puck battle has begun can be solved, the measurement of winning and losing said puck battle seems to be simple, as it can be measured in a similar fashion to faceoff wins and losses. There are, however, further difficulties. For instance, what about players who win a puck battle when the odds are stacked in their favour, such as when they begin with possession of the puck? What about players who lose a puck battle under the same circumstances? Furthermore, which players are involved? Teams with excellent puck support can swing puck battles in their favour simply by having more players involved. Can that be measured? Is it fair to say a player lost a puck battle when the opposing team had two players involved? Would it be possible to measure such a statistic on an individual basis or only as a team?

Indeed, given the wide variance in how seemingly simple statistics such as hits and blocked shots are counted in different arenas in the NHL, it may be a hopeless task to expect a more nebulous event like a puck battle to be counted accurately. But I am willing to bet that a GM like Mike Gillis would appreciate knowing who wins the most puck battles, especially when it comes time to re-sign pending free agents². For instance, both Kevin Bieksa and Christian Ehrhoff are set to be UFAs following this season. The consensus amongst the majority of Canucks fans is that Ehrhoff needs to be re-signed, while Bieksa can be traded this season with little damage done to the on-ice performance of the Canucks as a whole. Hypothetically, if a statistician could show that Bieksa consistently wins more puck battles than Ehrhoff, this could play a huge role in deciding who stays and who goes. Is a won puck battle as important as a hit or a takeaway? More important? Can it be quantified as equivalent to a certain percentage of a goal?

I am not sure of what work is being done in this area of hockey statistics and must admit to a certain deficiency in myself in that I am not a statistician. However, Elliotte Friedman indicated in a recent 30 Thoughts that the late Pat Burns was angriest when players lost puck battles and that Craig Ramsay, the current head coach of the Atlanta Thrashers, does indeed keep a "battles won" statistic³. Has he solved the issue of identification of what is and is not a puck battle? Are any other hockey statisticians, coaches, or general managers doing any work in this area? Or will this very important facet of hockey remain in the realm of qualia, remaining a subjective judgement? To be quite honest, I do not know. I am just beginning to ask the question.

1. The question and response starts at 11:43 in the linked podcast.

2. Which would fit neatly into Gillis's oft-cited Moneyball philosophy. If winning puck battles is a huge part of winning hockey games, analogous to on-base percentage in baseball, and winning puck-battles is undervalued by the market, the Canucks could gain a huge advantage in paying less money for players who play a large part in winning games but do not have gaudy traditional statistics, and avoid paying big money to players who have decent counting statistics but consistently fall short in those areas that win games.

3. Massive hat-tip to @ArtemChubarov who reminded me in the comments section of this fantastic tidbit from Elliotte Friedman. I feel foolish for having forgotten it in the first place.

Mike Gillis is on Twitter and his First Tweet Is Gonna Be Boss

He looks like he'd be really funny, though, right? Gillis is the mayor of Comedytowne .

News hit the Intertubes yesterday morning that Mike Gillis, the General Manager of our Vancouver Canucks, was finally on Twitter. It was a pretty big deal. By the end of the day, before he had tweeted a single thing, he had 4000 followers and he was trending all over the place. Gillis hit the top ten Twitter trends in Canada fairly early on. It was innocuous and expected.

What was unexpected, however, was @artemchubarov's wicked hashtag, #FirstMikeGillisTweet, in which he began comedic speculation on the first thing Mike Gillis would say in 140 characters. We at PITB found it totally rad, maybe because the idea of a funny Gillis is, in itself, hilarious. Gillis only laughs when overwhelmed with incredulity at questions interviewers ask him, and he only smiles... well, never. And, since @artemchubarov is one of our favourite tweeters/readers, and I was still sore from yesterday's thrilling failure with Pratt's Day Off, #FirstMikeGillisTweet became a cathartic new cause.

We were thrilled for everyone involved when it finally took off. At its peak, the hashtag was the 3rd highest trend in Canada, just below #6millionBeliebers, and proudly above Lake Shore. Below you will find the 20 best contributions from the Twitterverse, as well as 10 from PITB.

From the Twitterverse

• @gutsmctavish24: I hope no one tampers with my twitter account when we're in Toronto
  
  
• @geoffgauthier: Salo tripped at pregame buffet and broke hand on potato salad. I LOL'd.
  
  
• @smoothmedia: Now that he's been voted off of Battle of the Blades, I'm considering offering Theo Fluery 20mil over 2 years.
  
  
• @artemchubarov Boy, if Dale Tallon hadn't waived party-boy Grabner and blown that pick, I'd really be regretting the Ballard trade
  
  
• @artemchubarov: @justinbieber saw you're a moose fan omg! We have so much in common! Love that baby track, I hum it whilst biking.
  
  
• @CanucksCorner: The real reason we traded SOB? He was cramping my style at the Roxy.
  
  
• @glassedpickles: Hi everyone this is mike gillis gm of the vancouver canucks
  
  
• @KingMicah49: I'm not sure if twitter is something the team can build around moving forward
  
  
• @artemchubarov: suggested All-Star game change: flaming pucks so that the net lights on fire after goals like in Gretzky's 3D hockey!
  
  
• @Mozy19: You know that contract I gave Sundin? He won it in a hand of poker.
  
  
• @Mozy19: Boom.
  
  
• @canuckshockey: Just saw Moj at the buffet table again. I reintroduced myself.
  
  
• @RogerNairn: Do you have any idea how much Roberto's annual hair grease budget is?
  
  
• @whatnojagr: wonder how Bieksa will like Washington..... oh crap. Shouldn't have said that! LOL!
  
  
• @Twitchy67: I'm here to interact with fans in a more honest and open forum. I'll be here til someone disagrees with me.
  
  
• @camdavie: Fans - any thoughts on who the Canucks should target for trade? I really value your input. /sarcasm
  
  
• @opiatedsherpa: At the Rick Rypien hearing in New York, I actually got to spin the Wheel of Justice... so much fun!
  
  
• @opiated sherpa: Before every home game, I like to stop at every Starbucks on Robson for coffee... I like to get my buzz on like that.
  
  
• @AlanJackson76: Somebody needs to tell Garrett to lay off. He's being far too critical of our play.
  
  
• @HeadtotheNet: Is it ok to fire a coach through twitter? I've never really liked Vigneault, but I hate confrontation.

If you're asking me, I think @opiatedsherpa won the day with his tweet about the wheel of justice. Funny stuff. Here were some of ours:

From the Desk of @PassittoBulis

• @passittobulis: Lolz Bettman totally looks like Hypnotoad amirite??!
  
  
• @passittobulis: We do not discuss contracts or potential trades, Pratt. Stop asking.
  
  
• @passittobulis: Hopping on @Team1040 to talk Canucks! FML!
  
  
• @passittobulis: I can tell the Sedins apart because I scribbled on Hank's neck with a permanent marker.
  
  
• @passittobulis: Kes sent me one of his RK17 jackets. Just noticed there's a 17 *inside* the R. Wait, there's totally a K too! Dude!
  
  
• @passittobulis: Aw yeah! The continental breakfast has cinnamon raisin bagels! #nomnomnom
  
  
• @passittobulis: Full disclosure: Tanner Glass is my son.
  
  
• @passittobulis: Apparently I'm trending. What the hell does that mean?
  
  
• @passittobulis: Next inductee into the #Canucks ring of honour: Jan Bulis.
  
  
• @passittobulis: Ehrhoff extension is for 4.5 million "dollhairs" LOL let's see if his agent can read.

And, of course, Mike Gillis ended all the fun this morning when he actually tweeted his first tweet. Did it live up to the hype?

• @GMMikeGillis: I have a twitter account after months of talking about it. Plan to be active & update every few days. In OTT getting ready for Senators tmr.

No. No it did not live up to the hype. Thanks for coming out, Mike.

Fabian Brunnstrom has been placed on waivers...

Told you so.

...so can we all now agree that it was ridiculous to bash Mike Gillis and the Aquilini brothers back in 2008 when the Canucks didn't sign him?

I mean, it was ridiculous back then and its level of ridiculousity hasn't changed, but it's level of obviousity has. The Brunnstrom "saga" should teach everyone a lesson on the dangers of hype.

But it won't.

Mason Raymond Signs, Avoids Arbitration

In retrospect, Cobie, it's a much bigger deal that you met Mason Raymond. Our apologies.


News is coming in this morning that the Vancouver Canucks and Mason Raymond have reached a contractual agreement on the steps of the courthouse. The numbers? 2 years, 5.1 million. That's a $2.55 million cap hit, and I do believe that sound you just heard was millions of Canucks fans breaking their jaws, especially after superagent J.P. Barry suggested Raymond was looking for between $3.5 and $4m.

My reaction to this signing? I love it. Gillis gets Raymond at a reasonable cap hit for two years. This is brilliant, because if he turns out to be a one-season wonder as a genuine top-six forward, he's still got a ton of value as a speedy checker. Even if his scoring numbers dip a little bit, Raymond is worth 2.5. As well, if Raymond turns out to be everything last season indicated, he's worth far more than 2.5, and joins Alex Burrows and Mikael Samuelsson as remarkably underpaid top-six forwards. If Raymond outprices himself with two excellent seasons going forward and the Canucks can no longer afford him, the Canucks have bought themselves two years to see Hodgson, Schroeder, Rodin, or another of their young forwards develop into the spot. For Raymond, this puts him in a brilliant position to get a ton of money as a free agent in the prime of his career, which is likely why he agreed to what might otherwise seem like a fleecing. It might also have been because nobody likes being told what they're worth monetarily, and how it's not as much as they think.

As well, the Canucks have deftly managed their cap and are now in a good position to take a little bit of salary back if and when they trade Kevin Bieksa. All good things. Chalk this one up to another Mike Gillis win.

Skeeter's Thoughts

The deal has been confirmed according to Jason Botchford: Mason Raymond has signed a 2-year, 5.1 million dollar deal just before his arbitration hearing. Mike Gillis flew out from Vancouver on Saturday to get the deal done. The sound you're hearing might not be millions of Canucks fans breaking their jaws: it may just be a collective sigh of relief. Ever since reports came out that Raymond and his agent were seeking 3.5 to 4 million dollars in arbitration, I've been worried. While I never thought he would be awarded more than $3.5 million a season, I'm guessing the Thrashers never thought Clarke MacArthur would be awarded $2.4 million.

So to hear that Mike Gillis got him signed prior to arbitration for a deal with a mere $2.55 million dollar cap hit? That's a great way to wake up on a Monday morning.

It seems clear that Raymond's agent, J.P. Barry, was more concerned about the term of the contract than the dollar amount. While Raymond would certainly have been awarded more in arbitration, it likely would have been a one-year deal, with Raymond still being a Restricted Free Agent at the end of it. A two-year deal takes Raymond into Unrestricted Free Agency: if he performs up to his potential over the next two seasons, Raymond will price himself out of the Canucks lineup and receive a nice payday for some other team and the Canucks will get one hell of a bargain for those two seasons.

Well played, Gillis, well played. Now to figure out what to do about Salo and Bieksa.

On Willie Mitchell, Brain Trauma, Professional Idiots, and the Trading Deadline

Above is a segment of Mike Gillis's year-end presser where he discusses Willie Mitchell's condition, a trade deadline in which he acquired no replacement for his top defensive defenseman suffering a season-ending injury, and Mitchell's comments regarding Colin Campbell's wheel of justice. It's a good watch.

Somehow, to me, it seemed like all playoffs long, I was just waiting for word that Mitchell was ready to suit up, that a concussion is a little like a numb arm after a nap, and it simply takes an unspecified amount of time to clear up. But we all know that's not what a concussion is. And furthermore, Willie Mitchell deserves our greatest sympathy for continuing to suffer brain trauma from a hit he suffered FOUR MONTHS AGO on January 16.

There are a number of issues arising from this hit. The first is the hit itself and its failure to earn supplementary discipline from Colin Campbell. Of this, Willie Mitchell was critical:

"I am disappointed in the league, disappointed in Colin Campbell," Mitchell said. "As we've seen, [he's] been very inconsistent with how he's handled himself in those situations [...] I think the league needs to, along with our players' union, take a look at how they run the discipline in the league. Colin Campbell had a lot of relationships with general managers and ownership and stuff like that. It's very tough to hand down decisions on matters like this when you are friends with people. It's something the league and players need to look at, to have an outside party handle the discipline in the league [so] it's consistent.

And just to make it clear this has nothing to do with the Canucks being eliminated from the playoffs, Mitchell explained his very personal angle.

"I want to make this very clear, too, I'm not saying this for me. What's it going to do for me? It's not going to do a thing for me. No one is going to take back the last four-and-a-half months that I've endured and my family has endured. Why I'm saying this right now is because of my friends in the league, my peers in the league. I don't want anyone to go through what I just did.''

The good news: not only is Mitchell right, but his refusal to mince words and the clarity with which he slammed the NHL brass (at one point he implied Campbell has caused "chaos") likely guarantees him a job in broadcasting if this is indeed the end of his NHL career. The bad news, of course, is that impassioned, emboldened, intellectually worded criticism of the NHL discipline is just as against the rules as whatever John Tortorella usually does, so Mitchell's likely going to get fined. But I thoroughly appreciate Mitchell speaking his mind.

And let's be clear on one thing: when the hit originally took place, the debate over whether or not Malkin should be suspended was actually not too loud. It seemed like a hit from behind, deserving of a penalty, but it didn't initially look as bad as it turned out to be. I don't think the outcry from Canuck nation was any larger than it is now, in retrospect. But, having finally heard from Mitchell, revisiting the play that may have cost us our season, I've realized that my perspective of what is and isn't a suspendable offense is completely skewed by the inconsistency and, well, chaos of NHL discipline for which Colin "Lord Chaos" Campbell (pictured, right) is directly responsible. Couple that with what's been a playoffs of unimaginable reffing incompetence and you have a sickness in the NHL head office that needs fixing right away.

The second issue, which is much smaller, is the unimaginable incompetence in the NHL media. Doofuses like Kelly Hrudey who criticize Mike Gillis's "failure" to find a replacement for Mitchell at the trading deadline. Now I may just be an amateur member of the Vancouver Canucks media, but even I am observant enough to recognize the way the deadline has changed, the lack of blockbusters, the fact that it's become little more than a chance to get depth guys and swap middling prospects. Spending big has become an unquestionably stupid move; it hasn't paid off once in the new NHL, and I would imagine that it never will. Ilya Kovalchuk is merely the latest example of what happens when you go out and get a big name to bolster your postseason lineup. It doesn't work. And we wanted Mike Gillis to replace Willie Mitchell? Did anybody consider the cost of acquiring a premier defensive defenseman? According to GM MG, It was a 1st round pick and Cody Hodgson. No dice. Did anybody consider that the chemistry might not have been there, because it rarely is when you acquire a star player, set in his ways, and then try to teach him your system and the tendencies of your players in a short time? Did anybody think at all?

Sometimes I wonder why Mike Gillis condescends to the media. Usually, I know why: they ask stupid questions and they say stupid things. Skeeter pointed out some of the asinine radical ideas that spring up in the postseason, but all of his evidence was from the Canucks forum. Incredibly, the media are just as bad. Heck, these guys have diplomas and degrees; it's more embarrassing for them.

Here's hoping Willie Mitchell recovers and we see him playing for an NHL team next season. Maybe ours, maybe not. It doesn't matter. It's not about the Canucks; it's about Mitchell lacing up the skates so that Malkin's undisciplined headshot doesn't become a career-ending one.