This Sucks

Manny Malhotra is done for the season and playoffs. I am just devastated right now. There are no words. If you want to know how important I think Malhotra is to the Canucks' success, read "Manny Malhotra is an Enabler." Right now I'll busy myself by building a massive panic button.

Please Do Not Flip the Pool

Sports fans go nuts when things don't make sense to them.

Have you looked at the Western Conference standings recently? If you're a Vancouver fan, you probably haven't, you smug bastard, so let me fill you in: there are 2 points separating the 5th-place team and the 10th-place team. This is where you gasp, or maybe here: of those six very good teams, only four will be making the playoffs.

If you didn't gasp, you obviously don't live in Chicago, Los Angeles, Nashville, Anaheim, Dallas, or Calgary. For fans and players of those teams, it's a stressful time; every game in the Conference has meaning, even the ones in which your team doesn't play.

However, for the time being, Canucks fans are taking it easy. It's a pleasant feeling, this--a rare feeling. When it comes to these late-season clusters, the Canucks are regularly in the thick of things. This year, however, where Vancouver is nine points clear of second-place Detroit, and seventeen points clear of the aforementioned thick.

Enjoy it while it lasts, Canuck nation. In ten games, everyone starts back at zero.

Considering the Canucks are currently 103 points from zero--the furthest from zero of any team in the NHL--that's going to be pretty hard to stomach, but it's what happens. In truth, all the regular season does is determine where games will take place; what takes place during those games cannot be predicted.

Anything can happen in the playoffs. Couple that with the team's lofty expectations, and you have the potential for the largest letdown in the history of Vancouver sports.

Think about it: in past years, the Canucks have gone into the postseason no higher than the second seed in the West. They've lost every time, too, but really, what did we expect? They've never been the best. Year after year, we were effectively banking on the same chance that could bite us now, banking on the Canucks playing better than they reasonably should have. In each case, the eventual loss simply operated as a reality check. The annual ousting has always been begrudgingly received, justified by the sad truth that, despite our optimistic denial, the Canucks were never the best team.

In the history of Vancouver hockey, there was one instance when our expectations got out of control. Do you remember when it was? The year was 1994. In 1982, we could understand the loss, because it was the Islanders; In 1994, we couldn't justify anything. We seemed unstoppable, and despite that, we were stopped. It hardly made sense.

Sports fans go nuts when things don't make sense to them. 1994 didn't make sense. So we rioted. We flipped the pool.

This year's expectations may also be unreasonable. In fact, they may also be beyond reason. Considering the year we've seen, the unprecedented success, the broken records, a loss this year would hardly make sense.

It's going to be very hard to justify a playoff loss this year, to understand it, and there's really no guarantee that it's not coming. Granted, the Canucks are the best team, in theory: they lead almost every major statistical category and they've got elite goaltending, defense, scoring, special teams, depth and leadership. Sure, there are a lot of reasons they might win and a lot of reasons they should be predicted to do so.

But they still might just lose, for no other reason than because one out of every two teams has to, and, eventually, fifteen of sixteen. And we need to be able to accept that without breaking stuff.

Let's be clear: if it wasn't possible for the best team in theory to lose in reality, there'd be no point in staging the playoffs at all. It happens, often for no discernible reason. The pundits can point to a lack of some intangible, to a choke, a collapse, or even simply the perfect matchup for the underdog, but those are typically just ways for the experts to explain away the sad truth of their field: at its base, everything they say is worthless because hockey, like any game, can be completely random.

I say this not to be a downer, but rather, so that nobody flips the pool.

Is Gary Rocking a Jersey Foul?

This is Gary. We met him down by the glass in San Jose, before the Canucks came out for their warmup. You'll notice that Gary is wearing a Roberto Luongo jersey with the C on it.

Gary spawned a hearty debate amongst our group (a group which included myself, Skeeter, our wives, San Jose fan Art, and Kari, our Worst Contest Ever winner) over whether or not this was a foul. If you're wearing a player's jersey with a C on it, and that player never wore the C, that's a foul. There's actually a square on Jersey Foul Bingo for this exact foul. But Luongo is a special case, right? You see, while Roberto Luongo was the captain of the Canucks last year, he was forbidden by the NHL from actually wearing the C on his chest because he's a goalie. By the letter of the letter law, he never wore the jersey Gary is wearing, and that's a foul. That said, Luongo was the captain, and probably should have been able to wear the C on the ice. And, as Art pointed out, he actually did, once: in the 08-09 team photo. Is that enough to give this one a pass?

I've never cared for the practice of sneaking pictures of jersey fouls, because I don't like taking sneaky photos of people and putting them on the Internet in order to make fun of them. Doesn't seem right. With that in mind, I approached Gary for a fully honest pic, his opinion on the matter, and to find out whether or not he put the C on the jersey himself, perhaps as some sort of protest against a silly league rule. Unfortunately, he couldn't remember if he bought the jersey that way or not.

Gary was a good sport about the whole thing. He told me that he thought it wasn't a foul (he was biased). His friend Sandeep, however, agreed with me. "Dude," Sandeep said, "You're a foul."

Maybe he is. What do you guys think?

I Watched This Game: Canucks vs Coyotes, March 18, 2011

Canucks 1 - 3 Coyotes

A goaltender's duel is nowhere near as much fun as it sounds (just ask Rick DiPietro). Despite the picture you have in your mind, in reality, neither goalie draws pistols, nobody walks paces, and nobody is slapped with a glove. Furthermore, there is never any threat to the United States Secretary of the Treasury. Suffice it to say, there's really nothing thrilling about it. Instead, the two duellers stand 200 feet from each other the whole night (much too far to accurately fire a Wogdon Duelling Pistol), and conspire to prevent any action. Really, this was less of a duel, and more of a bad boxing match, in that the two competitors battled to a draw and eventually the officials had to step in and decide the match for them. A bit disappointing, this one. I watched this game:

• Before I take a few more jabs at tonight's uneven reffing, let me be clear: the Canucks lost this game because their 5-on-3 couldn't capitalize and because Jason "The Barbera" LaBarbera was incredible. He made 46 saves tonight. Forty-six. The only Canucks that didn't have shots on goal were Keith Ballard and Aaron Rome, and eight players had three or more. Jason LaBarbera stopped all but one, and he would have had that one, too, but Dan Murphy made a point of saying shutout. Unfortunately for Dan Murphy, both goalies were pitching shutouts when he said that. Oh, you fool.

• According to the stats page, this game only had 20 hits, 10 by each team. It didn't feel that friendly. Also, here's a curious name among the guys that registered zero hits: Alex Burrows. Zero hits? What about this one? Apparently, the stats guys didn't agree with the call either.

• Let's talk about that controversial hit. Burrows definitely deserved a penalty, but Fiddler's trying to play the puck while avoiding the check, and he's not a good enough skater to do it. Instead, he goes into the boards at full speed and, while twisting away from the puck, tries to poke it in the other direction. That puts his back to Burrows, a terrible position for an inevitable check. Unfortunately, now when Burrows hits him, Fiddler's facing the boards, off-balance, hunched over and trying to stop at an awkward angle. In that moment, even with Burrows trying to let up, he sends him headfirst into the boards. You have to call that--it's a hit from behind--but there's no way that's a major and a misconduct.

• You've got to think Burrows' reputation factored into the overreaction, which is why I found his postgame comments so interesting. After the game, I partly expected to hear him confess to going for another pregame skate with a begrudged referee. Instead, Burr made a point of saying he disagreed with the call, but that Kelly Sutherland, who made it, is one of the best referees in the league. Novel approach. As the saying goes, you catch more flies with honey than by having Alex Burrows publicly malign them.

• My real beef with the refereeing tonight was the astonishing degree of inconsistency. It always amazes me how, even when a game is called so strictly you'd think it was being refereed by the Women's Temperance Movement, the whistles disappear the moment the Sedins hit the ice. Daniel and Henrik were both tripped up or interfered with a number of times with no response from the zebras. The most egregious non-call came on a Daniel Sedin trip in the dying seconds, freeing up the puck and giving Phoenix a free path to Vancouver's empty net. It's baffling, but here's my theory: the things the twins do are so absolutely breathtaking that the referees, like all of us, can't help but gasp. Unfortunately, gasping with a whistle in your mouth is a surefire way to swallow your whistle.

• With tonight's victory, the Coyotes become the only NHL team to win two games at Rogers Arena. It's not surprising. Considering the situation in Phoenix, it has to inspire the Coyotes to visit a building full of fans whose tickets didn't come free with a sandwich combo.

• Sami Salo had a game-high 5 blocked shots tonight. He's blocked 24 shots in his 18 games back. That's a pretty impressive stat, but it's probably not as intimidating to block a shot when your body is full of metal plates. Salo had 23:08 and a game-high 31 shifts.

• Meanwhile, Christian Ehrhoff played twenty-seven minutes tonight and Keith Ballard played twelve. Now, I agree that Ehrhoff > Ballard, but I feel that such a blatant discrepancy in icetime would have to be represented by four or five angle brackets, and I can't get behind that. For continuity's sake, let me express my opinion in angle brackets: > > >>>>>

• I'm always amazed at the things Vern Fiddler gets away with. He drew Alex Burrows' 15 minutes in penaties, and he also drew a 2 minute roughing minor from Mikael Samuelsson when he high-sticked the feisty Swede in the face (missed), meriting a gloved punch (seen). I'm sure I'd love him if he played for my team, but he doesn't, so I don't.

• If there's one criticism about the Sedins I can understand, it's that they often don't play with a sense of urgency. How do I know? Because you can tell when they are playing urgent, such as on Christian Ehrhoff's goal (above). They buzzed for that whole shift, motivated, no doubt by the bogus major penalty that wound up costing them two goals, before Ehrhoff finally banged the puck home in front. These guys have been the best players in the NHL this season, and you have to wonder how much better they'd be if they played with this intensity all the time. Mind you, I guess they're so good because they don't have to.

• The absence of Manny "Alternate Captain Mal" Malhotra was felt. The third line simply lacked the presence it has in past weeks. Raffi Torres suffered especially, finishing with only 1 hit and 1 shot in 8:48 of icetime. In the faceoff circle, Maxim Lapierre did a great job with increased responsibilities, going 7-for-11 on faceoffs. Henrik, too, went a respectable 9-for-16. Ryan Kesler, on the other hand, went a somewhat disappointing 11-for-25, although his numbers probably suffered when he had to take a few more draws on the left side, where Malhotra is typically used. During the major penalty kill, however, Manny's absence really glared. There were seven draws during those five minutes, and the Canucks won only two of them. Worse, both goals came off a lost faceoff.

• You had to feel for Dan "Community Man" Hamhuis after he took a shot in the leg on the penalty kill, and couldn't get back into the play to clear Radim Vrbata from Roberto Luongo's line of vision on the second goal. It was especially ironic that it would be a shot to the leg that slowed him down, especially after he spent the afternoon teaching the BC Teacher's Federation how to use an epinephrine autoinjector to treat anaphylaxis in students.

• The Canucks remain one of only two teams that has not scored a five-on-three powerplay goal. The other is Edmonton. Clearly, the way to stop the Canucks' powerplay is to take another penalty. Or just only send out three guys to kill it. Maybe have him cherry pick around the red line or something.

• After starting the game on the fourth line, Mason Raymond played well, earning his place back on the second line by the game's end. It had to be a real boost of confidence to MayRay to be skating there in the dying minutes of the third period as the Canucks tried to tie it up. Hopefully, he now fully recognizes the threat Chris Higgins poses. Yes, Higgins is his black swan.

• And finally: Phoenix impresses me. They don't have the personnel to be this good, yet they continue to win. Granted, it helps when you're allowed to skate 9 players at a time, and dress four of them up like referees. Okay, that was the last one.

For a Coach, Mason Raymond and Mikael Samuelsson Require Completely Different Approaches

Ryan Kesler's wingers are polar opposites. It's like a sitcom on ice.

Early in Sunday's game versus the Calgary Flames, Canucks' winger Mikael Samuelsson turned the puck over in his own zone, allowing Flames' center Michael Backlund to walk in, uncontested, and score the game's first goal. It was painful. For this ill-timed and completely avoidable mistake, Samuelsson was summarily benched, and wouldn't return from fourth-line exile until much, much later in the game.

It was a kneejerk benching, albeit deserved, but it warranted an interesting observation from a few: Mason Raymond, Samuelsson's linemate, has a tendency to make similar mistakes, yet he's rarely benched in such a reactive fashion. Granted, Samuelsson's error was pretty terrible, and most certainly a valid reason to bench a guy, but the observation remains valid. Alain Vigneault does appear quicker to bench Mikael Samuelsson than Mason Raymond. Why?

Because they're very different, and one has an abundance of the selfsame confidence the other lacks.

Mason Raymond is a young prospect. He's still learning and developing both his skillset and his mental fortitude. He's open to coaching, introspective to a fault, and still emotionally shakeable. And, like a lot of young players, he has a tendency to lose confidence when things aren't going his way. In many cases, the worst thing for him is to get stapled to the benched, as he gets down on himself, and winds up holding his stick too tight and trying to overcompensate. If he gets himself stuck in a rut, it's better to let him play through his issues than to feed them. We've seen this all year. He's had a spotty season, but Alain Vigneault has exercised a lot of patience with Raymond, knowing that, often, a benching would merely exacerbate his struggles.

Mikael Samuelsson, on the other hand, is an aged veteran. He's not as teachable, and he's not nearly as emotional. He's an even-keeled player, and he's got the mental fortitude to take a benching without taking a hit to his confidence. He's also downright robotic at times, but he can drift too far down that path, often forgetting to invest emotion into his play. Thankfully, Samuelsson's got temper issues. What to do if you catch him drifting to sleep? Offend him. His reaction to a personal slight is to thumb his nose at the perpetrator, then go out to prove him wrong.

Here's Mikael Samuelsson, from an article by Brad Zeimer, on using his snub from the Swedish olympic team last year as motivation:

"It's not only a coincidence," Samuelsson said Tuesday, acknowledging for the first time that he has been motivated by the Swedish snub. "I was pissed and I'm still like, not upset, but I said what I think and I still think that. Obviously, I had something to prove, I guess. . . I want to play good hockey and I want to prove to guys that I can."

And here he is, after a benching earlier this month, from an article again by Brad Zeimer, (who apparently works nights as Samuelsson's psychologist):

"I don't want to say anything, but I got pissed off, for sure," said Samuelsson, who was dropped down to skate with Maxim Lapierre and Tanner Glass, while Jeff Tambellini was moved up to skate with Mason Raymond and Ryan Kesler on Vancouver's second line.

You'd think Samuelsson was quoting himself.

In that same article, Alain Vigneault admits that the decision to demote Samuelsson came after the Swedish forward took a couple shifts off. Effectively, Sammy was benched to wake him up, a strategy that simply wouldn't work for Mason Raymond, whose confidence would be damaged by the same tactic.

"It was a simple decision of reading your team," Vigneault explained. But it's not so simple. Ittakes a watchful eye and an attention to detail to properly decipher and manage the wide array of personalities in any dressing room, and Vigneault has these guys figured out. As a result, when benched, Mason Raymond powers down, but Mikael Samuelsson gets fired up.

I Watched This Game: Canucks vs. Avalanche, March 16, 2011

Canucks 4 - 2 Avalanche

With their win tonight, the Canucks now have 103 points, a mere 2 points from their team record, set in 2006-07. In addition, they clinched the Northwest Division title, meaning they are the first team in the NHL to clinch a playoff spot. Most remarkable, however, is that they have accomplished all of this with 10 games still remaining in their schedule. 10 games, people. If there was any lingering doubt that we are witnessing the greatest regular season in Canucks histroy, it should be completely wiped away. My only disappointment tonight was the the player number I got at the pub belonged to Alexandre Bolduc, so there was no chance for a free beer. Oh well. I watched this game.

• This is the third time in the last five games that the Canucks have gone down by two goals in the first period and come back to win the game. That's significant enough to be called a trend. Last season, the Canucks were the comeback kings, winning 10 games when trailing after one period and 11 games when trailing after two period. This season's Canucks hadn't come back after trailing after one period until this recent spate of 3 wins. The issue, of course, is that they've had so little practice: clearly, the Canucks are secretly allowing the opposition to build an early two-goal lead (the worst lead in hockey) in order to practice coming from behind.

• The Canucks weren't even really outplayed in the first period. They carried the play, particularly the Sedins, who created scoring chances like a Keys to the VIP winner. The difference came down to two hard luck shifts from Sami Salo, who took an interference penalty that led to the first Avalanche goal, then had the second bank in off his skate. The two-goal Colorado lead had little to do with how the Avalanche played, though they should be commended for their opportunism. Still, the Canucks were clearly unhappy with the results of the first period. They came out in the second like Kyle Wellwood men possessed, outshooting Colorado 15-5.

• Manny Malhotra left the game after taking a deflected puck to the face early in the second period. He went to the hospital with blood in his eye and it's feared that he may have a broken orbital bone. Here's hoping that it isn't anything that serious, as Malhotra is essential to the Canucks' chances in the playoffs.

• The fourth line was flying tonight, none moreso than Chris "Kiss Huggins" Higgins, who played 17:18 in the absence of Manny Malhotra, double-shifting with both the second and third lines throughout the game. Kiss Huggins just has a lot of love to spread around. The Canucks' first goal of the game, shoved home by Maxim "The Pierre" Lapierre, was all Huggins. He recovered from mis-handling the initial outlet pass from Keith Ballard by kicking the puck into the corner, where he embarrassed Ryan Wilson, took the puck behind the net, and drew Matthew Hunwick away from Lapierre before neatly slipping the puck in front. Kiss Huggins then gave everyone a heartfelt embrace: no word on whether it included a peck on the cheek.

• Higgins played on the second line in place of Mason Raymond, who was hog-tied to the bench after the 6:32 mark of the third period. Although Raymond had a game-high 5 shots, his overall play was lackadaisical, negating much of the fire that Ryan Kesler played with all game. Instead of feeding off Kesler's fire, Raymond felt the need to stop, drop, and roll at every opportunity. Kesler, meanwhile, was held off the scoresheet despite his best efforts and went all Jason Voorhees on Shorty and Garrett to vent his frustrations.

• Further evidence that Kesler played with a massive chip lurking just over his shoulder: he led the game with a whopping 6 hits. Considering he averages 1.57 hits/game, that's fairly significant, which shouldn't be confused with Puck, who is a significant fairy. Kesler also picked up the majority of the faceoffs in Malhotra's absence, taking 31 draws. The rest of the team, Malhotra included, took 42. And if anyone needs more evidence that Kesler has a heavy shot, witness how he took Adam Foote out of the game with a wristshot. Foote isn't exactly a shrinking violet (I consider him more of a Blok), so it takes a lot to send him to the locker room.

• Mikael Samuelsson is back to his logo-sniping ways. He hates that logo! Stay away from the logo! Jeff Tambellini, meanwhile, seems intent on continually attempting to score from somewhere other than his Magic Shooty Spot. They need to go back to what works: shooting where the goalie is not and the net is.

• Dan "Community Man" Hamhuis had yet another quietly effective game, posting a +3 rating in 23:55 of ice-time and making many excellent defensive plays. His loudest moment came when he picked up an assist on the game-tying goal with a wonderfully patient play after picking up his own rebound. It's remarkable how Burrows manages to create space for himself in front of the net despite being surrounded by three Colorado players when he chipped in the Daniel Sedin rebound. As for Hamhuis, he desperately wanted to help man the phones for the Canucks for Kids Fund Telethon during the intermissions, but had a prior commitment serving soup to the homeless at a local soup kitchen. Dan is a man of his word.

• Speaking of the Telethon, it has raised $1,695,000 already. Holy monkey, that's a lot. It was cool seeing some of the people working the phones, including Stan Smyl, Francesco Aquilini, Victor de Bonis, and Filomena Nalewajek, who is the CEO of Canuck Place. Harrison and I got a chance to meet her at the Scrabble Battle and she is a delightful lady.

• In the pre-game show on the Team 1040, Dave Pratt practically drooled all over his mic at the possibility of the Art-Ross-race-leading Sedins taking on the lottery-pick-bound Avalanche, while Ben Kuzma cautioned that such opportunities frequently don't result in much. Up until the third period, it looked like Kuzma was right; the Sedins were dominating the offensive zone, but were unable to finish their chances. Then, Burrows tied up the game and the door was open for some classic Wizardous Sedinerie. Ehrhoff held the line, Burrows out-battled a defender to hack the puck to Daniel, and Daniel decided that his best course of action upon receiving the puck with room to shoot at the right faceoff circle was to, of course, pass the puck blindly between his legs to his brother. As seen above, Henrik made no mistake, demonstrating a quick release akin to a weaker Joe Sakic.

• Finally, Henrik took a major chance at the end of the game, risking an icing call to ice the game with an empty-netter that was the icing on the cake of this victory. As pointed out by Justin Bourne last month, it's generally considered selfish to take that risk, especially considering there was still over a minute left in the game. A faceoff in the defensive zone in a 6-on-5 situation is less than ideal. That said, it is Henrik Sedin, one of the most accurate passers in the NHL, and considering the force of the shot, it was really just a glorified saucer pass. The risk was a little less than if it had been, say, JaMarcus Russell. I'm guessing he just wanted to net the goal without an assist from Daniel. He needs to make up ground in the Art Ross race somehow.

Shorty & Garrett Just Got Keslurked

Have a gander at the 1:30 mark of this video. That's Ryan Kesler, dropping a nasty Keslurk on John Garrett and John Shorthouse at the end of tonight's postgame coverage. In a clever touch, Kesler does this while wearing Garrett's old-timey goalie mask. That takes some serious planning. I mean, those things aren't just lying around. Did Kesler break into Garrett's house?

This is a whole new ball of wax for Kesler. Prior to this, he's only been Keslurking teammates. Now he's moved on to members of the broadcast team, and potentially, B&Es. He's escalating, and he's broadening his scope. Where will it end?

Terrifying grandiosity. What happens when he Keslurks all there is to Keslurk in this realm? At this rate, that'll happen by Sunday. Then what? Extraspheric Keslurking? I hypothesize a scenario in which Ryan Kesler Keslurks everyone he possibly can think of, then invents a time machine, and goes back in time and Keslurks himself while Keslurking, creating a sort of Keslurkic recursion loop. What if Kesler's drive to innovate new Keslurks causes him to fracture his own psyche and develop a schizoid psychosis wherein his subconscious constantly Keslurks his conscious self? What if he cracks the laws of physics, expands the size of his atoms, then pulls a Galactus and starts Keslurking entire planets?

God help us. Actually, God should stay away. If he shows up, Kesler will probably Keslurk him.