I owe a lot to Jim Robson, the legendary play-by-play voice of the Vancouver Canucks. I never met the man, but he touched my life. Hell, I wouldn't be who I am today were it not for him.

And I never met the man.

When I was a kid growing up in the backwoods of Prince George, B.C., I listened to a lot of Canucks games - and watched the BCTV broadcasts where Robson had the call.

Inspired by Robson, I decided at some point in my young adult life to try to do play-by-play. I managed to wangle my way into a lot of hockey barns, and sat in the stands with a headset and a tape recorder, trying to teach myself the craft.

Here's the thing about professionals: they make the hard stuff look easy. Play by play is not easy. I tried to reach out to radio stations, but ... with no training, no degree, no diploma ... I don't think I even got a rejection. Every radio station ignored my contacts.

So one summer, I discovered that Robson lived on Saltspring Island. And I did something I have only ever done once: I wrote a letter to someone famous. I wrote a letter asking Robson for guidance. I have no clue what I was thinking: seriously, what was a legend like he going to tell me? How could he help?

Here's the stunning part: Robson responded. He had typed out the response, with a few backspace-corrections that suggested he wasn't intimately familiar with the typewriter. There weren't many words, but they were encouraging. Keep trying. Keep knocking on doors. Find ways to get into hockey rinks, baseball diamonds, whatever.

I did just that.

Then one day, I landed in a hockey rink in Saanich, and found a game with free admission. I discovered the games were free, every Sunday. Well, heck. So I packed my tape recorder, packed my headgear and went. Junior B hockey on Vancouver Island was a rough-and-tumble thing back then, but it was fast, it was free, and it helped me get better.

Back in those days, there was a fledgling digital communications system, Fidonet. It interconnected bulletin boards with each other. One day, I sat down and wrote about the game. Did the same next week, too. And in response, someone said "your stuff should be in the newspaper."

Again, I have no idea what made me think of it, but I went down to the newspaper offices with my printouts and some freelance writing copy, looking for .... well, whatcha got?

That led to a gig writing a once-per-week column for - if I recall, $15per. 600 word cap. Go.

I went.

That once-a-week column became well-read. I started capturing pictures (poorly). I ended up doing some work for a short-lived enterprise called Island Sports Fan, which was overseen by a sports-passionate dude who was also a football coach. He recruited me into officiating football. At the same time,  I ended up writing for the local Black Press papers, freelancing to BC Hockey Now, and whatever else would take my copy. Then I landed a gig as a reporter for the Saanich News. I got a side-gig promoting a junior B hockey club, at a time when the Vancouver Island Junior Hockey League started becoming a proving ground for high-end talent. I've watched the names you might still recognize play as kids. In time, I became an editor - first the Esquimalt News, then that and the Oak Bay News, then a central desker, all the while officiating football at higher levels.  Went east, managed a daily, kept putting food on the table writing about all sorts of things, but always writing about sports.

I've done some play-by-play, too. Never got good at it - good enough for cable TV, maybe, but not much more. (I still remember listening to a recording where I totally muddled "Powell River Paper Kings power play...") If you need some indication of how much I treasured Robson's influence, I would always pause in the middle of a broadcast to honour the volunteers of sports, mirroring Robson's ritual of thanking shut-ins and the blind.

The journalism career lasted 20-odd years. If you care, you'll see my name connected to regional and national awards. Turns out I was good at the print side of things.... and I would never have discovered that if I hadn't been sitting in hockey rinks trying to follow Robson's footsteps.

I mention the football gig because that's led to my current career as a building official: turns out having a brain trained for rules and able to manage conflict is good in the current gig too.

And it all traces back to one man, writing one letter, encouraging one young totally lost kid to keep trying. The path wasn't one that I thought I'd take, but I took the first step due to Jim Robson.

Thanks Jim.

The Vancouver Canucks are awash in possibilities. Also in massive losing streaks, unfortunate contracts, and a mix of veterans and prospects that isn't working. But possibilities!

Drawing Maps

When I feel rich enough, I visit my favourite restaurant in Vancouver. It's French and has a single-page menu. They do few things, but they do them extremely well. The focus is tight, precise, and aiming at perfection. Changes are few and small and always serve a purpose. Beautiful place with friendly, very knowledgeable staff who also know enough to leave you alone when you're eating.

Conversely, I also like going to a "family diner" style place that has everything they serve presented in a double-sided, ten-page novel that lands on your table with a THUD. That's the best place for a group of twenty who just did a thing - a game, a show, a party. Whatever the excuse, now we're here, and we're going to tip really well because we know we're a pain in the ass.

It's not the best quality food, but it's noisy and fun and chaotic. It's a place to complain about co-workers - unless they're there, in which case the complaints are about the boss. There's time enough to make and forget a dozen projects, harass your friends, and try to figure out where to next. But, jeeze, with a menu that big, and with that many people around all adding to the noise, it's hard to choose what to eat!

You see where I'm going with this.

Thirty Games, Two Deadlines, One Focus

The Canucks need to have a plan formed by now, or in the extremely near future. The Olympic break is coming up, and while Vancouver has some representation, most of their trade chips aren't going. The common assumption is that David Kämpf and Teddy Blueger are obviously on the block; Filip Hronek is absolutely not; and the other two are...not?

The risk/reward equation is how much tradable players might increase their value with a good performance versus injury risk. No team wants to trade for Kämpf as a backup centre only to have him lost for the season in Torino. The other side is if Latvia gets an upset or two behind Blueger, his value might never be higher.

The same can be said if the muttering around Elias Pettersson the Forward are valid. If he shows his chops on the international stage, maybe some team steps forward with a Godfather-tier offer. Anything less and I don't think Vancouver should be interested, but we can talk about that later.

Running alongside this year's deadlines is whatever timeframe management decides to go with. I have zero interest in hearing "Well, maybe it will just be a couple years, maybe more." Stop that. Decide and aim your bow at that target. Shooting between only misses both.

Time Always Wins

A longer period, more than five seasons away, and moving older players is a good idea. Not because of their effect on the Canucks, but because the number of interested teams will drop. Teams who think they have a shot now, or soon, might be okay taking a long-term hit on a finishing piece who's still in their 20s. They won't be as interested in players in their 30s. Fewer customers makes for lower prices.

If the team is hoping for a quicker turnaround, though, then keeping a couple older players makes more sense. You do need veterans through the lean years who can keep emotions on an even keel. There are going to be hard games, and what you don't want to do is teach your kids how to lose. I think we can safely say the Detroit Red Wings are finally finished their rebuild, and they have a double fistful of players over 30.

Money, weirdly enough, is pretty much irrelevant now. Without the need to make the playoffs, the team doesn't need to chase aforementioned "finishing pieces". There isn't a lot of competition for decent, bottom-six veterans with 600+ games under their belt. Make a couple of them top-six forwards for the hard years, that's fine. Even if they get a bit overpaid because they're signing with a bad team, they won't demand $8 million per on a six-year deal.

A Pius Suter type deal, for instance, should be welcome here because he's replacing a traded Conor Garland.

Pick Who

Ian Cole's name keeps coming up in discussions of players who the Canucks miss. Signed to play a 6/7 role, he ended up in 78 games in the regular season and all 13 in the playoffs. Now, he's almost 37 years old, in Utah, and we talk about the value of having a player like him.

The same is said of Chris Tanev, who was nicknamed "Dad" for his welcoming of new players to the team. People liked him, on and off the ice. He has the respect of players, fans, and officials around the league. These are the guys you need around, especially when things get hard. And lord knows, this probably won't be easy over the next few seasons.

When folks talk about captains, what goes on at ice level is usually what they think of. But that's hardly the most important part of wearing a letter. I am very much opposed to handing the most talented player the captaincy automatically because it's wildly different job. I don't think Markus Naslund was a good captain early, but I also think he grew into the role to become a very good one.

Those traits emerge. You'll find out who the players listen to, who they like to play for, and who leads by example. But you need a room that is willing to listen to each other, too. Watch for the listeners as well as the talkers. Those are the ones you want to keep.

And after the last decade, I never want to hear that "being good in the room doesn't matter" ever again.

We Aren't Fools (Though We Play The Part Well!)

Fears about the fans not attending the games as often are completely valid, but also unavoidable. If the team is going to be bad, show us the players we want to see. And no, that's not just the latest top-five pick, but the players who work hard every game. Vancouver's atrocious record preceding their last two losses at home didn't dampen the cheers heard in the third period. We do know hockey in this town.

So it's an easy message to the owners and the management of the Vancovuer Canucks. It's heartfelt, and it's simple, and it comes from, I think, the majority of Canucks fans here and abroad. We're going to trust that you'll finally decide on a plan, whether you feel like telling us the details or not. It's not like we have any choice, after all. We're not piloting this ship. Heck, we're not even crew, just passengers.

Give us a team that we can like. Players we can cheer for. Blue-collar heroes who bring their lunch pails to the rink. We'll watch them, and we'll cheer for them, win or lose.

Trust us. You've already tried the opposite.

Anyone who has watched the sorry, sad-sack mess of an alleged hockey team that is the 25-26 Vancouver Canucks knows that defenceman Marcus Pettersson has been a shadow of himself.

What’s gone wrong?

After Pettersson came to the team last year, (someone else can argue whether selling a brand-new first-round pick for the veteran D-man was wise), he looked good. He was good before he got here, he was good afterwards – and the fancy stats prove it.

From 2023-25, Pettersson’s most frequent D-partner was Erik Karlsson in Pittsburgh. That pair logged 1322 minutes of time on ice, with 76 goal scored for the Pens, 64 against for an expected goals average of 54%. Even in 2024-25 season, which was a disaster for the Pens, the two had 464 minutes of ice-time, and were dead even in terms of goals-for and goals-against. 

The second most frequent partner last season for Pettersson was the oft-maligned Tyler Myers, with 284 minutes of time on ice. Goals-for/goals-against? Dead even. 

In fact, any pairing combination featuring Pettersson for more than 30 minutes last year was either dead-even or positive regardless of jersey worn, on two non-playoff teams. The 2024-25 Pittsburgh Penguins finished -50 in goals differential, the Canucks -17. Similar stats the year before.

(Incidentally, the worst pairing for Pettersson in Pittsburgh? P.O. Joseph, which again makes me wonder why the Canucks signed the guy.)

This year, Pettersson’s defensive metrics are …  not as good.

The Myers-Pettersson pair bleed goals. With that pairing on ice, the goals for are 9 for, 18 against. Pettersson has been partnered with Filip Hronek for 297 minutes so far, with eight for, two against, and the expected goals for is just a twitch in favour of Vancouver.

So…. uh… what changed between this year and last? Pettersson looks lost. 

Pop a painkiller and flip to 2:20 of the highlights/lowlights of the Islanders/Canucks game Monday, Jan. 19. Petterson is out of position. Grossly so. This is a rookie mistake, and it suggests one of two things: lack of confidence in the other four Canucks on the ice or something else.

This isn't a function of a poor centre situation. The Canucks centre depth was horrible after Pettersson came here (Remember, your top two centres for a while were Puius Suter and Teddy Bleuger), and Marcus Pettersson did just fine.

The other variable that changed comes behind the bench. When Adam Foote was in Kelowna, the team was a dead-last in goals scored and were a defensive mess. Last year, one of the focus points of Rick Tocchet was to eliminate the cross-grain passing, in part to eliminate the post-to-post movement of goaltenders. And interestingly the fancy stats suggest the Flyers are playing better defensive hockey this year than last. All year, Vancouver's defenders have looked lost on the ice.

That system - remember that word, it used to mean something - isn't there this year. Pettersson is being victimized on a lot of the cross-ice passing, in part because the system designed to prevent it went with to Philadelphia.

So don’t blame Pettersson. Blame Foote. And the management team that hired him.

The deal we all knew was coming came, and it wasn't everything we expected. But it wasn't bad, either.

Gotta Deal to Getta Deal

Kiefer Sherwood was the biggest trade chip the Canucks had this season. If the team was going to get another first-round pick for relatively cheap, he would be how. Sure, it would probably be in the 30s, but he's cheap enough for good teams to fit in under the cap. That's not what they got, though.

To San Jose

Kiefer Sherwood

To Vancouver

2026 2nd Round Pick (SJ)
2027 2nd Round Pick (SJ)
Cole Clayton

The Breakdown

We all know what the Sharks are getting. Sherwood is a late bloomer who finally got his time with the Canucks, and is now a nearly unique profile. Good speed, good shooter, strong defensively and a wildly enthusiastic disruptor. He's got a dirt-cheap, expiring price tag, so teams around the league could afford him with little effort. This year, he earned time on both special teams and acquitted himself well. He's also 30 years old and looking for a new contract at the end of the season.

So what came back?

First things first, Cole Clayton is a sound AHL defenceman. That's his ceiling, and he came to Vancouver because the Sharks are at the league limit of 50 contracts and someone had to go. He's a 25-year-old right-side guy, so maybe he'll show something and get a crack at the bigs. But if he does, it'll be a feel-good story and a happy surprise, not something to be relied on.

So the picks are the things that matter, here. There is a mystical aura around the words "First-Round Pick" for a good reason: that's usually where the stars come from. But that also used to be the top twenty-one prospects, not the top thirty-two. Instead of getting a single pick in the late-20s/early-30s range, they have two likely in the mid-50s.

So the question is whether you want a single dart to throw at 30 feet or two at 55 feet. It's going to be pretty dang hard to hit the bullseye with either option, but is the further distance twice as hard? If you don't think so, then more darts are always better, and that's what they got.

Filling Blanks

Vancouver has traded away plenty of draft picks in recent years in hopes of reaching the playoffs. With that plan coming to a screeching halt, a different one has to emerge. Team management has had the word "rebuild" dragged out of them at last, much to everyone's relief. Then they tried to snuff that hope out by pretending they "have been rebuilding for two or three years now" because the team had young prospects.

That's not how that works, Jim, but thanks for letting us know how you convinced Aquilini. Whatever excuse you need, baby, you do that.

In any case, Vancouver has traded away their third- and seventh-round picks this season and their second in 2027. That third is looking pretty good for Calgary right now, gotta say.

Now that they're trying to accrue picks, they have the two seconds from San Jose, the first from Minnesota, and the Pittsburgh Penguins' fourth in 2027. There's room to improve on those numbers, but it's a start. A fourth-round pick is somewhere in the low triple-digits, and the Minnesota one is going to be at best mid-20s. Right this minute, the most interesting pick is that 2027 from the Sharks.

The Sharks probably won't suddenly tumble into the Pit of Despair either this season or the next, but what if they do? A young team having a"false start" year wouldn't be the most surprising thing to happen. If there's a team interested in the gamble, it could be worth more than a 50th-overall pick normally is.

Obviously, the Canucks aren't finished in their dealings yet. This one, like the Quinn Hughes trade before it, wasn't a home run, but it'll do. For now.

The 2025-06 Vancouver Canucks are so bad, they may finish dead-last in the league and set another dubious record in the process: worst home-ice record since the expansion era (1967-68.)

Going into today's game against the Edmonton Oilers (which to be honest, has all the makings of pushing the current losing streak to 10), Vancouver had a record of 4-12-3, or a staggeringly gawdawful winning percentage of 0.134.

Comparing the disasters of the last 58 years is a bit problematic. There were three shortened seasons – one to strike, two to that little bug that happened in 2020. One year, the regular season was 84 games, and some seasons featured 80. Relax. Some crusty retired journalists can actually math, and the following chronicle of winning percentage is all pro-rated nicely to an 82-game season so we can all get right to the trauma with a handy-dandy worst-ten table.

Yep. You read that right: the current Vancouver Canucks are on track to under-perform a woeful Pittsburgh team who had one player with a positive plus-minus (excepting some shmucks who were traded to Pittsburgh mid-season, or lucky ones traded elsewhere mid-season.) But that Pens team at least had a player who could put the puck in the net: Mike Bullard, potted 92 points that season. By comparison, the Canucks leading scorer is (checks notes) some guy named Elias Petterson, who is on track to score 57.

What do the Vancouver Canucks have to do to avoid being the team with the worst home-ice record in the expansion era?

Collect eight points in the next 20 home games. A mere four wins. Or three wins and two loser points. Or two wins and …

You guys can do the math.

Eight points. That shouldn’t be too hard, right?

Right?

Fun facts:

The 1983-84 Pens dressed 44 skaters and four netminders through the season. The 2024-25 Canucks have dressed 33 skaters and four netminders so far.

In 1983-84, the league minimum salary in 1983 was $25,000. Elias Petterson (the forward) earns $25,000 every 10:52 of game time.

Welcome Vern to our group of disgruntled Nucks fans as guest columnist. Vern is a veteran sports writer and worse... veteran Canucks fan. He has followed the escapades of this franchise since the mid-70s - so he knows hardships like few of us. And yet this latest management regime has driven him to the edge of sanity, to come out of retirement and vent about it. 
- jimmi

With the Vancouver Canucks in the middle of a staggering eight nine-game losing streak and parked firmly in last place in the NHL, there are a lot of fans wondering how the hell we got here. Blame management. General Manager Patrick Allvin and President Jim Rutherford have blundered more often than not, and we are here entirely due to their collective, repeated failures.

Error #1: December 2022-September 2023 - Keeping J. T. Miller despite his toxic background

Long before the Canucks shipped out Bo Horvat in favour of J. T Miller, there was abundant evidence that Miller was a problematic individual with a toxic personality.

The most obvious of those came Dec. 30, 2022, when Miller infamously smashed his stick on the net because Colin Delia hadn’t gone to the bench for an extra attacker in the late stages of what was then a 3-2 game against the Winnipeg Jets. That wasn’t the first time that season Miller was involved with issues with team-mates, either – he had a public disagreement with Luke Schenn Oct. 23, 2022. At the time, Miller was an Alternate Captain. (How he got the “A” on his shirt in the first place, I have no idea.)

Rutherford was hired Dec. 9, 2021 and Allvin was hired Jan. 26, 2022. They had time to act, and didn't. There was ample reason to move Miller at the end of the 2022-23 deadline, but instead, management doubled down, and despite obvious deficiencies Allvin/Rutherford re-signed Miller to a long-term contract in September of 2023, a contract worth $8 million over seven years – which is a lot of cash and a lot of term for a 30-year-old, moody centre who can’t play defence. Oh, that contract also had a no-move clause – one of the favourite blunders of the Allvin/Rutherford duo.

Error #2: January, 2023 - The horrible treatment of Bruce Boudreau

By the time Bruce Boudreau was fired from his coaching job on Jan. 23, 2023, few were going to suggest that the man had earned the right to retain his title as Canucks bench boss. Everyone knew Boudreau was going to be fired, and that is the problem: Rutherford actually told media he was looking for a replacement before the axe fell. That was a horrific treatment of an employee and a human being, and it was of such a degree of unprofessionalism, that it caused a leadership analyst to write a column in Forbes, of all places. It signalled a tailspin into the dumpster for team culture. (See #16 below).

Error #3: Jan. 30, 2023 - Trading Bo Horvat

When Allvin/Rutherford traded Bo Horvat, the general discussion was that they couldn’t afford to pay the guy what he was worth on a long-term contract, in part because of the money they need to keep on hand to keep Miller on the payroll. Let's put that in blunt terms: Allvin and Rutherford traded a No. 1 centre, and the captain of the team, in favour of a known dressing-room problem who didn't like playing defence. Nothing says “we have no clue where we’re going” than trading away your team captain when he’s still in the prime of his career (Horvat was 29 at the time) mere days after firing the coach. To put things in perspective, Horvat accepted an eight-year $8.5 million deal after he landed with the New York Islanders.

The return on the trade was, to be blunt, somewhat mediocre. Anthony Beavillier was a middling fourth-line centre, and probably included in the deal as a salary dump so the Islanders could fit Horvat under the cap in the years to come. Atu Raty was heralded as a top prospect, but hasn’t panned out as much more than a fourth-line centre and faceoff specialist. The first-round pick was flipped for Filip Hronek, which is defensible. At the very least, Horvat should have been given the chance to see life under Rick Tocchet, who quite rapidly turned the team around.

Error #4: June 16, 2023 -The Oliver Ekman-Larsson buyout

Previous General Manager Jim Benning’s decision to trade for Ekman-Larsson was a hardly a brilliant move, and the Swedish defender had a horrible time in Vancouver. When the Canucks announced the buyout, few decried it, but it was a gamble that hasn’t paid off. The problem with Ekman-Larsson is that he’s a player who thrives well as a fourth or fifth D-man in a structured environment. The Boudreau days were hardly a shining example of defensive structure, and the former Phoenix Coyotes captain was asked to hold down first-pair minutes. After the buyout, Ekman-Larsson demonstrated how boneheaded this move was by going off to Florida and winning a Stanley Cup. Every year since, he's been solid as a third-pair or occasional second-pair guy.
He’s now on the Toronto Maple Leafs and is at the time of writing, outscoring the Canucks woefully underperforming Elias Petterson (the centre). What would Ekman-Larsson have been like with a full season under Tocchet? (After all, Tocchet turned Tyler Myers from the Chaos Giraffe into a reliable, competent blueliner, didn’t he?) What would the salary cap look like without the burden of Ekman-Larsson’s contract, which will continue to haunt the Canucks until 2031 – another five freaking years?

Error #5: Sept. 11, 2023 - Naming Quinn Hughes as captain

Quinn Hughes is one of the most dynamic players to ever don a Canucks jersey – nobody is going to question that. Really, the only other players who are in the same stratospheric level are named Bure and maybe Luongo. That’s it. But there’s a difference between being exceptionally good as a hockey player and exceptionally good as a captain. Because Allvin/Rutherford blundered in trading Horvat, the team had to name a new captain. Unfortunately, nothing about Hughes in any of the interviews I observed ever gave me the impression he was a good leader. Certainly, his horrible body language and generally pissy demeanor, most notably in the beginnings of the 2025-2026 season lend credence to that view.

Error #6: March 2, 2024 - Resigning Elias Petterson

This is not some retroactive revisionist view: I thought the massive contract for Petterson (the forward) was a bad idea at the time. As one may recall, Petterson didn’t want to sign here, and rather than deal the petulant, soft-skating centre to Carolina for what would have been a heapload of assets that would look damn fine now, Rutherfood/Allvin forced him into signing a monster contract with a no-move clause, essentially paying first-line centre money for a guy who apart from 2022-2023 had been a second-line producer. How’s that working out? To give folks an idea how how tired Vancouver fans are of this guy, Petterson is No. 2 on the Puckpedia Buyout Calculator at the time of writing. (No, that's not going to happen.) The problem now is that Petterson has a no-move clause. Maybe the fact he didn't feel eager enough to be here to resign without prompting is a sign he'll waive that no-move now. One can only hope - but moving the underperforming Petterson is going to require salary retention or a pot-sweetening prospect to make some other team willing to gamble on the guy.

Error #7: July 1, 2024 - Jake Debrusk signing

DeBrusk wasn't what the Canucks needed when he signed, and that hasn't changed since. He's signed to a problematic long-term contract that's costing way more than the value it's delivering. At the time, Allvin/Rutherford hailed Debrusk as the solution for Elias Petterson (the forward) when the problem was never with Petterson's wingers. The problem was always Petterson. Signing Debrusk was a $5.5 million/year gamble that predictably failed.

Error #8: October 2024- January, 2025 - The Petterson – Miller saga.

Whatever took place behind closed doors between Elias Petterson the forward and Miller may never be known. All we as casual spectators know is that something happened. And Miller was involved. None of that happens if Miller had been shown the door at the end of the 2022-2023 season, like he should have been had management given a tinker's damn about culture (see #2 above and #16 below). This leads to ….

Error #9: January 31, 2025 - The Miller trade

The returns from trading J. T. Miller to the New York Rangers were underwhelming to be honest. The major blunder here was taking on Filip Chytil in return, despite the fact Chytil had four concussions with the Rangers. Unsurprisingly, he has had two since, and should probably quit playing hockey before his brain is permanently scrambled. The Czech centre has played just 21 games in two weeks shy of a calendar year. It bears repeating: Chytil’s liability isn’t a reality if the Canucks retain Horvat and let Miller go.

Error #10: March 7, 2025 - Not trading Brock Boeser

At the tail end of the 2024-25 season, Boeser, the well-respected but slow-of-foot winger was a Unrestricted Free Agent who hadn’t committed to re-signing with Vancouver. For some reason, Allvin didn’t move the man at the deadline.

“If I told you what I was offered for Brock Boeser, I think I would have to run out of here because you would not believe me,” Allvin said at the time.

Apart from that coming across as remarkably disrespectful and a sign management has no respect for players (see #16 below), that should have been a clue that more competent managers didn't think Boeser was anywhere near as good as what Canucks management valued him at. (The current analogy is the team waiting for a first-round pick for Kiefer Sherwood, when the market for wingers of his age and skill has long been set at lower.) At the tail end of last year, Boeser had already shown all the signs of peaking (50 points in 24-25 season the overwhelming evidence). A trade might would have likely fetched a second-round pick at the deadline. Heck, anything, really, would have been an asset.

Error #11: May 14, 2025 - Hiring Adam Foote as coach

This never made sense, unless there was some Machiavellian awareness the team was going to be horrific, and Allvin/Rutherford just wanted a placeholder. In any event, Foote was never qualified to coach at this level: his previous coaching record was a roughly .500 record during a season and a half coaching the WHL Kelowna Rockets before he was fired. Foote’s record as an NHL bench boss is now 16-25, and the only real marker left for long-suffering Canucks fan is whether the squad finishes dead-last to maximize the chance of drafting first overall.

Foote ought to be axed at the end of the season, without question. There are structure-dependent players (Tyler Myers, Marcus Petterson) who are suffering, and even early in the season, veteran players signaled they weren’t sure what they were supposed to do. The rookies are learning bad habits. Linus Karlsson is one of the league's best five-on-five and isn't given enough ice-time, while defensive disasters like Brock Boeser and Evander Kane are given priority. Further, it's obvious he hasn't the capacity to bring Atu Raty to the next level, and is it any wonder that Elias Petterson (the defender) is floundering after a solid season under a competent coach the year before? If Hughes hadn’t been certain about leaving, the disaster that Foote has created left no doubt. The team wouldn't be a playoff contender with a better coach, but it would be better.

Error #12: July 1, 2025 - Re-signing Boeser

That hefty, long-term contract with its no-move clause is currently looking like a massive albatross now. Boeser has scored once since Remembrance Day. And why tie up that salary when management was already aware that Quinn Hughes had little intent on staying with the team? Re-signing a slow-moving, older player is not consistent with a rebuild that a departing Hughes necessarily triggers. This is one of many examples of management clearly having no true direction for the team. A critical oversight was the fact that Boeser is not a play-driver, and requires a playmaker (think Miller, Conor Garland), of which the Canucks have .... uh, Garland and that's it. So the fact Boeser is struggling (and still -26 for the year, with 140 active players who have scored more) is of no surprise.

Error #13: July 1, 2025 - Resigning Thatcher Demko at $8.5/year

Why Rutherford/Allvin felt justified handing out a three-year $8.5-million contract to a goaltender with a proven history of being fragile is beyond me. When he’s on, Demko is one of the best. The problem is, he hasn’t been able to play through a season without several injury issues. He started just 23 games in 2024-25, after a freak injury left the stellar 2023-24 team high-and-dry in the playoffs. At the time of writing, Demko has already missed several weeks with injury, and after a mere handful of games is back in the injury ward. Moreover, it has become apparent that management was well aware that Hughes was not going to re-sign, so why gamble on signing Demko for his inconsistent excellence when a rebuild is clearly in the future? And another no-move clause, of course.

Error #14: July 2, 2025 - Signing Pierre-Oliver Joseph

Allvin and/or Rutherford signed this depth defender almost at the outset of free agency. Why? At the time, the Canucks had a stable of players that included Marcus Petterson, Hronek, Hughes (at the time) Tom Willander waiting in the wings, Elias Petterson (the d-man), Derek Forbort (remember him?), Tyler Myers and Victor Mancini. Prior to signing with Vancouver, Joseph had 32 points and 40 penalty minutes in 194 games. He was also -18 for his career, which is now -24 and plummeting every time he plays, which is far too often thanks to Foote having no clue what to do with his d-core. There was no reason to waste $0.775 million on Joseph, who has lived up to exactly what he has always been: irrelevant. Did they not learn from their Vincent Deharnais failure? Might that quarter-million have been used to re-sign Pius Suter - a reliable, versatile center who can kill penalties? Instead the result is a part-time depth defenceman who could likely be replaced by someone younger who is waiver-exempt, a d-man who would help Abbotsford but be there in case of trouble.

Error #15: June 25, 2025 - Trading for Evander Kane

Why? Just … why? Anyone who has been around the NHL knows this guy is problematic. The problem with trading for Kane in June of 2025 wasn’t just that this guy is moody, prone to defensive miscues, and perhaps a bit toxic in the dressing room, it was also his $5.125 million contract.

Error #16: Dec. 2021 - now - Failure to establish culture

You don’t get to the bottom without problems at the top. There’s no clear vision, no clear identity. Nobody knows who is in charge: after the Hughes trade, both Rutherford and Allvin went to separate announcements. To me, it's pretty obvious that Rutherford calls the shots.

Rutherford and Allvin have had four years to improve the culture, and instead, have made it worse. So here we are, with a team that has traded its captain twice in four years, the supposed “star centre” is on track to score maybe 60 points, its generational D-man has bailed for anywhere else but here, injury reports are about as accurate as a seance with a Ouija board, the Adams-winning coach bailed, the current coach is incapable of managing defence, and will likely be replaced at the end of the season (making it five coaches in less than five years) the offence is anemic and there’s no sign that the owner is going to change management before they make any more blunders. The team's culture is a mess... and prominent and respectable journalists like Kevin Woodley say the same thing: https://x.com/i/status/2001049284897329622.

This - all of this - lies at Rutherford and Allvin's feet.

Welcome to the basement, Canucks fans. Might as well bring the sleeping bag: you’re likely to be staying here a while.

Vern Faulkner is a retired award-winning journalist and editor. He’s suffered as a Canucks fan since the mid-seventies, and lacks the moral fibre to move on. 

Perhaps there was a misunderstanding. The last time we talked about accepting failure, it was about how fans can continue enjoying the game and the team we all love, for better or worse. It was NOT supposed to be permission for management to stop working on the team.

So, Patrik? Jim? Heck, Francisco, too, if you're spending time here. This one is for you guys.

When You're Falling

Many, many years ago, I bought a CD. I saw the video, liked the song, and thought that's what the music would be like. Ends up what I liked about it was the one song featuring Peter Gabriel, and the rest wasn't my thing.

The Vancouver Canucks have made exactly one trade since announcing to the league that they were open to trading "veteran players". To be fair, Quinn Hughes is a veteran player, so I suppose that qualifies. So fans took a look at PuckPedia and saw who was there and for how long - and how much - and made assumptions. All the upcoming UFAs, of course, but also older players were looked upon with an appraising eye.

What we didn't expect was nothing. As the team tumbled, and tumbled, and tumbled, fans have been waiting. And waiting. And waiting. And now they are alone in 32nd place in the league, and the one player moved was the best. It was for a decent return, given the circumstances, but more is needed. Hearing that the high-value, 30-year-old, unrestricted free agent was presented with a contract offer hasn't helped.

Or rather, it has. It's helped opinion shift from reluctant admiration that management was willing to move Hughes to outright rage that they're desperately trying to keep their players. The confidence of fans that this management group would finally - FINALLY! - understand what was needed collapsed instantly.

Hybrid, Byebrid! Get On With It!

The funniest things happened soon after the fan outrage hit the internet.

The first, and perhaps most predictable, was management being surprised that the fans were angry. Now, some of that is going to be performative and, frankly, boilerplate messaging by now. Canucks fans are eternally online, and fans of every opinion are there and LOUD. Saying "Gosh, why are they so angry?" is a macro on any press release.

The reason is pretty obvious, even if they don't want to say it out loud. Jim Rutherford has gone from saying they "can turn it around in a couple of years" to describing a "hybrid rebuild" to just calling it a rebuild. And it's a rebuild. Just a rebuild. That's all he really had to say - except that he still needs to act to back that up.

So far, other than the one trade the team was forced into, there is no evidence that a rebuild, hybrid rebuild, or any kind of turnaround is happening. None. No doubt there are conversations going on, and one thing this group is very good at is keeping secrets. But when the one thing we hear is that Kiefer Sherwood is offered a new deal, that's not promising.*

Look, we aren't stupid. No team is going to win with a bunch of 23-year-olds. You want to have a few veterans around to take the brunt of the damage that repeated losing seasons can cause. And rebuilding makes for many losing seasons, alas. But we're also smart enough to know what "selling high" means - and it's hard to imagine Sherwood's value getting much higher.

The team can say whatever they want. Until we see a serious move, not just a UFA being dealt, we're just not going to believe your words.

Accepting Failure, Part II

Fans are going to be mad about it, and that's fine. As noted, some fans are going to be mad about any move Canucks management makes. That happens. But we can also see what's in front of us, and what hasn't worked.

I see my job here as trying to understand the moves the team makes. I can't influence those moves, and I don't interview team management, but I can put pieces together. We can see what the plan was, whether we agreed with it or not. Later revelations make that plan look even worse, but we can still see what it was.

Here's the news: it failed.

It was always a long shot, walking a tightrope that relied on the health of fragile players keeping a thin veneer of skill over a workmanlike team. And the tightrope broke almost immediately. That plan's gone and dust, which you can see with the desperate scrambling for Lukas Reichel and David Kämpf. Those guys are neither wings nor safety net. The plan is gone.

What we need to hear management say is simple: that the plan failed. The plan was to scrape into the playoffs this year and hope it would be enough to convince the best player the Canucks have ever had to stick around. They won't; he didn't; it's over.

A plan can fail, that's fine. Well, it sucks, but it's also fine. Plans fail sometimes, we know that. Lord knows we've seen enough of them to recognize when it happens. Hell, the former general manager had at least six, none of which worked. We know what failure looks like, even the new arrivals to our fandom.

We're going to have plenty of ideas about what you should do. That's the source of plenty of articles between now and the trade deadline, then again before the start of the 2026-27 season. That's what we're going to do to keep involved with a team that's heading for some rocky years ahead.

But the first thing you need to do is tell us.

*Missing two games because of a "mystery injury" IS promising, though.

The Vancouver Canucks and Buffalo Sabres crossed swords last night. The Sabres weren't quite on their 10-game win streak, losing once before facing Vancouver, but were still riding high. The Canucks, on the other hand, hadn't been doing so well, with just one win in six games since a brief winning streak post-Quinn Hughes.

What happened next probably won't surprise you.

Causing Effects

Vancouver was on the road, which, in theory, is a tougher game. But the Canucks have triple the wins on the road as at home, so "grain of salt" that thought. It still didn't go well for them, as the post-game column here can attest. They outshot the Sabres 35-20, but some of that is score effects and some poor shot choice. Or maybe it's frikkin' genies, as the Canucks are 3-11-2 when they outshoot their opponents* this season.

It was a fairly lethargic game from Vancouver through two periods. They had 14 shots in the first, sure, but only a few were dangerous. A short-handed goal against, and, well, it wasn't their night. Until approximately ten minutes into the third, when Buffalo took a double minor. The team found new life, getting to within one before an empty-netter finished them off for good.

And if that game was played at home, the fans would probably have gone home happy. Or if not happy, then happy-ish. Because that, ladies and gentlemen, is where we are.

Is Losing Good?

Ask Team Canada at the World Juniors if they would rather have the Bronze medal or fourth place. It's a quick and easy reply to what should be an obvious question.

That being said, there is the matter of scale. A team in a tournament that happens once a year over the course of two weeks isn't the same as a team in an ongoing league. An Olympic or World team might plan a year ahead, maybe two, to consider the logistics. An ongoing team can change that to years.

Right now, the Vancouver Canucks have no plan. They had a plan, and one that involved a core of Elias Pettersson the Forward, J.T. Miller, Thatcher Demko, and, of course, Quinn Hughes. Anchors at all the important positions, and a coach who can bring them together with proper discipline and solid technique, Rick Tocchet. Add some reliable side pieces, like Brock Boeser, Kevin Lankinen, and Filip Hronek, and we're set to build a challenger!

Let's not go into details about how that went.

Suffice it to say, that plan didn't last. Three times, that plan didn't last, as Miller, Tocchet, and Hughes all fell away. Now they have a plane that didn't fly and are trying to decide what bits to sell off for parts.

Time, Gentlemen!

The NHL does help the worst teams in the league by giving them the opportunity to select draft-age talent before the better teams. This controls where said talent goes and for how long, with a few notable exceptions. Teams are reluctant to trade their highest picks because, over the years, we've seen that it is far and away where most of the talent is available.

You want a star? Bad news, buddy, they're tough to find! You're probably going to have to draft one.

So, yes, in the NHL, losing can be a good thing. In fact, it could be said that losing is an essential part of being good. So, shouldn't the Canucks be one of the best teams in the league by now? After all, they have been quite a bad team for most of the past dozen years! Well, that's the thing: you have to PLAN for when you are going to be a bad team. If you are an accidentally bad team, and the plan you have is to be a good team, then you're walking around London with a Paris street map. Interesting, but mostly useless.

Right now, the Vancouver Canucks are in Surrey with a topographical map of the Moon. A fine idea, but it ain't helping.

What Can We Do?

Are... Are you a shareholder in the Vancouver Canucks? Seriously? Uh, h-hey! How you doin' there, Francesco? Uh, don't read any other part of this website, okay? Not for a bit, anyway. It's dull. Really. Mostly about flowers and stuff. We're talking about maps now, so... anyway. Good of you to drop by. Maybe we'll talk later, eh?

(Is he gone? That was crazy, guys! WTF, right!?!)

We, as fans, are just going to have to decide what it is we like about the team. If what you like is winning, well, that might not be for a good long while. Not consistently, anyway. Know, though, that a win can come on any given night, and it's pretty fun to be there when the home team scores an upset. Granted, that's not been a common thing this season, but it's still fun when it happens.

The Solution: Pick 'Em

But that's not going to be the majority of nights. So you have to pick what you like from what is given us. Watching a young player like Tom Willander get through his growing pains to become a solid, middle-pair contributor is fun, even in losses. Heck, my favourite Canuck during the Sedin Era was Jannik Hansen. Those years got pretty frikkin' barren, but he was still a good watch.

Or pick a vet whose job has suddenly become guiding the kids as they come into the fold. There's always a risk of them getting traded away, but you can look for moments where they're giving advice on the bench or guiding traffic on the ice. And you never know how they'll react to a new world. The amount of ramping up Hronek has done since Hughes left is night and day. He was happy to be in a supporting role here, but he's loaded that defence onto his shoulders since becoming The Man on the blueline.

It's even fun watching the farm crew finding their way, like Linus Karlsson or Max Sasson, earning new deals. They aren't going to be stars, but becoming NHL regulars is already a huge task. Enjoy them for the work they put in. It doesn't always work out - I'm a big Jett Woo fan, and still waiting for his arrival. Might never come, but if it does, I'll be there for it. I'm a sucker for a throwback player, what can I say?

If you want to be really oblique, you can watch the coaching. See what styles they use in different configurations, consult a Jack Han manual or two. But if you thought watching your favourite veteran could be short-lived, the coach of a losing team has the lifespan of a mayfly. Watch it while you can. Remember: it's a game, and games are supposed to be fun. Find your joy in it now, and hope for a big payoff in the future.

Just not too far into the future, okay, Francisco?

*13-9-3 when they get outshot, just for the record.

Players are starting to return from injury, with both Thatcher Demko and Elias Pettersson the Forward returning against the Sharks. Nils Höglander is back, if currently in the press box, and Filip Chytil and Teddy Blueger are skating with the team. Derek Forbort remains the World's Greatest Mystery with no return date listed, but he's not moving any needles.

Arguably, the worst part of having so many injuries right now is that the classic "this guy's getting traded" veterans aren't available. Blueger and Forbort are the mid-to-late draft pick returns that teams out of contention move. But they've each played just two games this season, and no one wants to bring in insurance players who need insurance.

Of all the players who are likely to be traded, will possibly be traded, or are just interesting to think about getting traded, one stands out.

The Difference Maker-ish

Hockey is a game of mistakes. There is a baseline of talent that any team has, but different tactics will help push the needle one way or another. A champion ECHL team is going to be hard-pressed to beat the worst NHL team, and for good reason. But when talent is generally of a level, how the team approaches a game will make a difference.

Make fewer mistakes than your opponents, decrease your chance of losing. But take more risks, increase your chance of forcing your opponents into mistakes. They make more mistakes, you increase your team's chance of winning. However, there is one position that can change everything, and it's the one that's on the ice for the entire game.

It's not like Vancouver hasn't been here before. When Roberto Luongo left after the 2013-14 season, responsibility for the team fell to Eddie Lack and new arrival Ryan Miller. Miller did what he could for three seasons, but mostly what he did was provide false hope. No one is interested in reliving the Canucks' accidental rebuild years, thanks.

But in that, there is some hope for the folks pitching a rebuild. As good as Miller was, the team only reached the playoffs in his first year. Now, we all love us some Brock Boeser, but maybe they could have had Mathew Barzal, or Kyle Connor, or Mikko Rantanen instead of a first-round exit against the Flames.

But that was just one year, and one in which Henrik and Daniel Sedin were 70+ point players. The other two? Both fifth place in the draft, but only because the lottery put them there, dropping them from second and third in consecutive years. The team was still as bad as it could be.

Whaddya Do With A Thatcher Demko?

Demko has negotiated a new deal, as we all know. While the amount is high, the term is quite low. Exactly the opposite of what you would hope to get with a high-talent, high-injury-risk player, but it's what we have. His $8.5 million per for three seasons includes a full no move clause, but doesn't start until 2026-27. The opportunity to move him to any destination is now. Should they?

Move Him On

Even the best skaters in the league rarely cross the 30-minute mark. This season, the desperate Canucks dressed Quinn Hughes for everything, resulting him him being the league's minutes played leader. Even then, he still averages just* 27:30 per game.

No, the one who can really screw up as high a draft pick as Vancouver can get is Thatcher Demko. Even in his game after the break against the San Jose Sharks, shaky though the team was, he made some excellent stops. He's the guy on the team who can snatch victory from the jaws of defeat - and he doesn't even have to do it that often. If he pulls in, say, three wins that Vancouver doesn't deserve, that's six points.

You know what six points is right now? Moving up nine places in the standings. NINE! That's battling with Utah and San Jose for the final wild card spot, and it's hard to say Vancouver's better than either of them. Some typical Canuck luck in the lottery, and the team drops out of a top-ten spot in the entry draft.

Add to that the possibility of saving $8.5 million. Kevin Lankinen is a solid goaltender with a decent floor, even if his ceiling isn't at Demko's heights. He has a five-year deal at $4.5 million, and his no-move clause has already kicked in. Behind him, the Canucks look like they favour Nikita Tolopilo rather than veteran Jiri Patera, and that's fine. The team won't rely on either to lead them to the playoffs when the time comes, unless a miracle happens.

More likely they hope one of Ty Young, Aku Koskenvuo, or Alexei Medvedev with take the ring in four or five years. Or it may be none of them, but a player nowhere in the system. A goalie's progress is a mysterious thing.

Which should make Demko a very tempting target. Yes, his health is unpredictable. But when he's on, there are very few in the world who can match him.

Keep the Keeper

On the other hand, it's not like Demko will play every game from here on in. With 45 games to go - including tonight against Seattle - he might play 30? As many as 35, tops, unless the coach has been told this is his last year. And who would be crazy enough to do that in December?

Say he collects 40 points out of those 30 games. That's a pretty good record, and well within the realm of possibility. If Lankinen has the other 15 games and gets 15 points from them, that's 45 points total, leaving the team at 78 points by season's end. And those projections are well above the pace for both goaltenders. If they both continue current trands, then we're talking mid-60s.

Heck, just look at what's happening in Winnipeg. The Jets, a team with a very good top line and America's starter for the Olympics in net, is one point ahead of Vancouver. A goalie can steal games, sure, but only so many. So, hey! What does it matter? Why NOT move Demko, save some money, and get some upward mobility in the prospect pool?

The short answer is because he's Thatcher Demko.

The long answer is that if the team wants to challenge in two or three years - and it sounds like they do - they aren't going to find another Thatcher Demko by then. Goalies age weirdly, and Demko in his early 30s is probably going to be close to the same Demko we have today. Maybe, maybe one of the kids catches fire early and forces his way onto the team.

If so, is it Demko or Lankinen who should be here to greet them?

*"Just" - as if this amount of exercise wouldn't kill me dead.

Four wins in a row, all on the road, where they outscored their opponents 13-6. Not what most fans would consider a tragedy, for most teams. But these are the Vancouver Canucks, and the Vancouver Canucks fans come with them. And there's a difference of opinion on which direction they should go.

Streaks or Substance

First comes a definition of "tanking" that everyone will accept. I've always hated the term because it implies sabotage or deliberately throwing a fight, and that's not something the folks in the game are going to do. Likewise, the definition of management making the team worse isn't actually sabotage - it's strategy. So I don't like that being called "tanking" either, but, for now, it will do.

The Quinn Hughes trade is a big deal. The Canucks received a solid return, bolstering their weakest position, acquiring a potential star, and securing a little something for the future. I was generally optimistic about how well the new arrivals would fit, but they surprised me with how quickly they have done so. Marco Rossi being the last to score a point with Vancouver wasn't in my expectations, certainly.

And it's been fun! Watching your favourite team win four in a row sure beats watching them win twice in the previous ten. But there is a wasp in the beer can right now, and that's Gavin McKenna. Or, more to the point, what Gavin McKenna represents: that really, really high draft pick that can set a team up with their Star of the Future(tm). And to get that, the Canucks need to lose.

While the Canucks have been better of late, it's still a bit of a stretch to call them good. Vancouver's goalies have had 30 more shots directed against them than their opponents. They've taken advantage of depleted lineups, odd schedules, and apparently an absence of home cooking. Seriously, why the "Road Warrior" thing? FOUR wins at home, but ELEVEN on the road?

In any case, the team isn't going to win every remaining game on the schedule. But the danger many fans feel is that they'll improve just enough to convince everyone who matters that the [rebuild/retool/remake/reincarnation] is done and they can stop working now. And while it's reassuring to know the team isn't exactly good, they will get better unless something is done to stop them.

Things Can Only Get Better(?)

The upcoming schedule doesn't look good. If you're interested in a team tanking, that is. They face the Flyers, who are eleventh in the league right now, but have just 17 wins in 34 games, twice. Detroit is actually playing well, and they're coming up. Otherwise, the next dozen games look decidedly unintimidating.

Now, Vancouver has the (lack of) ability to lose any one of these games, of course. But it wouldn't surprise to see either eight losses or eight wins coming out of them. The Sword of Damocles has been removed, and everyone is playing a more relaxed game. They're having fun while still working their tails off, and that can do a lot for a team. If they get a bit lucky, the Canucks are in real danger of being in a playoff spot a month from now. Or at least within shooting distance of one.

That is why it is absolutely vital that management not lose sight of the goal. The Canucks have two eight-game home stands coming, one of which happens before the Olympic break. They cannot afford to fall in love with their players during that home stretch. They have to move folks out as soon as they possibly can.

If that happens to be Thatcher Demko, then it's Thatcher Demko. If it's Elias Pettersson the Forward, then it's Elias Pettersson the Forward. If it's Conor Garland, then, well, it's probably a mistake, but so be it, it's Conor Garland. We've been over the names, and they haven't changed.

Focus!

And while they're at it, throw the old "no trades within the conference" maxim out the window. Hint to Winnipeg that they're in too deep to rebuild now, so they better get another scorer. Suggest to San Jose that they owe their fans to make the playoffs this year, not just get close, and need to shore up that defence with a veteran. Ask Edmonton if they ever want a REAL goaltender before McDavid leaves.

Make room for some of the younger players we have now, and get a few more back. The Canucks don't need every draft pick to be from this year, surely? Future picks have current value, if an opportunity to pick up a disgruntled star happens to arise in the future.

In the meantime, encourage the old, 1980s "lovable loser" mentality. All that led to was loveably losing, but this time, do it deliberately. Acknowledge that "the kids" may not all hit, but by gum, they're gonna try! And maybe a few of the better ones can, ah, "learn to dominate" in the AHL this season. Go for another championship there, maybe get some rings before the 2025 champions do.

Because the truth of the matter is that, as good as Zeev Buium looks, he's still just a rookie. Liam Öhgren may be finding his legs, but a good bottom-six winger isn't going to change the world. And Marco Rossi will help, not save, the team.

Sure, move the unrestricted free agents for something. But don't forget the underlying problems on the team aren't cosmetic. No, you don't win Stanley Cups with a team of 20-year-olds, but everyone on a Cup-winning team was 20 years old sometime.