Scotty Bowman to coach the Canucks next year?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Michael Griffiths

Rock n' Roll Doggie
Joined
Jun 10, 2000
Messages
3,925
Location
Playa Del Carmen, Mexico
I honestly think Crawford was outcoached by Lemaire. Also, his players don't respect Crawford as much as Lemaire's players do. Crawford isn't very likable, and I don't know if players will ever give it their all for him. My solution: Burke should do whatever he can to bring Scotty Bowman out of retirement and coach the Vancouver Canucks. Bowman might be bored enough with retirement, and so much in need of a challenge, that he may actually go for it. I think the Canucks could certainly afford him given how much profit they've made this year (especially with the playoff games). Could you imagine the frenzy if the Canucks got Bowman? How cool would that be!

Beam us up Scotty!
 
its already been done by blues fans my man. he used to coach the blues so it would be a triumphant return to home for him, but he isnt coming out of retirement, so no use wasting time even thinking about it.
 
Here's another GREAT dream, and this one is much more realistic: the Canucks should sign unrestricted free agent Sergei Fedorov this summer! He'd be a perfect fit. He's a defensive minded offensive player, so he'd be perfect centering Naslund and Bertuzzi who are horrible in their own ends. He'd also create much more offensive chances for them than Morrison does. Morrison can become the second line centre, adding more depth to that line! Fedorov only makes 2 mill per season right now, too (I was shocked). Of course, the Canucks would have to pay him more if they signed him. What do you think?
 
are you still :drunk: michael? federov will likely at least get 7 million a year, you really think the canucks could afford that in one player? the better question is, is that really smart anyway? for that kind of scratch you can get 3 good players instead of just one. As we have seen in this years playoffs, top paid superstars dont equal playoff success. 23 out of the 24 top paid players are playing golf.
 
Last edited:
Yes they are playing golf, but as you said, this year may be an anomoly. Also, Fedorov is not just your average $7 mill player. Like I said, he's defensively responsible and offensively gifted. A perfect fit for Vancouver's top line. I do think the Canucks could afford him. They made a significant profit *before* the playoffs even started. And as we all know, teams make pure profit during the playoffs (minus overhead) because they don't pay the players for the playoffs. I think the Canucks made more money this year than they have in years. If they get rid of some of their roster, such as Letowski, Langdon, and Baron (which they likely will), they wil have even more free cash to spend.
 
i think another thing to take into account is next year will be the last before perhaps a lengthy work stoppage, that people are saying could even last a year or two. supposedly there are gonna be "big changes" with something resembling a salary cap. so it will be an interesting off season to see how many big contracts are given out and what not.
 
me too, but right now everything i have heard sounds really bad. i wouldnt be surprised if a full season gets wiped out, if not more.

Bob Goodenow, executive director of the NHL Players Association, attended yesterday's game and had this to say on the owners' push for a salary cap in the next collective bargaining agreement in 2004: "There will never be a salary cap. I've told the players to be prepared for a long lockout by the owners. It may last a year, it may last two or three years, but we will never accept a salary cap. This isn't the NFL. I'm confident the players are prepared for whatever happens."
 
Last edited:
Scotty is still a consultant with the Wings, and I'm sure he's kept busy with scouting activities and such... I don't see him moving to Vancouver. Same with Fedorov, the price tag is too big and Sergei has too many cars to move.

As for the CBA expiring next year, I don't care how it goes... if there's a strike that's fine. BUT if they don't fix the financial infrastructure of the game and work out some sort of revenue sharing program... than I think everyone will be thoroughly disappointed. It's better to lose a little hockey now, to make the future game more fiscally sound.

Like Chizzer says, with a strike looming... it's doubtful that any big deals will be made, but you might see the big teams "loading" up for one last run. I think this will give players like Roy the incentive to play one more year, as this next season might be the most competitive one ever. The Ultimate Stanley Cup Playoffs... hopefully with a bit of a different result than this year :wink:
 
Michael Griffiths said:
I honestly think Crawford was outcoached by Lemaire. Also, his players don't respect Crawford as much as Lemaire's players do.

A key difference in the series!

Vancouver was a WAY more talented team, which sometimes can translate to "not easy to coach."


Scotty is not coming out of retirement. If he wanted to coach a team with a lot of potential to win a stanley cup, he would have stuck with Detroit. And I think Detroit would have played Anaheim a bit differently if Scotty was still there.
 
Re: Re: Scotty Bowman to coach the Canucks next year?

zonelistener said:
And I think Detroit would have played Anaheim a bit differently if Scotty was still there.

Thank you... that made my day. You're now on my Christmas list... your George Foreman Lean Mean Fat Reducing Grilling Machine is in the mail :wink:...
 
Man, I'm so depressed. I still can't believe Vancouver is out of the playoffs. It's such a shock. People are crying in the streets. Grown men are weeping. What happened? After the 1st period last night, in which Vancouver outshot Minny 12-5, I turned to my friend and said Vancouver may be outplaying them, but they're still off. There's something wrong. It was in the execution. It was in the delivery. They just lost their confidence, their pizzazz. They were *hoping* to score instead of doing it at *will* like they had all season long before the playoffs. It was sad to see, and even though they went up 2-0 late in the 2nd period, and even though I told myself they had an 80% chance of winning, I still felt they weren't quite there yet. Something was still off, and it turned out I was right. But what happened? What changed? What was the real reason behind their fall? I think there must have been something that no one has talked about, something maybe behind the scenes. It's all very strange. This is a team that was the tightest group in all of hockey 2 months ago. They're all best friends off the ice. Even Bertuzzi said he'd rather see Naslund score than score himself. They're totally unselfish and this team has the best chemistry in the league. So, someone tell me! What happened?

End of rant.
 
Last edited:
Michael, I'm sending you my finest beer... cheers to us losers eh?

:wink:

A cold one, from a bold one... enjoy.
 
Sweet! A cold Canadian beer. Nectar of the gods. Thanks, good fellow.

But tell me - How will they fair next season? Will their confidence be shattered, will they play like crap, or will they grow as a team and be even better because of it? Do you have any idea either way, good fellow?
 
Michael Griffiths said:
But tell me - How will they fair next season? Will their confidence be shattered, will they play like crap, or will they grow as a team and be even better because of it? Do you have any idea either way, good fellow?

Canucks... they'll actually win a division title. But, I think that their season depends on how the organization responds to the Dan Cloutier situation. They have to assert themselves as staunch supporters, or trade him. If they just leave things as they are... there will be dressing room troubles. Other than that, I don't see why they can't improve.

Cheers...

here's one for chizzer too...

St. Louis will win the Stanley Cup. Do I have to give a year?
 
hey mikey when has vancouver won a cup?

i have a feeling the blues will have one before vancouver does

or any canadian team really
 
im honestly quite disappointed with this thread.

michael, i do believe your on crack. crawford has made improved this team tremendously each season since he first took over.

what people fail to realize is that ONLY ONE TEAM CAN WIN THE STANLEY CUP! sure it sucks when your team loses, but 29 teams have to!

sorry michael, i couldnt disagree with you more.
 
I think Crawford's done a good job too... do you remember Keenan? Egad man he was one colossal crapwad. Coaching isn't the problem... you win some, you lose some. But I admit, losing 3 in a row is a concern for the entire coaching staff... not just Marc Crawford... his mandate has seen the Canucks excel in almost every category, they just needed more playoff experience. If the team stays together, I'll bet they'll go much further next year...
 
Zoomerang96 said:
im honestly quite disappointed with this thread.

michael, i do believe your on crack. crawford has made improved this team tremendously each season since he first took over.

what people fail to realize is that ONLY ONE TEAM CAN WIN THE STANLEY CUP! sure it sucks when your team loses, but 29 teams have to!

sorry michael, i couldnt disagree with you more.
Well, you are right about the crack comment, but I still disagree with you on my original point. Look, I agree with you that Crawford has taken this team extremely far during the last 4 years. Each year has brought a steady and significant improvement, no argument there. But my point is that a team, at some point, stops listening to the coach. They get tired of hearing the same things from the same mouth. They begin to tune out. Why do you think Jacques Lemaire, himself, got fired a few years back? He even won a Cup with the Devils! But, as we all know, there's always that inevitable breaking point when the players stop listening.

It's no secret that the players have, at best, a grudging respect for Crawford. One player recently commented off the record saying, "Well, I guess you can't criticize him that much since we are winning games." Doesn't exactly sound like high praise to me. Lemaire, on the other hand, has all his players thinking he's a god of some sort. Which makes sense, really, since they are a cult. But the point is, they just adore him. They will do anything he asks them to, because they not only believe in him, but they respect and enjoy him as a coach. The Canucks may believe in Crawford, but I'm not so sure how much they respect and enjoy him as a coach. As we have seen this last series, players will go to the ends of the Earth (which usually spells victory) for a coach whom they respect and enjoy. Things to think about...
 
Last edited:
Chizip said:
hey mikey when has vancouver won a cup?

i have a feeling the blues will have one before vancouver does

or any canadian team really
Hey, I was only laughing at what Cujo said. Take it up with him if you have a problem with it. :wink:

As for the Blues winning a Cup, they may want to think about cutting their inflated payroll first and getting back to basics.
 
from faceoff.com

Crawford act wearing thin

By TONY GALLAGHER
The Vancouver Province

When Vancouver Canucks general manager Brian Burke came forth with his ringing endorsement of coach Marc Crawford recently, he may have painted himself into a corner.

Under the direction of their present coach, the Canucks have improved steadily during the regular seasons, despite the fact the head man is not liked in the least by most of his players.

His emotional, often negative and most assuredly loud style behind closed doors has been effective and there is no rule anywhere that says players have to like their coach to perform at a high level. But let's face facts here. This act, while it will be around the NHL for as many years as Crawford wishes to coach at this level because it is an effective routine, will have a shelf life with this group of athletes. Burke's job is to guess at which point that shelf life is finished.

That's where it gets tricky. And while the Canucks won a round in the playoffs for the first time since both Burke and Crawford have been working together, the late regular-season collapse, the good fortune of having the Blues ill and minus Al MacInnis, and the monstrous swoon against Minnesota all must be taken into consideration.

Next season this core of players, which is young and still promising, will have the option of going two ways under Crawford after what has just happened. They will either be disappointed at their own performance and come in resolved and motivated to again have another solid regular season and really do something in the playoffs. Or they will come in discouraged at hearing the same old negatives and fearful that the way this team finished the season -- remember the season before last finished in a similar way -- will become a pattern they cannot break. Then you're looking at despair and a start like the Colorado Avalanche had this season. Either direction is a distinct possibility.

Some of the better hockey minds in the country insist the Canucks have taken on the personality of their coach by virtue of the fact he's been around 4 1/2 seasons. They are an emotional, physical, offensively creative club, which are strengths brought by Crawford, the emotion often carrying the day.

But along with those strengths comes the lack of discipline emotion brings, and the belief that negative things are going to happen in the end because that is the way the world is presented to the players and that is the way the season has usually ended. That fear of the negative was clearly present in the third period of Game 7.

When Dan Cloutier stood in front of the media and spoke after Game 7, he rightfully took some of the blame himself and then quite courageously, in that given context, verbalized the obvious that "there are others things wrong as well."

Burke may well be able to improve the goaltending, size at centre and improve even further on the depth on the back end he has already done much to upgrade. But those "other things wrong" Cloutier identified are not likely to go away when the same coach is beginning his sixth season with this group of athletes, the most important of which are the ones who appreciate the coach the least.

The GM has probably already put himself in the position of having to support Crawford. But don't let the 104 points fool you.

As good an NHL coach as Crawford is going to turn out to be when his regular-season win totals begin to dwarf all but the very best in the game's history, it's a big-time gamble to bring this guy back to work with this team next season.
 
Well, like I said... the organization asserted themselves behind Cloutier. He's not to blame for the collapse... I'm glad they've resolved any lingering feelings by giving him and Crawford the vote of confidence.

:up:
 
Cujo, I'm with you. That made me quite happy, too.

By the way, Chizip, Tony Gallagher is Vancouver's equivalent to Al Strachan. He's a hack writer who writes for the Vancouver equivealent of the National Enquirer (The Province). The Province only hired him to piss off the Canucks even more than they already do. He's a pion. That said, I guess I have to admit I did entertain such a move (coaching change), as shown in this thread. Let's just say this: Crawford hopefully has also learned, like the rest of the Canucks, what it takes to win in the playoffs with this team, in this city, at this time. If he grows as a coach, he should stay with the rest of the team and all go forth together. So I guess I retract my earlier statement. However, if Bowman is up to task...
 
Bitter pill to swallow
Brian Burke offers no apologies for unhappy ending

By IAIN MACINTYRE
The Vancouver Sun

I-030513vansunHockey23-1.jpg

Ward Perrin, Vancouver Sun

Vancouver Canucks coach Marc Crawford and general manager Brian Burke face the media at a news conference at GM Place on Monday.


On the day Philadelphia Flyers' general manger Bob Clarke called a press conference to lynch his goalie, Vancouver Canuck boss Brian Burke held one to embrace his.

Burke, passionately but predictably, defended beleaguered goalie Dan Cloutier and the Canucks, saying Monday there was no reason to apologize for the season even while noting the bitterness of its end.

Displaying the heart and leadership he expects from his players, Burke accepted responsibility for the team's second-round playoff collapse. The Canucks squandered a 3-1 series lead and were eliminated Thursday by the third-year Minnesota Wild with only the Anaheim Mighty Ducks standing between Vancouver and a possible Stanley Cup final.

"The ending here has spoiled the fairy tale," Burke told reporters at a post-mortem press conference, four days after the Canucks blew a 2-0 lead and lost Game 7. "We didn't live happily ever after. We failed to beat a team we had down 3-1."

Burke appeared on the verge of tears when he described the aftermath of a loss in which the underdog Wild scored on four of its final seven shots.

"What we didn't achieve as a team has been a real difficult, bitter pill to swallow," he said. "When you go up 3-1 on that team, you've got to find a way to finish it and we didn't. I'm not good at losing. It's frighteningly difficult to handle.

"[But] the truth of the matter is we had a wonderful season. There is no reason to apologize for this season, no reason to defend this season."

Burke cited the Canucks' franchise-record 104 points, record winning and unbeaten streaks, the accomplishments of star forwards Markus Naslund and Todd Bertuzzi and the 45 sellouts in Vancouver during the regular season and playoffs.

Burke explained teams fail at one of four levels: Ownership, management, coaching or playing. He said owner John McCaw and coach Marc Crawford are not at fault, leaving Burke and the players as culprits. But he added he takes responsibility for the players, too.

"If we don't have the right group of players -- and I believe we do -- that's my fault," Burke said. "Have I done enough? Did I do enough at the trading deadline? I haven't ruled out that I haven't done enough."

But he also gave no indications that he'll do much to change the lineup, saying he may need to let players "walk" to keep the payroll increase to about five per cent.

Burke made it clear that Cloutier, whose career playoff save percentage is .866 and who has had problems in all three post-seasons with the Canucks, will return as the team's No. 1 goalie.

"The notion that this crushing disappointment can be placed at the doorstep of one player is so unfair, so wrong, so mean-spirited that it is shocking to me," Burke said. "One player does not cost you a playoff series. Shame on any of you who want to say it's all Dan Cloutier's fault because it's not.

"Does he have a challenge to get to the next level? Yes. Did he play well the last three games? No, but Dan Cloutier is not alone."

Burke argued many goalies have struggled initially to reproduce at playoff time their form from the regular-season, although his example of Ottawa Senators' goalie Patrick Lalime does not appear to withstand scrutiny.

Nor does the case, advanced by others, of Anaheim Mighty Duck goalie Jean-Sebastien Giguere.

Lalime had a career playoff goals-against average of 1.63 before taking the Senators to the Eastern Conference final this season, while Giguere is excelling in his first playoffs and has been a star since the Ducks gave him a chance to play regularly two seasons ago.

Burke and coach Marc Crawford said they believe Cloutier will get better because he has character, athleticism and is driven to succeed.

Burke added, however, the 27-year-old needs to find a way to maintain his health through a full season.

Burke said he'd like have an experienced backup goalie capable of "pushing" Cloutier but indicated there is little money available for this.

Incumbent Peter Skudra, who lost irretrievably Crawford's confidence, was bumped in March from the No. 2 spot by prospect Alex Auld, who did not start a playoff game.

"The only way to go into the playoffs with no holes in your lineup is to spend $60 million US," Burke said, referring to teams that spend about twice as much as the Canucks on players. "I don't have that luxury, and I'm never going to have that luxury and I accept that."

Burke, who estimated the Canuck payroll will increase about $2 million US next season to $38 million, said everything he has done for two years has been predicated on a revised collective bargaining agreement that he hopes will put a drag on salaries after next season.

The Canucks have 14 free agents - three of them unrestricted - and Burke will be forced to do the bulk of the negotiating if assistant GM Dave Nonis is named later this week to the top job with the San Jose Sharks.

Nonis was conspicuously absent from Monday's press conference.
 
Back
Top Bottom