The Sundin Effect: How much better will Vancouver be?

The most concise thing I can say about Mats Sundin joining the Canucks? Vancouver instantly goes from a team that didn't have a chance to one with a very small sliver of one.
A lot will have to go right for the Canucks to get to the Western Conference final (or beyond). Roberto Luongo must be healthy and Sundin will have to regain his form from last season. Even then, the road goes through Detroit, San Jose and Chicago, and the battle for the Northwest Division title is still going to be fierce.
Winning your division in the West is a big deal given just how tough the competition is among the top handful of teams. Falling into that 4-5 matchup likely means a first-round date with a team that had about 100 points, and it's a long road to go from there.
Back to Sundin. Here's how he potentially fits into the lineup, right alongside his former teammate in Toronto:
Wellwood - Sundin - Demitra
Sedin - Sedin - Bernier
Burrows - Kesler - Hansen
Pyatt - Johnson - Raymond
In a lot of ways, this was a good year for GM Mike Gillis to try and go for it in Vancouver. Both Sedins and Mattias Ohlund can become UFAs on July 1, and I highly doubt all three return. Luongo has only one year left on his entirely reasonable contract, after which point he might be looking to make an exit if the franchise looks like it's headed for a rebuild.
Vancouver's surprisingly tied for eighth in league scoring this season (with New Jersey of all teams) and is sixth in goals against, due in part to strong goaltending. Sundin will really help on the power play, where the Canucks are middle of the pack, and at producing points at even strength, where he was one of the top forwards in points per minute on an awful team last season.
Most of all, what Sundin gives the Canucks is some scoring depth, a legitimate No. 1 centre the franchise has lacked for decades, really. If he's going, he'll get the difficult opposition, and the Sedin twins will really benefit from that.
Ultimately, you have to tip your hat to Gillis. He waited this out rather than throw his available cap space at lesser players, and there's zero risk involved in the deal. Even if Sundin's a bust, it's not as if Vancouver's mortgaged its future here.
They just bought themselves a chance.
Other coverage
- ESPN's Scott Burnside rips Sundin's leadership, among other things. If the Sundin saga was a sham, it was one largely perpetuated by the media as the player himself was always pretty clear about when he would return to the game. (Gillis said so multiple times.) Despite the fact Sundin's being called a 'hired gun' in all circles, there's a big difference between playing a dozen games in March and April with a team and signing with a club you could potentially call yours for 130+ games.
- Damien Cox has a nice tribute to Sundin's legacy as a Leaf.
- Craig Custance looks at the deal from Gillis's perspective.
Sundin is going to talk at 1 p.m. EST in a press conference of his own, something I'll try and track Friday afternoon.
0 recs |
30 comments
| Add comment
|
Comments
Jesus has landed
..or so you would think, I can’t believe how much affect people think one man has. Some Orr\Gretzky\Lemieux reincarnation? Sundin I know played in Toronto some time ago, scored some 70 points per season, has never won anything for his team nor got any awards in NHL.
With that ridiculous pay he should score a hat trick minimum each game
by nudge on Dec 19, 2008 3:42 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
1) At his age and not having played in 10 months he’s a Groin injury waiting to happen. Gee, so muh hype over a guy who at most will help his team make the playoffs.
2) They are NOT a Cup contender now. Perhaps if the canucks played in the weak East they’d be a Finalist, but NOT out West.
by Fauxrumors on Dec 19, 2008 8:19 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Vancouver's chances
I’ll admit that as an Eastern Conference fan, I don’t see a ton of WC games, so maybe I’m missing something here. But I wonder why you say that the only have a small sliver of a chance, James. I think this makes them the favorites to win the Northwest, at least.
One of the most important predictors of season-long and postseason success is goal differential. As you point out, even without Sundin, and with an unhealthy Luongo, the Nucks have top offenses and defenses. They are third in the West in GD, I think. Those only figure to get better, unless Luongo never recovers, or Sundin somehow causes more harm than good.
Calgary has the offensive punch, but have been lousy defensively all year. Ditto for the Avs. Minnesota is going through another year of suffocating D, and anemic O. Edmonton is still a ways away. I’d say that the Nucks are looking good for the Northwest title.
by self loather on Dec 19, 2008 8:33 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Sundin Effect
I like your stuff, James, but aren’t you going just a wee bit overboard by implying that the Canucks would have to defeat Chicago, San Jose and Detroit to get to the Grail?
I remember the odd first round upset, don’t you? Come to think of it, there’s been one or two in the second and third rounds too, eh?
Don’t get me wrong — the odds are long, but let’s keep a couple of things in addition to playoff upsets in mind: in order to win the Cup you must have hot goaltending, good health, get some bounces and calls, and your timing must be right.
The Canucks may or may not get all the stars alligned to go all the way — probably not — but if you think back, stranger things have happened.
by Bob Roberts on Dec 19, 2008 10:11 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Sure...
Upsets can definitely happen but who would beat those teams? Are they all going to lose? They’re are going to at least have to get past one of Detroit and San Jose and I don’t think that they can do it.
Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
by PPP on Dec 19, 2008 11:52 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Upsets CAN defintely happen?
Name a year where at least one favourite hasn’t been eliminated.
Who would beat them? Who beat Detroit year before last and who would’ve predicted that?
Who beat San Jose last year and who would’ve predicted that? Would you? Did you? I wouldn’t’ve and didn’t!
How many times have the favourites met in the Final? How many long shots have won it all?
As I said, I’m not saying the Canucks will do anything like win the Cup, but to say they have “a very small sliver” of a chance or that the road necessarily goes through the Sharks, Wings and Hawks is not up to your usual standard.
It sounds like you’re tired of the Sundin saga and you’re letting that slant your writing.
But hey, everyone has an opinion and everyone can’t be right any more than everyone ever agrees on anything. Why watch otherwise?
As always, we shall see.
by Bob Roberts on Dec 19, 2008 12:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Anaheim beat Detroit in the Western final two years ago. Some massive upset.
The Canucks have more than a small sliver of a chance at winning the Cup? Honestly? With Luongo ailing and a 37-year-old Sundin the lineup?
This makes them better and gives them a chance. That’s all. And that chance is with upsets happening.
by James Mirtle on Dec 19, 2008 12:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
So...
Ducks were favoured, were they?
Sharks losing wasn’t an upset?
Your post doesn’t mention upsets.
Luongo going to be ailing forever?
That Swede who plays D for the Wings — #5 — had a pretty good Cup win last year. How old was he?
And HONESTLY, my reply neither states nor implies that the Canucks have more than a chance at the Cup — as I said “Don’t get me wrong — the odds are long…” — but upsets need not be “massive” any more than the favourite always wins.
This post just wasn’t up to your usual standard. It’s too dismissive, too slanted. Uusually you’re much more even-handed.
That’s all from me on this topic. Thanks for letting me have my say.
by Bob Roberts on Dec 19, 2008 1:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Obviously for the Canucks to do anything, it’d likely be an upset.
Everything I write is slanted given my perspective on the issue or the teams involved. I don’t think Vancouver has a very good team; I’m not alone. We’ll see how it plays out.
by James Mirtle on Dec 19, 2008 1:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
So the Canucks DON’T have a very good team? You do realize they’re tied for the NW lead, don’t you? Now no one is saying they’re about to upset the Wings or Sharks, but I’d imagine they at least deserve SOME credit for the way they’ve played so far. Heck, it looked like the Canucks were about to run away with the NW division until Luongo got injured.
by RGJ on Dec 19, 2008 2:27 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think Boston will come back down to earth, too. And look where they are in the standings. The Senators started last season 22-7-3; should we then have been proclaiming them Cup favourites based on 32 games?
In my mind, Vancouver’s an average club in the West — better if Luongo’s in Vezina-calibre form. And Sundin puts them slightly above that.
by James Mirtle on Dec 19, 2008 2:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The Senators started last season 22-7-3; should we then have been proclaiming them Cup favourites based on 32 games?
Not only did the Globe & Mail say they were the Cup favourites, but they also declared them the greatest team in the history of team sports.
Or maybe that was the year before.
by mclea on Dec 19, 2008 3:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeap, year before. Same principles at work though.
by James Mirtle on Dec 19, 2008 3:38 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
James dislikes the Canucks
since the end of the Naslund-Morrison-Bertuzzi era. It’s rather apparent from his posts that a) He thinks the team isn’t good.
b) He’s surprised when the team does well.
c) He’s not surprised when the team struggles.
d) He thinks the team relies mostly, if not solely on Luongo.
e) He predicts them to lose
by SJKel on Dec 19, 2008 1:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
They haven’t proven me wrong yet. :-)
Sundin likely makes them considerably better. Definitely a playoff team, anyway.
by James Mirtle on Dec 19, 2008 1:29 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Did you predict them to lose the series against Dallas in 07? Did you predict them to miss the playoffs in 06-07?
by SJKel on Dec 19, 2008 3:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Did you draft Krajicek in the pool?
:-)
What I mean is that I’ve always looked at Vancouver as a very average team, one in the pack of potential playoff teams but not above it by any means. The Dallas series was a coin flip; the Canucks were seriously outclassed by Anaheim in the next round.
I didn’t see anything there (or yet this season) that would prove them a contender.
by James Mirtle on Dec 19, 2008 4:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
But I didn’t claim that I wasn’t proven wrong yet. I also didn’t claim the Canucks to be a Cup contender, even though I hope they are. I’m just point out that you don’t hope the Canucks to be good. You hope them to be do poorly for some reason, despite your BC root.
by SJKel on Dec 19, 2008 4:27 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t hope them to do anything.
by James Mirtle on Dec 19, 2008 4:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
That’s why you’re surprised when they did something (sign Sundin) :P
Anyway, I hope this discussion shields you from future accusation that you’re a Canucks fan boy because you’re from BC. You are not.
by SJKel on Dec 19, 2008 4:40 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
d) He thinks the team relies mostly, if not solely on Luongo.
Wow, James can be so ridiculous sometimes. They also rely on his health.
Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
by PPP on Dec 19, 2008 3:04 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, the team lost every game that Luongo didn’t start. Oh wait, they actually won 6 games since Luongo’s injury, and 12 games played with 9 of them on the road.
by SJKel on Dec 19, 2008 3:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh my God
Why do people have to be so difficult. Here are the current playoff standings as of now (granted, they can change but just as an example)
SJ – NSH
DET – PHX
CGY – ANA
CHI – VAN
So already they have to face one from that group. Let’s say they get past them and there are nothing but upsets. Here’s the second round:
VAN – NSH
ANA – PHX
Third Round:
VAN – PHX
Ok, so that’s if there are only upsets all of the way through. In that case they only have to beat one of them. In a more…realistic scenario then they will have to beat at least 2 if not 3 of them.
Do you really think that they have anything other than a puncher’s chance?
Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
by PPP on Dec 19, 2008 3:03 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Except that Calgary would not have ranked higher than the Canucks by the end of the season. Vancouver and Calgary have identical records but Vancouver played 13 home games while Calgary played 15 already.
by SJKel on Dec 19, 2008 3:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Not necessarily.
Usually teams have better home than road records – the whole point of wanting to finish higher because having home ice is generally an advantage – but not always. I think it was two or three years ago that Calgary was fantastic on the road and pretty crappy at home. If they were playing the same way this year (I honestly don’t know), then having more road games left would be an advantage to them.
"A vacuum is a hell of a lot better than some of the stuff that nature replaces it with." -- Tennessee Williams
by Baroque on Dec 20, 2008 3:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
You are so right Bob
The Ducks weren’t supposed to go all the way and the Sharks losing was a huge upset etc etc but the best one was the #5 he was 38 when he hoisted the mug.
by J Johnson on Dec 19, 2008 3:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Who beat San Jose last year and who would’ve predicted that? Would you? Did you? I wouldn’t’ve and didn’t!
I was shocked that the Sharks lost to Dallas. Except for the part where I wasn’t, because that was a pretty evenly-matched series.
by Doogie2K on Dec 20, 2008 12:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I’m not saying they have to beat all three of them.
by James Mirtle on Dec 19, 2008 12:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Burnside
What a load that Burnside critique is. If he were an American, he’d be lauded for his accomplishments of helping the USA to gold with his point per game performance in Torino. Instead, he’s Swedish, so we can forget about that in talking about the “pivotal moments of his career.” Heck, Ron Wilson has built his entire golden boy reputation amongst US journalists on the 1996 World Cup win, despite all his failings at the NHL level in getting his team to the promised land.
I’m not saying Sundin should be lauded as some saviour. He is an impact player, and to deny that is sticking your head in the sand. He wasn’t the best UFA this summer, as both Hossa and Jagr offered greater individual upside to build around, but he can definitely make a big difference to a team still.
As for the denying the Leafs assets… I don’t think he should lose any sleep over that. He honoured his contract, and the Leafs essentially asked him to change the terms of their agreement because they wanted out. He didn’t. Sure, the speech looks goofy now, but he probably saved the teams interested in him a lot in keeping those assets, since his body obviously wasn’t up for a deep run last spring anyways.
Hockey blogging can't get any flatter.
by saskhab on Dec 19, 2008 12:12 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
I hate to think what Burnside would write about Zdeno Chara or Jarome Iginla. Or Roberto Luongo…
I've been looking at the sky
by Back In Black on Dec 19, 2008 11:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

by 
















