“The decision to play Raycroft was overmanaging, and every major-league coach does it.” – Iain MacIntyre, The Vancouver Sun.

In Thursday’s Vancouver Sun sports section, Iain MacIntyre wrote an article stating that Roberto Luongo should have started all four contests on the Canucks’ recent road trip. If ever there was a case of a reaction based on the score rather than the actual game, this is it. Anyone who watched the Carolina match knows that it was not only Andrew Raycroft who did not show up; rather, it was the entire team that seemed to be moving in slow motion on Saturday morning.

But, MacIntyre asserted: “The Canucks were beaten because they were sloppy and uninspired, as if they thought they’d defeat the National Hockey League’s worst team merely by making the opening faceoff. And why might they think that? Because the best Canuck was given the day off.”

According to him, the reason the Canucks played a sloppy game was because they were sent the wrong message by their coaching staff. Is it not because they had just played back to back games on Wednesday and Thursday night, and then were asked to play at 10:30 a.m. PST on Saturday? And if those 3 games in 3.5 days left them tired, shouldn’t they have the same, if not even more of an adverse affect on the only player who plays the entire game?

If you agree with this, then you understand the coach’s decision to give Luongo a rest on Saturday. Plus, don’t forget that the last time Louie skipped his morning skate and played a Saturday morning game –December 2008 against the Pittsburg Penguins – he injured his groin and was out for a month.

With all this in mind, it makes sense that Luongo was given the day of rest. Had Raycroft played a stellar game and won the contest, the decision would not be second guessed at all, and head coach Alain Vigneault would be lauded. Making decisions about when to rest players and when to play them is the heart of the coach’s job, and the distinction between overachieving and overmanaging is often determined by the players.

MacIntyre is a good writer who analyzes the game very well, but in this instance he is dead wrong. Vigneault made a sound, well-educated decision, and had the team won, we’d never hear a peep about bad goalie selection.

To read MacIntyre's article, click here.

Last night during the Canucks vs. Wild game, Tommy Larscheid let it be known that GM Mike Gillis is very interested in pursuing the services of Peter Forsberg for the rest of the Canucks season. Gillis spoke with Larscheid before the game, and told him that most of the Canucks’ pro-scouting staff is currently in Sweden, watching Forsberg’s progress, as he competes in an international tournament. Today, the Team 1040 radio station mentioned that Mike Gillis and Lawrence Gillman may have travelled to Sweden as well, as the Canucks are pursuing this with all they’ve got.

Just remember the Peter Forsberg who used to dominate NHL defensemen with his size and strength. One of the best power forwards the league has ever seen, he was that rare combination of size, skill, vision, and the one intangible he had more than anyone else – intensity. One look at his eyes was enough to scare opponents into submission, and if that didn’t do it, a single bone-crushing body check would.

I originally designed this jersey to help Gillis sign the Sedins this past summer, and it was obviously the deciding factor in the end. It will work on Forsberg too. “Peter the Great” playing for the Canucks – please Mike, make it happen.

See Iain MacIntyre's article in the Vancouver Sun here