Welcome back to WDYTT, the only hockey column on the internet that gets a rebrand every time <a href="https://canucksarmy.com/news/daniel-sprong-phone-call-rick-tocchet-signing-canucks-no-brainer">Quads</a> forgets to post it on the right day.
Speaking of rebrands, they’re normally harder to come by. And they’re exceptionally rare in the realm of the <a href="https://canucksarmy.com/news/reliving-canucks-oliver-ekman-larsson-conor-garland-trade-three-years-later">National Hockey League.</a>
Sure, teams change jerseys and colour schemes and practice arenas all the time. But switching up monikers? That’s decidedly more unusual.
Teams will change it up sometimes when they move cities. The Atlanta Thrashers became the new Winnipeg Jets; the old Winnipeg Jets became the Arizona Coyotes, who kind of became the Utah Hockey Club. But those are the only instances since the turn of the century.
And the only team to complete a rebrand without moving cities? That would be the Anaheim Mighty Ducks, who took the monumental step of becoming just the <a href="https://canucksarmy.com/news/canucks-stack-against-anaheim-ducks-pacific-preview">Anaheim Ducks</a> back in 2006.
What we’re really doing here is setting up the pure fancifulness of today’s hypothetical to avoid anyone getting upset at what they mistakenly believe is a serious suggestion. We don’t anticipate that any NHL team is going to change their team name in the near future (with the obvious exception of Utah, who doesn’t really have a team name yet.) If one does, we’re pretty sure it won’t be the Vancouver Canucks.
But we’re also deep within the dog days of summer and running out of directly relevant questions to ask you other than, “No, seriously, what do you really think about <a href="https://canucksarmy.com/news/where-daniel-sprong-play-vancouver-canucks-lineup">Daniel Sprong?”</a>
So, we’re taking a brief opportunity to get into some truly out-there questions in a series we’re calling Summer Silliness, and our first ask is a doozy.
This week, we’re asking:
<h1>If you could rename the Vancouver NHL team to something other than ‘Canucks,’ what would you name them, and why?</h1>
Have fun, don’t be crass, and let it be known in the comment section.
&nbsp;
<a href="https://canucksarmy.com/news/wdytt-add-former-vancouver-canuck-current-roster">Last week, we asked:</a>
<h1>If you could add ONE former Canuck to the current roster to put them over the top, who would it be and why?</h1>
<h1>(For added challenge/fun, pick one CURRENT NHL player and one who has since retired.)</h1>
You answered below!
graham:
Which player from any era? Any answer has to begin, and end, with #10 in your program, #96 in your hearts, Pavel Bure&#8230;
kanucked:
I think the obvious answer is Bure as he fits a need and would be very dynamic on this team. Less obvious, but still valuable would be Linden or Bertuzzi as forwards, and for D I would choose Jeff Brown.
Tim Noble:
Neely or Bure are great options, but as it is the D that currently needs help, I would choose Matthias Ohlund. A Rick Tocchet type of guy, and a solid two-way D, to boot.
JCanuck:
My current NHL ex-Canuck, disregarding contract, would be Tanev. Tough choice between Lindy and Tanev, but having a reliable RHD on second pair and dropping Myers down to third would bring insane depth to the D-corps.
Retired ex-Canuck: the Sedin Twins.
defenceman factory:
Many chiming in with Bure. Neely is another fine choice. Can&#8217;t argue with either.
The second question, without the time machine, about a current NHL player and former Canuck has much less obvious answers. Lindholm or McCann centring a third line sounds good, but I think Forsling on the second pairing might be the better choice.
bill nazzy:
Retired player – Naslund or Bure.
Current player – Motte or Horvat.
Richard Hickey:
I also came to say Bure. Writer probably should have clarified the ask to active players. On that note, Forsling is the guy, hands down. Top-tier RHD at $5 millish? C&#8217;mon!
Nanaimo Bars:
Rick Rypien would be my choice as past player (my apologies if it&#8217;s a disrespectful pick).
Current NHLer I&#8217;d like to have back is Big Z. Say what you will about the guy and his new contract, he&#8217;s still what every locker room needs.
Those two on your team, and EVERONE grows two feet taller, and plays without fear.
JBFanboy:
I&#8217;d love to see Kevin Bieksa slot in as the second pairing RD on this team. In his prime, Juice was a decent puck mover, a punishing hitter, and injected a significant amount of attitude in the lineup. He strikes me as a player to whom Tocchet would take a real liking to, and someone that would play in all situations.
Chris the Curmudgeon:
(Winner of the author’s weekly award for eloquence)
I am going to go off the board here, just for the sake of stimulating a more colorful conversation than just typing &#8220;Pavel Bure&#8221;. I would love to use my time-machine to bring in a redux version of Mattias Ohlund, all the better if the doppelganger can avoid eye injuries. Here&#8217;s a guy who was 6&#8217;4, 230 lbs, who was positionally sound, could kill penalties, score, defend with the best of them, throw a hit, block a shot, and generally act as a calming influence all over the ice. Ohlund showed up for the playoffs and showed up for his teammates. At the moment, the Canucks have the world&#8217;s best LHD on their top pairing, and then shockingly little depth afterwards, with few blue-chip prospects coming in the pipeline either. Adding Matty O circa 2002-04 to anchor our second defensive pairing would be exactly what the doctor ordered for this roster.
Among current players, I would make a lot of the same arguments about Gustav Forsling. He isn&#8217;t big like Ohlund, but he sure did look like a modern-day Nick Lidstrom with the Panthers last season. He&#8217;s certainly worth a lot more than the 17 games of Adam Clendening we got in exchange for him way back when.
CptPodz:
What a great question.
For my old-time Canucks pick at forward, would love to add Alexander Mogilny. Same idea as Bure, but with less drama.
For defenceman, I&#8217;d like somebody with grit and swagger, so either Jovo or Bieksa.
For current player who was once a Canuck on forward, I&#8217;d choose Jacob Markstrom so we can actually trade him for some assets this time. On defence, it has to be Forsling.
alpacaduck:
I&#8217;ll always echo the Canuck players who say to a man that between Bure and Mogilny, they would take Mogilny.
I&#8217;ll assume the current player is at their current age. Does Forsling count?
dar ichimata:
No brainer: Bure. Lindholm as an active NHL player.
bruce donice:
Paul Reinhart with a good back.
ToeintheCrease:
In an attempt to get away from more obvious answers, I’m going to go with Burrows for a former player I’d like to see on this team. In his prime, he proved to be an effective finisher, especially in key situations when it mattered most. He was also absolutely irritating to play against and getting top players off their game with little more than a chirp-n-smirk is a talent in itself. For a current player, I’m going with Tanev. Having a guy who eats pucks and minutes (and seems to enjoy doing so) as well as his position as a reliable RHD is a boon for any competitive team.
Jibsys:
Active: Bo. He is the BPA of the choices and could help the team.
Former: Pavel. Those were exciting times. In fact, I&#8217;d take the entire ‘94 team if I could. They were tough, talented, hard-nosed players.
Kearnsie:
Dennis Kearns, obviously.
And Nikita Zadorov.
Wilson:
I started Cheering for the Canucks in 2009, so my view is somewhat skewed to a certain time period. I&#8217;ll go with:
-Henrik Sedin for retired. You get an amazing player, a leader, and a guy you know is committed to the team (imagine Hank, Petey, and DeBrusk as a line).
-Tanev for active. Thought the Canucks were wise not to overpay for an aging, injury-prone defenseman, but in a fantasy world where term and cost aren&#8217;t an issue, him rounding out the top-four until Willander and D-Petey are able to come step up, fills a hole, and maybe puts the team over the top.
Craig Gowan:
I considered LHD Gustav Forsling in the active player category, but in my view, he doesn&#8217;t count because he never played a game as a Vancouver Canuck or as a minor league player in the Canucks system. I believe a top-four right-side defenceman would be the &#8220;final piece&#8221; for the current Canucks. Kevin Bieksa, Sami Salo, Doug Lister, Chris Tanev (in his prime), and Gerald Diduck spring to mind. Jyrki Lumme and Christian Ehrhoff were left-handed, but great right-side D. Given Tocchet&#8217;s penchant for tough customers, I suspect he would chose Bieksa. For me, it would be Jyrki Lumme.
K-Dawg:
I&#8217;ll make the unpopular call here: Mark Messier in his prime. Yes, he is a giant doucher but he plays in all situations and was nasty.
I also considered: Ohlund, Neely, and Bure.
or:
Active player: Boooooooooooooo Horvat.
Also considered: Zadorov (although he is overpaid and not worth his current contract) and Tanev.
King Richard:
Andy Spruce. Okay, just kidding, it&#8217;s gotta be Pavel, the game breaker. Although Neely or Mogilny would work out pretty okay, too. I think the current D would be more than adequate because with any of the above (well, maybe not Spruce) in the lineup, the opposition would never get possession of the puck.
Marty:
Bure is the quick choice, but with Tocchet as coach? That might not go over so well.
Henrik played Tocchet hockey: possession and cycle, tough as nails, two-way play, smart, and a leader.
Henrik is my choice as former Canuck.
Current NHL player? Forsling never played a game as a Canuck…that doesn’t really count, so I’ll go with Tanev.
Hockey Bunker:
Okay going way, way back in time…Rosaire Paiement.
Rosie was a scorer, a fighter, the full package.
Gave Bobby Orr two black eyes in two fights in one game!!
For the current crowd, I have always liked Tyler Toffoli.
Cageyvet:
Tempting to go with Bure for all the obvious reasons, but for me it would be Linden. Just a guy who played a good brand of all-around hockey. I’d put him on the wing where he belongs, not centre, and you’d get every bit of him and then some come playoff time. One more Linden in ‘94 wins us Game 7, not one more Bure.

Welcome back to WDYTT, the only hockey column on the internet that gets a rebrand every time <a href="https://canucksarmy.com/news/daniel-sprong-phone-call-rick-tocchet-signing-canucks-no-brainer">Quads</a> forgets to post it on the right day.

Speaking of rebrands, they’re normally harder to come by. And they’re exceptionally rare in the realm of the <a href="https://canucksarmy.com/news/reliving-canucks-oliver-ekman-larsson-conor-garland-trade-three-years-later">National Hockey League.</a>

Sure, teams change jerseys and colour schemes and practice arenas all the time. But switching up monikers? That’s decidedly more unusual.

Teams will change it up sometimes when they move cities. The Atlanta Thrashers became the new Winnipeg Jets; the old Winnipeg Jets became the Arizona Coyotes, who kind of became the Utah Hockey Club. But those are the only instances since the turn of the century.

And the only team to complete a rebrand without moving cities? That would be the Anaheim Mighty Ducks, who took the monumental step of becoming just the <a href="https://canucksarmy.com/news/canucks-stack-against-anaheim-ducks-pacific-preview">Anaheim Ducks</a> back in 2006.

What we’re really doing here is setting up the pure fancifulness of today’s hypothetical to avoid anyone getting upset at what they mistakenly believe is a serious suggestion. We don’t anticipate that any NHL team is going to change their team name in the near future (with the obvious exception of Utah, who doesn’t really have a team name yet.) If one does, we’re pretty sure it won’t be the Vancouver Canucks.

But we’re also deep within the dog days of summer and running out of directly relevant questions to ask you other than, “No, seriously, what do you really think about <a href="https://canucksarmy.com/news/where-daniel-sprong-play-vancouver-canucks-lineup">Daniel Sprong?”</a>

So, we’re taking a brief opportunity to get into some truly out-there questions in a series we’re calling Summer Silliness, and our first ask is a doozy.

This week, we’re asking:
<h1>If you could rename the Vancouver NHL team to something other than ‘Canucks,’ what would you name them, and why?</h1>
Have fun, don’t be crass, and let it be known in the comment section.

&nbsp;

<a href="https://canucksarmy.com/news/wdytt-add-former-vancouver-canuck-current-roster">Last week, we asked:</a>
<h1>If you could add ONE former Canuck to the current roster to put them over the top, who would it be and why?</h1>
<h1>(For added challenge/fun, pick one CURRENT NHL player and one who has since retired.)</h1>
You answered below!

graham:

Which player from any era? Any answer has to begin, and end, with #10 in your program, #96 in your hearts, Pavel Bure...

kanucked:

I think the obvious answer is Bure as he fits a need and would be very dynamic on this team. Less obvious, but still valuable would be Linden or Bertuzzi as forwards, and for D I would choose Jeff Brown.

Tim Noble:

Neely or Bure are great options, but as it is the D that currently needs help, I would choose Matthias Ohlund. A Rick Tocchet type of guy, and a solid two-way D, to boot.

JCanuck:

My current NHL ex-Canuck, disregarding contract, would be Tanev. Tough choice between Lindy and Tanev, but having a reliable RHD on second pair and dropping Myers down to third would bring insane depth to the D-corps.

Retired ex-Canuck: the Sedin Twins.

defenceman factory:

Many chiming in with Bure. Neely is another fine choice. Can't argue with either.

The second question, without the time machine, about a current NHL player and former Canuck has much less obvious answers. Lindholm or McCann centring a third line sounds good, but I think Forsling on the second pairing might be the better choice.

bill nazzy:

Retired player – Naslund or Bure.

Current player – Motte or Horvat.

Richard Hickey:

I also came to say Bure. Writer probably should have clarified the ask to active players. On that note, Forsling is the guy, hands down. Top-tier RHD at $5 millish? C'mon!

Nanaimo Bars:

Rick Rypien would be my choice as past player (my apologies if it's a disrespectful pick).

Current NHLer I'd like to have back is Big Z. Say what you will about the guy and his new contract, he's still what every locker room needs.

Those two on your team, and EVERONE grows two feet taller, and plays without fear.

JBFanboy:

I'd love to see Kevin Bieksa slot in as the second pairing RD on this team. In his prime, Juice was a decent puck mover, a punishing hitter, and injected a significant amount of attitude in the lineup. He strikes me as a player to whom Tocchet would take a real liking to, and someone that would play in all situations.

Chris the Curmudgeon:

(Winner of the author’s weekly award for eloquence)

I am going to go off the board here, just for the sake of stimulating a more colorful conversation than just typing "Pavel Bure". I would love to use my time-machine to bring in a redux version of Mattias Ohlund, all the better if the doppelganger can avoid eye injuries. Here's a guy who was 6'4, 230 lbs, who was positionally sound, could kill penalties, score, defend with the best of them, throw a hit, block a shot, and generally act as a calming influence all over the ice. Ohlund showed up for the playoffs and showed up for his teammates. At the moment, the Canucks have the world's best LHD on their top pairing, and then shockingly little depth afterwards, with few blue-chip prospects coming in the pipeline either. Adding Matty O circa 2002-04 to anchor our second defensive pairing would be exactly what the doctor ordered for this roster.

Among current players, I would make a lot of the same arguments about Gustav Forsling. He isn't big like Ohlund, but he sure did look like a modern-day Nick Lidstrom with the Panthers last season. He's certainly worth a lot more than the 17 games of Adam Clendening we got in exchange for him way back when.

CptPodz:

What a great question.

For my old-time Canucks pick at forward, would love to add Alexander Mogilny. Same idea as Bure, but with less drama.

For defenceman, I'd like somebody with grit and swagger, so either Jovo or Bieksa.

For current player who was once a Canuck on forward, I'd choose Jacob Markstrom so we can actually trade him for some assets this time. On defence, it has to be Forsling.

alpacaduck:

I'll always echo the Canuck players who say to a man that between Bure and Mogilny, they would take Mogilny.

I'll assume the current player is at their current age. Does Forsling count?

dar ichimata:

No brainer: Bure. Lindholm as an active NHL player.

bruce donice:

Paul Reinhart with a good back.

ToeintheCrease:

In an attempt to get away from more obvious answers, I’m going to go with Burrows for a former player I’d like to see on this team. In his prime, he proved to be an effective finisher, especially in key situations when it mattered most. He was also absolutely irritating to play against and getting top players off their game with little more than a chirp-n-smirk is a talent in itself. For a current player, I’m going with Tanev. Having a guy who eats pucks and minutes (and seems to enjoy doing so) as well as his position as a reliable RHD is a boon for any competitive team.

Jibsys:

Active: Bo. He is the BPA of the choices and could help the team.

Former: Pavel. Those were exciting times. In fact, I'd take the entire ‘94 team if I could. They were tough, talented, hard-nosed players.

Kearnsie:

Dennis Kearns, obviously.

And Nikita Zadorov.

Wilson:

I started Cheering for the Canucks in 2009, so my view is somewhat skewed to a certain time period. I'll go with:

-Henrik Sedin for retired. You get an amazing player, a leader, and a guy you know is committed to the team (imagine Hank, Petey, and DeBrusk as a line).

-Tanev for active. Thought the Canucks were wise not to overpay for an aging, injury-prone defenseman, but in a fantasy world where term and cost aren't an issue, him rounding out the top-four until Willander and D-Petey are able to come step up, fills a hole, and maybe puts the team over the top.

Craig Gowan:

I considered LHD Gustav Forsling in the active player category, but in my view, he doesn't count because he never played a game as a Vancouver Canuck or as a minor league player in the Canucks system. I believe a top-four right-side defenceman would be the "final piece" for the current Canucks. Kevin Bieksa, Sami Salo, Doug Lister, Chris Tanev (in his prime), and Gerald Diduck spring to mind. Jyrki Lumme and Christian Ehrhoff were left-handed, but great right-side D. Given Tocchet's penchant for tough customers, I suspect he would chose Bieksa. For me, it would be Jyrki Lumme.

K-Dawg:

I'll make the unpopular call here: Mark Messier in his prime. Yes, he is a giant doucher but he plays in all situations and was nasty.

I also considered: Ohlund, Neely, and Bure.

or:

Active player: Boooooooooooooo Horvat.

Also considered: Zadorov (although he is overpaid and not worth his current contract) and Tanev.

King Richard:

Andy Spruce. Okay, just kidding, it's gotta be Pavel, the game breaker. Although Neely or Mogilny would work out pretty okay, too. I think the current D would be more than adequate because with any of the above (well, maybe not Spruce) in the lineup, the opposition would never get possession of the puck.

Marty:

Bure is the quick choice, but with Tocchet as coach? That might not go over so well.

Henrik played Tocchet hockey: possession and cycle, tough as nails, two-way play, smart, and a leader.

Henrik is my choice as former Canuck.

Current NHL player? Forsling never played a game as a Canuck…that doesn’t really count, so I’ll go with Tanev.

Hockey Bunker:

Okay going way, way back in time…Rosaire Paiement.

Rosie was a scorer, a fighter, the full package.

Gave Bobby Orr two black eyes in two fights in one game!!

For the current crowd, I have always liked Tyler Toffoli.

Cageyvet:

Tempting to go with Bure for all the obvious reasons, but for me it would be Linden. Just a guy who played a good brand of all-around hockey. I’d put him on the wing where he belongs, not centre, and you’d get every bit of him and then some come playoff time. One more Linden in ‘94 wins us Game 7, not one more Bure.

WDYTT Summer Silliness: Renaming the Vancouver Canucks

Recent articles from Stephan Roget

Breaking News