Former Canucks Thread 2025-26 Edition

[Hit the post]

I agree, but I think that there is a long enough of a track record of Cloutier's mentals affecting his game in a negative fashion. It's impossible to definitively know, but I think that there's enough of a body of work there to make some fair inferences.

Like I said, guys like Roy or Hextall were hotheads...but they were also really f***ing good.

Also, Doogie Howser, not Doggie Howser :p

I can make a feeble excuse of "my phone doing an autocorrect" but nah, fault was all mine.

 

[F A N]

No?

"No…I’m saying that he was mentally fragile and his ability to lose his temper easily is proof of that.

Him getting flustered after letting in a softie is another example of him being mentally weak."

And what I disagree with is your comment that losing one's temper is an example of being mentally fragile.

Also me: "It was a combination of him being easy to rile up and get off his game due to his temper, and then also being flustered if he let in a weak goal or was pressured."

Also me: "But those two issues is why I say he was mentally fragile."

And I disagreed with your comment that when Cloutier lost his temper he became porous.

Also me: "I'm just saying that it is clear it was easy for him to lose his composure, whether that was from Forsberg hitting him in the nuts or letting in a softie."

Are you reading what I am writing?

I am reading this and I didn't disagree that Cloutier was known for having a hot temper.

"Green got the last laugh though, as the Bruins won the game 2-1 in overtime."

Losing a close game in overtime. Hmm.

Who cares if the team lost the game in overtime. You claimed that Cloutier became porous once he loses his temper and I provided an example where he didn't.

Hughson: Teams have tried and tried to get that reaction out of Cloutier.

Hmm. Wonder why.

So they "tried and tried" meaning it wasn't as easy as you are implying then?

(Canucks won this game 6-3 with Cloutier's sparkling .893 save %.)

Thank you for this example. So after the altercation with Mellanby (which made the score 4-3 Canucks) Cloutier didn't allow another goal the rest of the game? Again, this is another example destroying your theory that Cloutier became porous after losing his temper.

 

[AwesomeInTheory]

And what I disagree with is your comment that losing one's temper is an example of being mentally fragile.

Not what I said. I said that easily losing your temper is indicative of that. Everyone loses their temper, but if someone is frequently doing it (ie, to the point where the local broadcasters are aware enough of it to talk about it during a game...) then it absolutely can be indicative of someone who has issues controlling their emotions.

Who cares if the team lost the game in overtime. You claimed that Cloutier became porous once he loses his temper and I provided an example where he didn't.

Not what I said. I said once he was rattled he became porous.

You're hyperfocusing on one detail to argue that my point is being 'destroyed.'

Cloutier did not have good mentals (as the kids are saying it these days.) His bad mentals manifested with things (note the use of the plural) like losing his temper easily (note the use of this word) or getting flustered such as when he let in a softie. Those could lead to him getting rattled and becoming a sieve.

Did every single instance of Cloutier letting in a bad goal lead to him becoming a sieve? No.

Did it happen a lot? Yes.

The fact that he lost a close game in overtime could be indicative of letting in a weak goal. I tried to look for footage and wasn't able to come up with it.

So they "tried and tried" meaning it wasn't as easy as you are implying then?

Or that it was well enough known that Cloutier could be thrown off his game that the f***ing broadcasters were talking about it openly and casually in an instance where Cloutier lost his temper. In November. 18 games into the season.

Incidentally, looking at box scores.

Vancouver Canucks vs. Columbus Blue Jackets Box Score: October 13, 2003 | Hockey-Reference.com

- Canucks game #3 (Cloutier's 2nd game of the year)
- Dan Cloutier (Unsportsmanlike Conduct)
- Vyborny PP goal
- Todd Marchant scores not long after
- Vancouver loses
- Cloutier with an .855 save percentage

Vancouver Canucks vs. St. Louis Blues Box Score: November 6, 2003 | Hockey-Reference.com

Get the latest box score updates on the Vancouver Canucks vs. St. Louis Blues game played on November 6, 2003 on Hockey-Reference.com

www.hockey-reference.com

- Cloutier with a kneeing penalty. How the f*** do you get that as a goalie?
- Canucks loss
- 14th game of the season, 11th game for Cloutier

Then the Boston game, which would have been Cloutier's 12th game if I didn't mess up tracking all of his starts.

So there's at least 3 instances early in just that season where you can infer just from the box score that he lost his temper. There might be other games within that stretch where penalties weren't called and something happened or where Cloutier let in a weak goal and it led to a collapse.

The Columbus game is a really good indicator of what I'm talking about as it looked as though he got mad, let in a PP goal, then let in another one right after.

I want to stress that without seeing the game this could be wrong, but this is the sort of shit I remember with Cloutier.

Thank you for this example. So after the altercation with Mellanby (which made the score 4-3 Canucks) Cloutier didn't allow another goal the rest of the game? Again, this is another example destroying your theory that Cloutier became porous after losing his temper.

The link was meant to highlight the fact that the broadcasters at the time were aware of his mental state and that teams were attempting to rile him.

Why would opposing teams be trying such a thing? Why would broadcasters be talking about it like it was a commonly known detail?

Why are you completely ignoring my pointing out you did, in fact, ask for me to recall specific games?

 

[AwesomeInTheory]

Atlanta Thrashers vs. Vancouver Canucks Box Score: February 13, 2004 | Hockey-Reference.com

Get the latest box score updates on the Atlanta Thrashers vs. Vancouver Canucks game played on February 13, 2004 on Hockey-Reference.com

www.hockey-reference.com

Does anyone recall what the hell happened at the end of this game? Looks like Ruutu being Ruutu, but Cloutier gets a 10 min misconduct for attempt to injure?

E: Wait, it was Allen, not Ruutu. Yeah, anyone have memories of this game?

 

[F A N]

Not what I said. I said that easily losing your temper is indicative of that. Everyone loses their temper, but if someone is frequently doing it (ie, to the point where the local broadcasters are aware enough of it to talk about it during a game...) then it absolutely can be indicative of someone who has issues controlling their emotions.

Issues controlling their temper or emotions is not the same as being indicative or an example of being mentally fragile.

Not what I said. I said once he was rattled he became porous.

You're hyperfocusing on one detail to argue that my point is being 'destroyed.'

Ok. So when you say it was easy to get him rattled, you are not talking about him losing his temper then?

Did every single instance of Cloutier letting in a bad goal lead to him becoming a sieve? No.

Did it happen a lot? Yes.

I think he was prone to letting in some bad goals but I think he got better over his 3 seasons as a starter and over 60 starts it wasn't a problem as evidenced by his stats his last season here. The playoffs was another matter: Cloutier sucked and collapsed under pressure.

The fact that he lost a close game in overtime could be indicative of letting in a weak goal. I tried to look for footage and wasn't able to come up with it.

But even if he did let in a weak goal in overtime, it is not indicative of him being porous after the Travis Green altercation when he went on to stop 37 out of 39 shots in the game.

Or that it was well enough known that Cloutier could be thrown off his game that the f***ing broadcasters were talking about it openly and casually in an instance where Cloutier lost his temper. In November. 18 games into the season.

So you are saying losing his temper = being rattled then? Again, nobody is saying Cloutier isn't known for his hot temper. I'm just disputing your claim that he became porous afterwards. It's pretty standard commentary to comment on teams trying to throw the opposing goalie off their game. Goalies being territorial and temperamental is quite common. Like I said, most goalies react strongly to being bumped, especially in the head. Even being snowed in the face is not often taken lightly. Cloutier would have grown up watching goalies like Roy and Hexall, both of which were known for their temper as well.

Incidentally, looking at box scores.

Vancouver Canucks vs. Columbus Blue Jackets Box Score: October 13, 2003 | Hockey-Reference.com

- Canucks game #3 (Cloutier's 2nd game of the year)
- Dan Cloutier (Unsportsmanlike Conduct)
- Vyborny PP goal
- Todd Marchant scores not long after
- Vancouver loses
- Cloutier with an .855 save percentage

Just stat walking here, the Canucks gave away the puck 15 vs 4. Not sure if the goals Clouts let in were weak ones here. That was not a game the Canucks were winning based on the stats.

Vancouver Canucks vs. St. Louis Blues Box Score: November 6, 2003 | Hockey-Reference.com

Get the latest box score updates on the Vancouver Canucks vs. St. Louis Blues game played on November 6, 2003 on Hockey-Reference.com

www.hockey-reference.com

- Cloutier with a kneeing penalty. How the f*** do you get that as a goalie?
- Canucks loss
- 14th game of the season, 11th game for Cloutier

Oh Cloutier has kicked and kneed players before. But in this instance, there looks like there is a preceding goalie interference penalty.

Then the Boston game, which would have been Cloutier's 12th game if I didn't mess up tracking all of his starts.

So there's at least 3 instances early in just that season where you can infer just from the box score that he lost his temper. There might be other games within that stretch where penalties weren't called and something happened or where Cloutier let in a weak goal and it led to a collapse.

I think that was his 13th game (the aforementioned Travis Green game). Again if you're going to point to SV% as a stat, his SV% in this game was .949. The Green altercation came in the middle of the 2nd period and Cloutier didn't allow a goal afterwards until the overtime in a game where the Canucks were significantly outshot.

The Columbus game is a really good indicator of what I'm talking about as it looked as though he got mad, let in a PP goal, then let in another one right after.

I want to stress that without seeing the game this could be wrong, but this is the sort of shit I remember with Cloutier.

And I gave you two instances where he clearly got mad and managed to keep his team in the game afterwards.

The link was meant to highlight the fact that the broadcasters at the time were aware of his mental state and that teams were attempting to rile him.

Why would opposing teams be trying such a thing? Why would broadcasters be talking about it like it was a commonly known detail?

Why are you completely ignoring my pointing out you did, in fact, ask for me to recall specific games?

You're asking why would an opposing team try and get a goalie off their game? Seriously?

 

[Hit the post]

Issues controlling their temper or emotions is not the same as being indicative or an example of being mentally fragile.


Ok. So when you say it was easy to get him rattled, you are not talking about him losing his temper then?



I think he was prone to letting in some bad goals but I think he got better over his 3 seasons as a starter and over 60 starts it wasn't a problem as evidenced by his stats his last season here. The playoffs was another matter: Cloutier sucked and collapsed under pressure.


But even if he did let in a weak goal in overtime, it is not indicative of him being porous after the Travis Green altercation when he went on to stop 37 out of 39 shots in the game.


So you are saying losing his temper = being rattled then? Again, nobody is saying Cloutier isn't known for his hot temper. I'm just disputing your claim that he became porous afterwards. It's pretty standard commentary to comment on teams trying to throw the opposing goalie off their game. Goalies being territorial and temperamental is quite common. Like I said, most goalies react strongly to being bumped, especially in the head. Even being snowed in the face is not often taken lightly. Cloutier would have grown up watching goalies like Roy and Hexall, both of which were known for their temper as well.


Just stat walking here, the Canucks gave away the puck 15 vs 4. Not sure if the goals Clouts let in were weak ones here. That was not a game the Canucks were winning based on the stats.


Oh Cloutier has kicked and kneed players before. But in this instance, there looks like there is a preceding goalie interference penalty.


I think that was his 13th game (the aforementioned Travis Green game). Again if you're going to point to SV% as a stat, his SV% in this game was .949. The Green altercation came in the middle of the 2nd period and Cloutier didn't allow a goal afterwards until the overtime in a game where the Canucks were significantly outshot.


And I gave you two instances where he clearly got mad and managed to keep his team in the game afterwards.


You're asking why would an opposing team try and get a goalie off their game? Seriously?

View attachment 1258429

I seem to recall when Avery started waiving his stock and or arms in front of Marty Brodeur in order to get in his head (not really in a threatening manner). Evidently it worked as Marty I *I think* went bonkers. I don't remember the aftermath (not two teams I particularly followed) but maybe the league stepped in (directly or indirectly) to tell Avery to knock it off doing that particular action.

Not goalies but Hartley, who never shied away from getting opposing coaches/teams off their game....knew EXACTLY what buttons to push on Torts. And boy did he push those buttons. That fued goes back several different teams.

 

[AwesomeInTheory]

Issues controlling their temper or emotions is not the same as being indicative or an example of being mentally fragile.

No, but when there are multiple issues it does speak to that.

Ok. So when you say it was easy to get him rattled, you are not talking about him losing his temper then?

Can get rattled. Again:

"Did every single instance of Cloutier letting in a bad goal lead to him becoming a sieve? No.

Did it happen a lot? Yes."

The playoffs was another matter: Cloutier sucked and collapsed under pressure.

How would you define pressure? How would you define it affecting him? Why is there a magical switch that gets flipped between playoffs and non-playoff games?

So you are saying losing his temper = being rattled then? Again, nobody is saying Cloutier isn't known for his hot temper. I'm just disputing your claim that he became porous afterwards.

I'm saying it is not a math equation like you seem to be trying to reduce it to. Cloutier, if he was flustered, would collapse. Would he collapse every single time something happened? No.

It's pretty standard commentary to comment on teams trying to throw the opposing goalie off their game. Goalies being territorial and temperamental is quite common. Like I said, most goalies react strongly to being bumped, especially in the head. Even being snowed in the face is not often taken lightly. Cloutier would have grown up watching goalies like Roy and Hexall, both of which were known for their temper as well.

Weirdly enough I mentioned the difference between guys like Roy/Hextall and Cloutier. Several times.

And yes, what you described about goalies is quite common. They typically don't take roughing/unsportsmanlike/kneeing penalties and subsequently let in a PP goal.

And now contextual clues don't matter. Teams weren't generally trying to throw someone like Kiprusoff off his game because he was generally unflappable.

Hughson makes a comment that supports my memory of shit that happened over twenty years ago and it's dismissed.

Just stat walking here, the Canucks gave away the puck 15 vs 4. Not sure if the goals Clouts let in were weak ones here. That was not a game the Canucks were winning based on the stats.

The WCE Canucks weren't exactly defensive stalwarts, Salo and Ohlund notwithstanding.

Oh Cloutier has kicked and kneed players before. But in this instance, there looks like there is a preceding goalie interference penalty.

...that's sort of my point.

I think that was his 13th game (the aforementioned Travis Green game). Again if you're going to point to SV% as a stat, his SV% in this game was .949. The Green altercation came in the middle of the 2nd period and Cloutier didn't allow a goal afterwards until the overtime in a game where the Canucks were significantly outshot.

And I gave you two instances where he clearly got mad and managed to keep his team in the game afterwards.

You seem to think I'm arguing Cloutier getting mad automatically made him turn into a sieve. Like it was a 1:1 thing. I'm saying him getting rattled, whether that was letting in a softie, getting pissed off, having the scrambled eggs at catering be oversalted, Jupiter being in Aquarius, whatever, could lead to him having a bad game.

With Cloutier you never knew what you were going to be getting with him because he was wildly inconsistent. He'd throw up a shutout against the Avalanche and then collapse against the Coyotes. And then have another bad game. And then let in several in a game the Canucks were controlling and force the team to have to scramble around him.

Yes, every goalie has bad games and I'm sure Hasek or Brodeur or whomever will have similar games on their resume. But it seemed to happen way more often with Cloutier and the inference I make is that it is because of a lack of mental fortitude. The difference between Luongo when he came in was like night and day in terms of what you could expect. I do recall instances where Luongo got similarly rattled, but they were far fewer and he seemed to enjoy pressure rather than wilt from it.

You're asking why would an opposing team try and get a goalie off their game? Seriously?

No, I'm asking if you understand why an opposing team would do that.

 

[MS]

The WCE Canucks weren't exactly defensive stalwarts, Salo and Ohlund notwithstanding.

This always seems to be the accepted viewpoint, and I strongly, strongly disagree.

The top line wasn't great defensively (obviously) but everything else about those teams was very good defensively and they were overall strong defensive teams (if not quite Jennings contenders) throughout that period. Those teams generally had the WCE and then three checking lines and always had strong, deep defensive groups without any 'weak link' skill defenders.

 

[Hit the post]

This always seems to be the accepted viewpoint, and I strongly, strongly disagree.

The top line wasn't great defensively (obviously) but everything else about those teams was very good defensively and they were overall strong defensive teams (if not quite Jennings contenders) throughout that period. Those teams generally had the WCE and then three checking lines and always had strong, deep defensive groups without any 'weak link' skill defenders.

Morrison was kind of like Horvat defensively. Not a liability nor a Selke candidate. Sure he benefited from having two elite (in their prime) offensive winger linemates; but he also had the thankless dirty task (as most centers do). Maybe I'm underrating Mo in that regard (Horvat comparison defensively) as it has been a long time........

 

[F A N]

I seem to recall when Avery started waiving his stock and or arms in front of Marty Brodeur in order to get in his head (not really in a threatening manner). Evidently it worked as Marty I *I think* went bonkers. I don't remember the aftermath (not two teams I particularly followed) but maybe the league stepped in (directly or indirectly) to tell Avery to knock it off doing that particular action.

Not goalies but Hartley, who never shied away from getting opposing coaches/teams off their game....knew EXACTLY what buttons to push on Torts. And boy did he push those buttons. That fued goes back several different teams.

Ya that's the thing. From players to coaches to fans, we've come to call goalies "different" or "weird." Many goalies are pretty high strung and most are highly territorial. I kind of get it. Goalies can get severely injured when they are bumped or pushed or landed on in the vulnerable positions they put themselves in when they make a save. But most goalies respond to every little bump.

But I as I was telling AIT, trying to get a goalie off their rhythm by say running into the goalie has been a strategy for longer than I was born. It doesn't mean that it's some known strategy with a high chance of causing a goalie to become porous.

 

[F A N]

How would you define pressure? How would you define it affecting him? Why is there a magical switch that gets flipped between playoffs and non-playoff games?

It's just the way it is. Some players just can't perform in the playoffs the way they can in the regular season.

I'm saying it is not a math equation like you seem to be trying to reduce it to. Cloutier, if he was flustered, would collapse. Would he collapse every single time something happened? No.

And my point is that however number of times you think Cloutier got flustered and collapsed, that didn't happen frequently enough in the regular for it to be a problem. For example, in 03-04 Cloutier started 60 games and had 2.27 GAA and .914 SV%. He also won 6 straight heading into the playoffs and letting in 7 goals during that stretch. He also lost more than 2 games in a row only once. The previous season he didn't loose more than 2 games in a row the entire season in 57 games.

This is just objective. The stats do not support your claim that Cloutier losing his temper/becoming rattled and becoming pourous in the regular season was a problem. Not on a good team like the WCE Canucks.

With Cloutier you never knew what you were going to be getting with him because he was wildly inconsistent. He'd throw up a shutout against the Avalanche and then collapse against the Coyotes. And then have another bad game. And then let in several in a game the Canucks were controlling and force the team to have to scramble around him.

Again, the stats suggest that you are wrong. Nobody is arguing that Cloutier was an elite goaltender but on the WCE Canucks he started ~60 games and generally gave the team a chance to win in the regular season and that's supported by the stats as noted above. Even if you go by the number of times he was pulled early, the stats suggest he was pulled 3 times out of 60 games in 03-04 and 3 times out of 57 games in 02-03 (and one time might be due to injury).

There was no collapse in the regular season due to mental fragility as you are claiming.

No, I'm asking if you understand why an opposing team would do that.

To get a goalie off their game/rhythm. C'mmon this isn't new.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

a famous example of rattling a goalie is mario roberge on hextall in 1993. quebec was up 2-0 in the series before roberge took matters into his own hands. montreal won the next four, en route to the cup.

Brisebois “Mario Roberge was our tough guy — great guy, team guy. He watched the warmup [in Quebec] and [Nordiques goalie] Ron Hextall was stretching in the neutral zone, and right after he stretched, he went to the middle of the ice and did a circle around the dot. That was his ritual. So Mario asked Jacques, “Can I do the warmup? I just want to do something.” He stood for the whole warmup right in the middle of the ice and Ron Hextall was getting f—ing nuts. Nuts! He lost his concentration right there. I’m telling you, after that, Ron Hextall was never the same.”

source

 

[Jyrki21]

Did the Sabres specifically ask for David Kämpf in the Tuch trade? His inclusion is so random.