Vancouver Canucks Peaking at the Right Time?
In the extremely tight Western Conference (where a mere fourteen points separate twelth place from third place), it might seem difficult to pick a team to emerge from the fray victorious and represent the Western Conference in the Stanley Cup Final. The Detroit Red Wings, of course, are perennial favourites (although their defense (and particularly goaltending) looks rather suspect, with five of the other eight seeded teams showing fewer goals against). But what about the teams immediately below Detroit in the standings, notably the San Jose Sharks, the Calgary Flames, the Vancouver Canucks and the Chicago Blackhawks?
Points don’t tell the whole story: the Sharks, for example, piled up a ton of points early in the season, but have been struggling of late. Let’s instead take a look at these respective teams’ trending.
Here’s a look at how these teams got to where they are today, 70 games into an 82 game season:
Let’s look a bit more closely at the trending: if we plot each of these teams’ point accumulation over time, one game at a time, and add some regression lines, what does that tell us about where these teams are heading?
Interesting: as we can see, the Sharks are on a downward trend, as are the Blackhaws. The Flames, meanwhile, are trending upward, but not as much as the Canucks.
Next, let’s take ten-game chunks and see what that tells us:
This shows an even starker constrast between the four teams: the Canucks have clearly been firing on all cylinders over the past 20 games, while the other three teams are showing the wear and tear of a long season of high-calibre hockey.
Our conclusion? Look for Vancouver to go deep into the playoffs this year. Detroit has managed to outscore opponents and win games despite a leaky defense; that style of hockey historically doesn’t work in the tighter, lower-scoring and more defense-oriented post-season. Calgary remains a force, however San Jose and Chicago appear to be running out of steam at exactly the wrong time of the season.
$1 Million/Day for 2,295 Years: Senate Bailout Plan…
The US Senate is set to pass a so-called “bailout bill” that amounts to $838 billion. To give that some sort of perspective, you’d have to spend a million dollars a day for two thousand, two hundred and ninety-five years to spend an equivalent amount. Of course, that doesn’t include the interest which will accrue on that staggering debt.
How will this gigantic tab be paid? It’ll by paid by the US taxpayer: $6,2,36 per taxpayer, to be precise. That, of course, is on top of the $13,500 each taxpayer is already on the hook for via the original TARP money, the bailout of AIG, Lehman, et al. New total: $19,736 for each and every taxpayer, on average, plus interest.
There’s an additional downside: money invested in the government bonds to subsidize this massive spending is, of course, money which will not be otherwise invested in the economy for such things as actually spurring economic growth: for every dollar invested in a government bond, there’s one less dollar available for private companies looking to grow and expand.
The total amount borrowed for “bailout” spending to date? $2,651,797,108,408.
Investors Say “No” to 87% Tax Hike; Remain on Sidelines…
What would you do if you had the ability to legally avoid an 87% tax hike? Would you avoid the tax hike? Not surprisingly, many investors are answering in the affirmative.
As we previously reported, President Obama campaigned on a promise to increase the capital gains tax from its current 15% to, ultimately, 28% (an increase of 87%). He later called a 33% increase in this tax, from 15% to 20%, “modest”. Investors took heed, and the “Obama effect” on the markets has been evident ever since election day (see chart).
The DJIA dropped sharply the day Mr Obama was elected, and remains down 14.96% as of this writing.
Trendy “Global Warming” Alarmism a Dying Fad?
Every generation has it’s “Chicken Little” issues: something that’s going to lead to the destruction of the human race in short order, often propagated most vigorously by high-school children and college students. The ’50s and ’60s had nuclear war; the ’70s and ’80s had “acid rain” and “over-population”; and the ’90s and ’00s had deforestation and “global warming”.
The cold war ultimately did not bring about nuclear destruction. Instead, it brought eastern bloc governments to their knees economically, which led directly to the greatest spread of democracy and freedom ever seen in history.
So-called “acid rain” did not materialize either. Regular, base rain continued to fall, and people (and relieved umbrellas everywhere) continued about their business.
“Over-population”, the notion that the earth was rapidly running out of food and space, didn’t come to pass either: through advances in agriculture and farming, food production increased in every corner of the world, by 283.36% globally between 1961 and 2000¹. True, political reasons continue to severely hamper the distribution of food, but there’s certainly no lack of food to go around. And you can still fit the entire population of the world into the state of Texas and have 12,490 square feet of elbow room each.
“Deforestation” became a hot topic in the ’90s. Some irritating facts, unfortunately, stood in the way of the deforestation clique, such as the fact the United States now has more forests than it did one hundred years ago, thanks to advances in forest fire fighting and reforestation techniques.
Now, it appears, “global warming” is facing its swan song. 2008 has been the coldest year in a decade, something none of the alarmists’ models predicted. And the much-ballyhooed “consensus” among scientists (as though scientific conclusions were a matter of popularity contests) is coming under increasing scrutiny too: “consensus” may be a useful political term (and an entire industry has certainly grown around “global warming” conventions), but dispassionate empiricism doesn’t have much use for it.
All that remains is for the next “Chicken Little” issue to arise for the ’10s. Global cooling, anyone?
Air Canada Ill-Prepared for Vancouver Snowfall…
Which airline has performed the worst during Vancouver’s recent snowfall? As of 8:00am Wednesday December 24, that answer is an easy one: Air Canada.
Of 84 canceled flights, 68 were Air Canada (80.95%).
By comparison, not a single West Jet flight is listed as canceled at this time.
Here’s the complete listing: Read the rest of this entry »
Are OPEC’s Days Numbered?
***UPDATE: Oil sank further, to $35/bbl today, so clearly OPEC’s strategy is not working.***
In an attempt to drive up the price of oil, OPEC yesterday announced production cuts of 2.2 billion barrels of oil a day among its member countries. How much did the price of oil increase?
It didn’t.
Proven Oil Reserves by Country
Instead, three-month futures for light, sweet crude went down $1.54 to $38.52.
Clearly, the cartel is losing its ability to manipulate the price of oil. The question becomes, why?
Compliance is certainly one answer: countries which thought they were budgeting conservatively by using an oil price of $70 bbl when the price of oil hovered in the $140 range are already facing severely reduced revenue and cannot afford to reduce production further. Additionally, many of OPEC’s member countries heavily subsidize their economy via their oil revenue: Saudi Arabia’s chief oil man, Abdullah Juma, revealed in a recent 60 Minutes interview that, while it cost the Saudis just $2 per barrel to produce oil, they have a break-even price of $55 per barrel to pay for all their social programs and other government expenses. Likewise, Venezuela and Iran have heavily subsidized their economies, spending lavishly on socialized programs. Reducing production means reduced revenues in the short term, until the impact of the cuts, hopefully, causes a price increase. OPEC also revealed their prior cut of 1.5 billion barrels per day, implemented in October, had only an 85% compliance rate, and in all likelihood that’s overstating things.
The current state of the world’s economy plays a major role too: demand for oil is shrinking substantially as economic output decreases – current estimates by JP Morgan forecast a 1 billion barrel a day reduction in demand for 2009. While OPEC tries to find the ideal price point whereby member countries get the highest possible margins without significantly diminishing global demand, that global demand has already evaporated significantly.
Lastly, OPEC had hoped Russia would commit to a share in output reductions. Russia decided to pass, probably because they too couldn’t afford to reduce output in the midst of significantly increased government spending on bailouts and revenue shortfalls already hitting the government’s budget hard.
The problem OPEC faces now is a credibility gap among the member countries: the levers they’ve for so long pulled to manipulate oil prices are no longer getting the desired results. And that may result in even less compliance, as OPEC members realize cutting production as the price of oil falls further means even less revenue to state coffers.
Auto Bailout Cost to Canadian Taxpayers…
The Globe and Mail reports¹ the total cost of a so-called bailout of the “Big Three” by the Canadian government, which has committed to 20% of the US government bailout, to ultimately cost Canadians between $15 billion and $25 billion.
What’s that mean for the individual Canadian taxpayer?
According to Statistics Canada, there were 9,275,765 full-year, full-time earners as of 2005². That’s a pretty good proxy for the number of income taxpayers. So, let’s take the conservative figure of a bailout cost of $15 billion. That puts each full-year, full-time worker in Canada on the hook for $1,617.
Of course, if you personally believe in supporting the “Big Three”, there’s nothing preventing you from voluntarily using $1,617 of your income to either buy their products or their shares. Unfortunately, the government’s bailout proposal removes that choice from the taxpayer and forces the issue, whether any individual agrees with spending $1,617 of their income to support three private companies or not (and would perhaps prefer to spend $1,617 of their hard-earned money to bail themselves out instead)…
Vancouver Canucks Out-hit, Out-fight and Out-score Nashville Predators 3 – 1…
The Vancouver Canucks beat the Nashville Predators 3 – 1 in a hard-fought game Tuesday, December 9th.
Vancouver opened the scoring at the 8:35 mark of the first period with an even-strength goal by Pavol Dimitra, his eighth of the campaign. After Nashville’s fourth line iced the puck, Vancouver kept the puck in the Predator’s end despite losing the subsequent face-off. After a battle for the puck near the blue line on the left side boards, Kyle Wellwood gained control of the puck and skated through the right face-off circle, carrying the puck and making moves that left Predator’s defender Kevin Klein flat-footed before sending a perfect, laser-like pass to Dimitra, who simply shot the puck into a wide-open net.
The Predators, however, answered back quickly, scoring just two minutes and twenty-eight seconds later on a power-play goal by Radek Bonk. Bonk was left alone at the top of the goal crease and slid the puck under Canucks’ goaltender Curtis Sanford after a nice feed from Martin Erat. Bonk’s goal was just his second of the season.
Nashville managed to kill off a rare seven-minute Vancouver power-play in the second period, and it looked as if the momentum might shift in Nashville’s favor after the successful penalty kill, however the period closed with the teams still tied at one apiece.
The Vancouver Canucks entered the third period once again on the power play, this time a four-on-three advantage. Vancouver defenseman Alex Edler converted an incredible pass from Henrik Sedin just twenty-four seconds into the period. Sedin sent a blind, behind-the-back pass as he was falling after being cross-checked at the left of Predator’s goalie Dan Ellis. Sedin’s pass perfectly hit the wide open Edler near the bottom of the right face off circle. Like Dimitra in the first period, Edler had a wide-open net to shoot at, and he didn’t miss.
Alexandre Burrows capped the scoring with an empty net goal at 19:16 of the third, after some hard work by line mate Ryan Kessler to gain control of the puck at the Predator’s blue line.
The game featured some bone-crushing hits: first Vancouver’s Matthias Ohlund leveled Radek Bonk in full flight at the Canucks’ blue line. Then Vancouver’s Rob Davison flattened Scott Nichol in front of the Vancouver bench. Nichol seemed woozy after the hit, and a melee broke out immediately. Davison had so much momentum when he hit Nichol that Davison ended up mostly in the Canuck’s bench after the hit. Vancouver’s Jason Jaffrey fought Nashville’s Rich Paverley to a draw in the ensuing brouhaha. Nichol, meanwhile, headed straight to the dressing room. Alexandre Burrows of the Canucks left his feet to level J.P. Dumont, resulting in another fight, as Jason Arnott took on Burrows. Dumont was slow to get up. Later, Vancouver’s Ryan Kessler nailed Shea Weber into the corner boards, and yet another dog pile ensued.
It was the Canucks’ second win in a row and netted the team five out of a possible six points in their previous three games, after starting their seven-game road trip with three straight losses.
The Vancouver Canucks next play the Edmonton Oilers Saturday, December 13th at 7pm PST.
Canucks 4 at Avalanche 5 (SO): Steve Bernier’s Coming Out Party…
The Vancouver Canucks faced the Colorado Avalanche Sunday, December 7, 2008. Vancouver came into the game having bested Minnesota 2 – 1 on Friday, ending a four-game losing streak and attempting to salvage a gruelling seven game road swing. Colorado, meanwhile, also played Friday, having lost to Dallas 2 – 1 in a shootout.
The game was a spirited affair, with the lead swinging between the teams. Ultimately, the game was decided on a shootout. Rookie goaltender Cory Schneider was unable to stop any of the three Avalanche shooters (Woitek; Marek; Milan), while Pavol Dimitra, the Canucks’ second shooter, was easily stopped by Colorado goalie Peter Budaj (Wellwood scored as Vancouver’s first shooter). That made a third Canucks’ shooter unnecessary.
The story of the game, however, was the emergence of Steve Bernier.
Much maligned among Vancouver fans, Bernier’s season to date featured a series of missed scoring opportunities, many of them of the “give me” variety: wide-open nets on smart feeds from his line mates. As the missed chances piled up, it seemed clear Bernier’s confidence was getting shaky – this, after all, is a player who had no problem piling up the points in the Junior and Minor leagues: he totalled 313 points in just 272 games in the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League, including 49 goals and 52 assists for 101 points in 71 games in the 2002 – 2003 season. In Vancouver, however, it just wasn’t clicking. Bernier had just a single assist in the five games heading into the game against Colorado.
What a difference a game makes.
Against the Avalanche tonight, Steve Bernier scored on the power play 17:45 into the second period, poking home a puck sitting idly behind Budaj. It was the sort of “give me” goal Bernier almost surely would have found a way to miss earlier this season. Then, at 9:57 of the third, Bernier found some open ice in the slot and wristed a great feed from the corner from Alex Burrows for his second of the game. Bernier’s increased confidence level was obvious after that – later in the third he made a great move, coming down the right wing with speed, then going inside on the Colorado defenseman, skating directly into the slot before firing a backhand off the post. The puck didn’t go in, and Bernier didn’t get his first career hat trick, but it seemed a move he wouldn’t have thought of attempting prior to the pair of goals he scored tonight.
It’s just one game. But for the Vancouver Canucks, the emergence of Steve Bernier as a reliable contributor to the team’s offense would open an entirely new dimension to their game, much as Ryan Kessler’s emergence as a true, two-way power forward has done.
The Canucks next visit the Nashville Predators, 5pm PST, Tuesday December 9. The game will be broadcast on Sportsnet Pacific, and is available in HD.
