Mooney disagrees with my assessment Sedins need better protection

The Wild scored the only meaningful goal in this game on a powerplay, and it’s worth taking a look at how they got it. During a line change, Dany Heatley slashed and then cross-checked Daniel Sedin at the bench, instigating a brief scuffle during which Daniel swung back before Alex Burrows and Kevin Bieksa stepped in to defend him. Burrows was plucked from the scrum and sent to the box, and the Wild scored on the powerplay. Now, if the Canucks don’t retaliate in this instance, this game goes scoreless into the second period. But they did, and thus surrendered the game-winning goal. Please consider this the next time you claim the team can’t win unless they show teams they can’t go after the Sedins.

When Heatley will whack your stars
you know there's little respect.

Shack’s Take:  Okay, I know I’m stepping on dangerous ground here but I have to disagree completely with Mr. Mooney.  I’m not naïve enough to think Harrison reads my columns but this appears to be a direct shot at my article from Friday where I take the Canucks to task for not protecting the Sedins.

Let me counter his point with several and I’d be thrilled if Mr. Mooney had time to further debate the subject.

First, you’ll notice who gives Sedin the shot, it’s Dany Heatley.  Dany ‘Freakin’ Heatley, this guy has all the heart of the tin man yet he didn’t hesitate for a second in giving a cheap shot to Daniel.  If he feels okay with it, imagine how safe real hockey players feel.

Second, Alex Burrows went to Daniel’s defense and got a penalty for swinging his murse at Heatley.  Seriously, the objective is to let teams know they shouldn’t touch the Sedins, not reinforce the belief you face only a weak love tap in return.

Burrows job should be scoring goals not
protecting Sedins.

Third, it was one power play and it was the only goal of the game.  If the Canucks can’t rally around the Sedins and kill off the occasional penalty for them or score one goal to compensate, this team is in a lot of trouble come playoff time.

Fourth, let me paraphrase what I actually said.  I said the Canucks need to actually make someone pay for touching a Sedin, this did the opposite, barely touching the offender encourages it.  I said it’s okay to take the occasional penalty at the right time to get this point across.  In other words, giving up a power play against Minnesota in a mean nothing game is okay as long as you deliver the right message.  I’m even okay with Vancouver losing the odd regular season game to serve this purpose.

I would never suggest doing this in a playoff game tied  0 – 0 but if we’re playing Chicago and go down 3 – 0 in a game, maybe it would be a good time to let David Bolland know the Sedins aren't fair game .  There’s a time and a place for everything and as I said, until fighting is no longer a part of hockey, there are times to use it to your advantage.   

Unfortunately, the way this whole thing broke down with Heatley actually reaffirms to me the need to occasionally go Gino Odjick on the other team.  Would Dany Heatley try that on Patrice Bergeron?  No way.   

So this looks like a situation where we both see the same play completely opposite but if Mr. Mooney thinks that's how to protect the Sedins, we'll have to differ on that point too.  Mr. Mooney, the ball is in your court if you'd like to respond.