I know I am not the sports guy in this newspaper, but I still am a sports fan that likes to write. That pretty well gives me license to discuss something close to my heart. (No, Horace, I'm not talking about my aorta. What I just said was what grammar people call "figurative" language. You don't get it? Well, "figure it out" yourself.)

My favourite hockey team - next to the Killam Cookies (let's me legally shout, "Go, Kill'em") - is, of course, the Vancouver Canucks. I have been a fan of the Canucks when they played in the old Western Hockey League, along with the Victoria Maple Leafs, Seattle Totems, Portland Buckaroos, and San Diego Gulls, to a name a few teams. Those teams are long gone and their host cities have franchises with either the Canadian Hockey League or the East Coast Hockey League.

I remember the year the Canucks, along with the Buffalo Sabres, entered the NHL. It was the year before I graduated from high school. Remember the flip of the coin, where they got Gilbert and we got Dale? (At least Dale Tallon is still around: He is now the general manager of the new-and-improved Chicago Blackhawks.)

The Lord in heaven have mercy on me for the following statement: The Canucks have always been under-achievers. Skill, depth, and grit have always been there, but they have never lived up to their potential. They have made it to the finals only twice in their thirty-seven-year NHL lifetime: against the Islanders in 1982 and the Rangers in 1994.

It now appears that 2008-2009 will be yet another under-achieving season. Despite what I believe is an outstanding roster and despite finally getting Luongo back and signing Mats Sundin, the Canucks (or Canuckleheads, as they are derisively called sometimes), are in one of their worst home-ice funks in franchise history – to say nothing of their overall record. The easiest thing for them to do would be to fire the coach; maybe not the wisest move, but certainly the most common. It happens all the time, usually with minimal success. This year alone, Tampa Bay would be an example, though Chicago would be an exception.

I don't play the game myself, I just write about it. However, I do have a few suggestions. I don't know if the Canucks' management team reads my column, but just in case in their wisdom they do, here are some tips that could turn their (and every other) team's season around:

1. shoot the puck at the net; the more frequency the shots 'at', the higher frequency the shots 'in';

2. pass more in the defensive zone, but less in the offensive zone (see Tip One);

3. keep your lines intact; when guys are comfortable and productive with each other, there is a

greater chance that something magical (we call it "goals") will happen.

One more tip, which would be my most radical one to date: Develop an incentive wage system. The players would get a base salary (say, a measly one million dollars), then more money through incentives. I suggest the player would get a certain cash amount for goals and assists, clean hits, blocked shots, necessary fights, completed passes, and so on – all depending on the type of player involved. A goon would get paid for gooning, a prima donna for prima donning (verb form – is there such a word?) As in the past, each player would sign a contract founded on these most interesting incentives; this new approach would also be tailor-made for each of the individual player's strengths.

There is no doubt we would see an exciting and dynamic National Hockey League. Players would actually have a reason to play well, no longer gleefully traipsing around North America, staying in great hotels, working for only nine months a year, living off multi-million dollar annual paycheques.

Could it work? I think so. Will it work? Are you kidding?

Really, anything is better than the prevalent mediocre performances that I see at present. I think at least the Canucks should try it. If they don't, I may want to shout "kill'em" - using the other meaning.