View Single Post
02-21-2013, 08:48 PM
Join Date: Feb 2003
[QUOTE=opendoor;60182947]It's easy to talk about spending someone else's $15M to pay Garrison to play for another team, but it's simply not going to happen barring a monumental collapse in his play. To suggest it as a reasonable possibility is to completely ignore the patience that the current management team has had with other players and that they will continue to have with Garrison.
Even if one accepts that Garrison has been as bad as some are saying or that buying him out could conceivably be a good idea, I'm honestly not sure how anyone could've just watched the last 2 years of the Canucks and think that Gillis is going to turn around and cast aside a guy he just signed to a long term deal. Have the Ballard and Malhotra situations taught people nothing about how this management team operates?[/QUOTE
I agree the money amount is going to make this difficult. I've said it's a consideration and it is. But the buy out option has not been there before. Other clubs have had to take a bath already and others will this off-season. I think Canuck management has clearly indicated they are willing to spend the money needed to improve the team and will use the buy out where appropriate but this, and you are correct here, is going to be a huge lump to swallow.
And as I have said, the buy out consideration is premature and we definitely need to get a longer look at Garrison before any conclusion can be made. However, there are some red flags that should IMO not be ignored and given the shortened season some difficult decisions may be necessary in the off season based on a less than optimum sample size.
In the past more patience could be shown because there were other options available. You could bury a person in the minors but now that is not available. Now if you don't use the buyouts you are really stuck with some long term cap problems. In the case of Garrison, that's another 5 years. Other clubs have been crippled by such contracts (such as Edmonton with Horcroff) and I hope the Canucks don't get in the same situation. Hopefully Garrison's play picks up and this issue disappears. But if it doesn't then some hard decisions may be forced on the team.
btw You bring up Malhotra. Are you now suggesting that the Canucks stuck with Malhotra when they recognized he was not valuable? That, as you say, they were patient in spite of his poor play. Seems to me that you argued for the longest time that he was valuable. That he was a integral cog in the overall game planning of the team and in money puck system employed by the team. That the coaches had this elaborate, math-based face-off system with Malhotra being the centerpiece.
My question would be if he was so effective in this system why has the team pushed him out? Why is Gillis now saying they gave him a year and more to get going and he couldn't. Isn't that a recognition that the team saw him as a liability and not the asset you claimed? Wouldn't this at least make you second guess your theory that he was so central to the club's success? And in saying the club was patient with him aren't you acknowledging that he was liability the cub patiently put up in the hope that he might regain his game? And what about Malhotra's recognition that he had very poor season last year at the same time you where saying he was playing very effectively?
Seems to me you are saying two different things. First that the club was patient with Malhotra in spite of his problems and second that Malhotra was an important and effective part of the team.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by orcatown