Gillis has done a remarkable job in Vancouver, building a contender. But Toronto would have been completely different circumstances, and it's hard to say how he would have fared in a rebuilding situation, in a market that expects a quick return to the playoffs.
But to those who think that Gillis was handed a contending team on a silver platter, take a look at the Canucks' roster from that year: http://nhlnumbers.com/teams/VAN?year=2008
The Sedins led the team with ~75 points each, while a 35-year-old Markus Naslund was in 3rd with 55, and in 4th Ryan Kesler was tied with Taylor Pyatt, at 37 points. Burrows had just potted a career-high of 12 goals. There were no top forward prospects on the horizon, and nobody else on the team had more than 10 goals or 30 points. The team did not appear to be on the brink of contending for the Cup. To make matters even worse, the Canucks' top defensive prospect, Luc Bourdon, died the following summer.
At that point Burrows (52 career points in 206 career games) and Kesler (81 career points in 238 games) were both thought to be career third liners, though it was hoped that Kesler might reach the 50-point plateau and become a second liner some day. Edler had 23 points in his career so far. These guys were nowhere close to the players they are today, and the moves Gillis made helped them to develop the way they did. The team was riddled with holes, and when Gillis came onboard, he began filling those one by one. Other posters have talked about the moves he's made (starting with creating a whole new 2nd line, with Sundin and Demitra) so I won't get into that.
I think many fans of other teams don't quite remember what a bad situation the Canucks' were in prior to Gillis, so hopefully this helps to clear that up.
Gillis has done a remarkable job in Vancouver, building a contender. But Toronto would have been completely different circumstances, and it's hard to say how he would have fared in a rebuilding situation, in a market that expects a quick return to the playoffs.
But to those who think that Gillis was handed a contending team on a silver platter, take a look at the Canucks' roster from that year: http://nhlnumbers.com/teams/VAN?year=2008
The Sedins led the team with ~75 points each, while a 35-year-old Markus Naslund was in 3rd with 55, and in 4th Ryan Kesler was tied with Taylor Pyatt, at 37 points. Burrows had just potted a career-high of 12 goals. There were no top forward prospects on the horizon, and nobody else on the team had more than 10 goals or 30 points. The team did not appear to be on the brink of contending for the Cup. To make matters even worse, the Canucks' top defensive prospect, Luc Bourdon, died the following summer.
At that point Burrows (52 career points in 206 career games) and Kesler (81 career points in 238 games) were both thought to be career third liners, though it was hoped that Kesler might reach the 50-point plateau and become a second liner some day. Edler had 23 points in his career so far. These guys were nowhere close to the players they are today, and the moves Gillis made helped them to develop the way they did. The team was riddled with holes, and when Gillis came onboard, he began filling those one by one. Other posters have talked about the moves he's made (starting with creating a whole new 2nd line, with Sundin and Demitra) so I won't get into that.
I think many fans of other teams don't quite remember what a bad situation the Canucks' were in prior to Gillis, so hopefully this helps to clear that up.
As has been mentioned Nonis was going to sign Brunstrom, resign Naslund and Morrisson. Would not have brought in Sundin and Demitra, players who were integral parts to the development of the atmosphere and winning attitude that was created. Do the math. Ohlund and Mitchell would have likely been retained. The team would be completly different.
Gillis built this team.
Let's look at the best top players on the Canucks:
That's the core of the team - and they all were there prior to Gillis. IMO - you do have to give Gillis major props for getting almost all those guys to sign good contracts, for filling the holes on the roster, and for getting them to take the next step as an elite team. He's done an awesome job, and most people are acknowledging that.
The point that the Canucks posters aren't acknowleding though - is that IMO there wasn't one player in the Leafs organization that would have considered "core" when Burke took over. Burke was basically building entirely from scratch. That's VERY different that the situation that GIllis was in.
Hamhuis is as much part of that core, signed as an FA. Booth their 2nd line winger was traded for. I dunno about Bieksa or Hansen. Anyways, he did inherit them but it's about putting together the team at the right time which he's done.
Who knows what Gillis would have done? I mean it's not like he's had to really lift a finger in Vancouver with that core in place.
If we're going to do this then we can just throw out Burke's Stanley Cup on account of the team already having it's entire core group that won the cup.
Gillis has done a remarkable job in Vancouver, building a contender. But Toronto would have been completely different circumstances, and it's hard to say how he would have fared in a rebuilding situation, in a market that expects a quick return to the playoffs.
But to those who think that Gillis was handed a contending team on a silver platter, take a look at the Canucks' roster from that year: http://nhlnumbers.com/teams/VAN?year=2008
The Sedins led the team with ~75 points each, while a 35-year-old Markus Naslund was in 3rd with 55, and in 4th Ryan Kesler was tied with Taylor Pyatt, at 37 points. Burrows had just potted a career-high of 12 goals. There were no top forward prospects on the horizon, and nobody else on the team had more than 10 goals or 30 points. The team did not appear to be on the brink of contending for the Cup. To make matters even worse, the Canucks' top defensive prospect, Luc Bourdon, died the following summer.
At that point Burrows (52 career points in 206 career games) and Kesler (81 career points in 238 games) were both thought to be career third liners, though it was hoped that Kesler might reach the 50-point plateau and become a second liner some day. Edler had 23 points in his career so far. These guys were nowhere close to the players they are today, and the moves Gillis made helped them to develop the way they did. The team was riddled with holes, and when Gillis came onboard, he began filling those one by one. Other posters have talked about the moves he's made (starting with creating a whole new 2nd line, with Sundin and Demitra) so I won't get into that.
I think many fans of other teams don't quite remember what a bad situation the Canucks' were in prior to Gillis, so hopefully this helps to clear that up.
Sounds simple to me. All we have to do is sign an equivalent to Sundin and Demitra, get a nutritionist and a sleep expert and the Leafs will be President Trophy Candidates for years to come.
I mean come on, do the players not get the credit for the team success? Are Danny and Hank just 75 point guys without a sleep expert and a nutrtionist? Is Kesler a 30 pt, 3rd line center without Gillis? Gillis is doing a fine job, but dammit, stop giving him all the credit for these remarkable players.
Last edited by smoke meat pete*: 04-08-2012 at 09:04 PM.
Sounds simple to me. All we have to do is sign an equivalent to Sundin and Demitra, get a nutritionist and a sleep expert and the Leafs will be President Trophy Candidates for years to come.
Ignoring the FA signings, not sure why you repeatedly mock off-ice expenditures considering the team that uses those things is in first place and the team that doesn't use them has missed the playoffs eight straight years.
Ignoring the FA signings, not sure why you repeatedly mock off-ice expenditures considering the team that uses those things is in first place and the team that doesn't use them has missed the playoffs eight straight years.
Maybe that should tell you something.
As a former "off ice expenditure" myself, I am not mocking it at all. I don't know why you would take it that way. But in my role as an "off-ice expenditure" I knew my contribution was very important, but only played a very small role in the success of my team.
As for the Leafs, I'd imagine they do have a nutrtionist (or someone in that role) and a sleep expert for a team in the NW division is much different than a team from an eastern conference. The Leafs are more than happy to spend $ on off ice development.
Last edited by smoke meat pete*: 04-08-2012 at 09:14 PM.
That's the core of the team - and they all were there prior to Gillis. IMO - you do have to give Gillis major props for getting almost all those guys to sign good contracts, for filling the holes on the roster, and for getting them to take the next step as an elite team. He's done an awesome job, and most people are acknowledging that.
The point that the Canucks posters aren't acknowleding though - is
IMO there wasn't one player in the Leafs organization that would have
considered "core" when Burke took
over. Burke was basically building
entirely from scratch. That's
VERY different that the situation
that GIllis was in.
That just shows the horrible double-standard that exists on HF. Gillis inherited his best players. Burke brought in more core players in Anaheim yet gets zero credit for it .
Ignoring the FA signings, not sure why you repeatedly mock off-ice expenditures considering the team that uses those things is in first place and the team that doesn't use them has missed the playoffs eight straight years.
Maybe that should tell you something.
I had read that the Leafs spend the most in Player personnel and development, but this is only in year 2. Some of the proof is in the
management team.
I'm ok for now, Holland said you need 10 years to judge a GM.
I think the real question is: Could any NHL GM have done a poorer job then Burke, especially during that first full season?
Gamble to make the playoffs, finish 29th, surrender the 2nd overall pick to a division rival? Assemble the most underperforming and overpriced defense corps in the league? Its not easy to screw up that badly.
That's an interesting Hotstove in the opening post.
The Leafs ooze arrogance despite being perennially one of the worst teams in the league.This has been the case throughout their history.
It's as if the Leafs become even more arrogant in the face of someone who is incredibly skilled and professional. As if to say, "how dare you hold yourself up to us as being a skilled professional. We are the almighty Leafs."
The story of Bobby Orr approaching the Leafs when he was a teenager and letting them know he would like to play for them, sums up what a worthless organization the Leafs are. Their response was essentially to say "who the **** do you think you are?"
The Leafs' arrogance and worthlessness has always been intrinsically linked. Burke was a perfect choice for the Leafs. An arrogant blowhard who is full of himself. As if the Leafs and Burke felt an affinity for each other, and in turn, Burke sought out another all-talk blowhard in Phaneuf.
Hamhuis is as much part of that core, signed as an FA. Booth their 2nd line winger was traded for. I dunno about Bieksa or Hansen. Anyways, he did inherit them but it's about putting together the team at the right time which he's done.
And no one is denying that he's gotten the Canucks to the next level. But Booth is a "nice", complimentary spare part compared to the 6 guys I listed. And Hamhuis was a very good addition, but I thought that a big reason why he signed with VAN was that he grew up around there? (Not taking anything away from the signing - but that there were external factors that gave VAN the edge. Just like how people tend to downplay Burke getting Niedermeyer in ANA because his brother was already on the team.)
That wasn't the core of the team then (Naslund, Morrison, Ohlund, Mitchell, Sedins, Luongo)
The only players who have remained the core are Sedins and Luongo.
While I agree - all those guys were on the roster. It's not like he had to go out and trade for those guys. And I find it ironic that people are making out letting guys like Naslund & Ohlund go as this huge stroke of genius. Both guys weren't the player they were early in their career, and it didn't take a genius to see that coming.
Like I said - I think that Gillis has done a great job. I just don't think that he'd necessarily have the Leafs in any better position than Burke.
And no one is denying that he's gotten the Canucks to the next level. But Booth is a "nice", complimentary spare part compared to the 6 guys I listed. And Hamhuis was a very good addition, but I thought that a big reason why he signed with VAN was that he grew up around there? (Not taking anything away from the signing - but that there were external factors that gave VAN the edge. Just like how people tend to downplay Burke getting Niedermeyer in ANA because his brother was already on the team.)
As has been said again and again. These guys were not part of the core beyond the Sedins who took a step in their game the year before Gillis came in. NOT the core. Gillis made them the core, provided a environment tat allowed them to develop in to the players they are today, retained them and committed to them and cut ties with the older group of player who were the core.
Gillis shipped out all the right player, kept all the right players, brought in all the fight players fill the rest of the lineup and he created the right environment to make this team a winning team.
I mean do you people not work and live in the real world? Does no one understand the importance in proper leadership in any organization?
