HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Vancouver Canucks
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

The Armchair GM Thread - Part XXIX

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-14-2012, 12:46 PM
  #76
sully1410
Registered User
 
sully1410's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Turner Valley, Alta.
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,159
vCash: 500
The only issue I've had with gillis is the hodgson trade. I thought it a questionable move to trade hodgson for an unproven player instead of some immediate help. Calling him like that was ******** too, but that's the only deal that I'm left scratching my head about.

sully1410 is offline  
Old
08-14-2012, 01:16 PM
  #77
Edler Revived
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: VAncouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 502
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanwest View Post
I guess winning back to back President's trophies doesn't get you much these days.
I think that some of the comments were unfair. Hamhuis and Garrison were two of the most sought after free agents. A level below Suter etc. but significant nonetheless. Why did they want to come here? Probably because Gillis has created a winning environment that attracts free agents even though Canadian cities and especially western Canadian cities have had trouble attracting free agents. I bet you that they gave Minnesota high marks for attracting Parise and Suter, despite the fact that obviously both guys wanted to play there for various reasons. A double standard if you ask me.
On the handling of the goalie situation, if the offers are low, I think Gillis has been smart to not trade Luongo for table scraps. We'll see how this plays out but so far holding onto him for the summer has had zero impact on the team.
On the criticism of no Gillis drafted players in the lineup, Hodgson was a Gillis drafted player who brought us Kassian. As for the other Gillis drafted players when you've only been here three years and have one of the top teams you shouldn't expect a lot of rookies to make the team.
Having said all of that I don't have a lot of problem with the grade as I think most GM's should get a C. I'd probably say that Gillis is in his tenure in Vancouver has been well above average but over the last 12 months (assuming that is what the grade is based on) I'd probably give him a C+ which could obviously improve depending on the Luongo trade.
Seconded.

Sometimes the best moves are the ones you don't make ie not signing Salo for 2 years as well as adding Garrison.....creating no playing time for Tanev to grow into. Not letting Luongo go for pine nuts.... not signing Gags so there is room for prospect D's to grow into the lineup...Same with Rome (though I really liked him as a Canuck) there are a number of good moves he's made lately, including passing on some opportunities. I'd give him at least a B.

Edler Revived is offline  
Old
08-14-2012, 02:00 PM
  #78
KISSland
Registered User
 
KISSland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,682
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYVanfan View Post
Rented a car this past weekend, it had Sat radio ... Jim Boomer Gordon and Scott Laughlin are doing their annual GM Report Cards on NHL Home Ice on Sirius XM..

Pretty interesting stuff ...when it came to the Canucks, they both pretty much trashed Gillis; C and C- grades, respectively. Chief complaints:

1. Goaltending carousel not handled well (ie the trade shoulde been made sooner)
2. Hodgson not handled well (blasted MG for trashing Coho publicly after the deal.)
3. Where are the kids? No Gillis drafted players in the lineup. Pretty much reiterated this: http://sports.nationalpost.com/2012/...m-mike-gillis/
4. Following #3, overall most of the lineup he inherited. What significant moves has he made on the lineup? Hamhuis and Garrison wanted to come here, and the Booth trade is looking iffy early on.

I know there's Gillis transaction thread, but thought this was interesting enough to post here. Also, I am a Gillis defender, I like everything he's done for the mostpart, but they did raise some good points.
Pretty much what I gave him to on the trade forums.

KISSland is offline  
Old
08-14-2012, 02:48 PM
  #79
CommonMeans*
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,319
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYVanfan View Post
Rented a car this past weekend, it had Sat radio ... Jim Boomer Gordon and Scott Laughlin are doing their annual GM Report Cards on NHL Home Ice on Sirius XM..

Pretty interesting stuff ...when it came to the Canucks, they both pretty much trashed Gillis; C and C- grades, respectively. Chief complaints:

1. Goaltending carousel not handled well (ie the trade shoulde been made sooner)
2. Hodgson not handled well (blasted MG for trashing Coho publicly after the deal.)
3. Where are the kids? No Gillis drafted players in the lineup. Pretty much reiterated this: http://sports.nationalpost.com/2012/...m-mike-gillis/
4. Following #3, overall most of the lineup he inherited. What significant moves has he made on the lineup? Hamhuis and Garrison wanted to come here, and the Booth trade is looking iffy early on.

I know there's Gillis transaction thread, but thought this was interesting enough to post here. Also, I am a Gillis defender, I like everything he's done for the mostpart, but they did raise some good points.
People forget what kind of "depth" this team had before GMMG stepped in. Bulis, Cheunard, Ritchie, Santala ring any bells? If nothing else, he has shored up the club's depth to the point where they're now contenders.

Moreover, what does the Canuck's prospect pool look like now compared to when he took over? I'd argue I heck of a lot better. The one garbage first rounder he took over turned into Erhoff. Not bad asset management in my opinion.

As for CohO and Luongo, time will only tell. It's obvious there was a schism with CoHo. In terms of Lu, these guys are as blind as the rest of us. There is no way GMMG should be happy by simply "dumping" Lu just to appease those who think there is tension (again, these people have no clue).

Giving GMMG a C (or C-) rating is mind boggling to me. The club is setup to win now, and depending on what is returned for Lu, is easily set up to win in the future. What else is the man to do aside from strapping on the skates himself and tying to win the Cup?

CommonMeans* is offline  
Old
08-14-2012, 02:59 PM
  #80
Wilch
Unregistered User
 
Wilch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Under your bed
Country: Taiwan
Posts: 8,588
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYVanfan View Post
Rented a car this past weekend, it had Sat radio ... Jim Boomer Gordon and Scott Laughlin are doing their annual GM Report Cards on NHL Home Ice on Sirius XM..

Pretty interesting stuff ...when it came to the Canucks, they both pretty much trashed Gillis; C and C- grades, respectively. Chief complaints:

1. Goaltending carousel not handled well (ie the trade shoulde been made sooner)
2. Hodgson not handled well (blasted MG for trashing Coho publicly after the deal.)
3. Where are the kids? No Gillis drafted players in the lineup. Pretty much reiterated this: http://sports.nationalpost.com/2012/...m-mike-gillis/
4. Following #3, overall most of the lineup he inherited. What significant moves has he made on the lineup? Hamhuis and Garrison wanted to come here, and the Booth trade is looking iffy early on.

I know there's Gillis transaction thread, but thought this was interesting enough to post here. Also, I am a Gillis defender, I like everything he's done for the mostpart, but they did raise some good points.
They're taking a ridiculous stance so people can talk about how stupid they are. Which of course, gives them plenty of attention.

Wilch is offline  
Old
08-14-2012, 03:04 PM
  #81
NYVanfan
Registered User
 
NYVanfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 6,078
vCash: 500
yeah, they credited the Prez' trophys ...though IMO did not stress enough that having a team of that calibre generally means less playing time for rookies.

gave some grief for losing Erhoff -- did mention that he tried and the Buffalo money was wisely avoided, but the point was Gillis has failed to replace what we lost when Erhoff left, which is not a totally unfair point. IMO, MAG was an issue .. I thought he was an attempt to replace Erhoff, and he made the Kassian trade more palatable...but then he was cast off this summer, which seemed like a squandered asset.

I think it's too easy to criticize him for not moving Luongo. That's such a critical move for the future of the organization -- and what's lost by not rushing that this summer? What chemistry issues do we risk waiting from June until Aug or Sept? Later on, perhaps, but even then, maximizing the return should be the priority.

Can't think of a single UFA or deadline deal that I really wish we had made. Maybe Mueller, Jagr, or Asham or even outside shot, Semin (but too much $ there, I think.)

To be honest, I do worry a bit about the Garrison signing.... really hoping he's as good as Hamhuis. 6 years is a lot to stake on a 28YO with one good year...

NYVanfan is offline  
Old
08-14-2012, 03:55 PM
  #82
crazycanuck
Registered User
 
crazycanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 7,647
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYVanfan View Post
Rented a car this past weekend, it had Sat radio ... Jim Boomer Gordon and Scott Laughlin are doing their annual GM Report Cards on NHL Home Ice on Sirius XM..

Pretty interesting stuff ...when it came to the Canucks, they both pretty much trashed Gillis; C and C- grades, respectively. Chief complaints:

1. Goaltending carousel not handled well (ie the trade shoulde been made sooner)
2. Hodgson not handled well (blasted MG for trashing Coho publicly after the deal.)
3. Where are the kids? No Gillis drafted players in the lineup. Pretty much reiterated this: http://sports.nationalpost.com/2012/...m-mike-gillis/
4. Following #3, overall most of the lineup he inherited. What significant moves has he made on the lineup? Hamhuis and Garrison wanted to come here, and the Booth trade is looking iffy early on.

I know there's Gillis transaction thread, but thought this was interesting enough to post here. Also, I am a Gillis defender, I like everything he's done for the mostpart, but they did raise some good points.
1. They can say this but since no games have been played since Schneider signed his contract itís a reach to say waiting this long is a negative on the team. A lot will depend on whether or not Luongo comes to camp, how he handles it, and what Gillis gets in return for Luongo. This is a very biased and flawed attempt at bashing Gillis. This is an opinion on the future and has nothing to do with the past results.
2. Tend to agree that Hodgson was not handled well after the back injury occurred. If Kassian turns into a top 6 power forward than itís a non issue. Too early to tell IMO.
3. The prospect pool is far superior to what the Canucks had when Gillis took over but still isnít where it needs to be.
4. The core was inherited, Hamhuis and Garrison were easier signings than most but you can argue a big part of why Vancouver was so attractive to them was because of what Gillis has done. Also depth wins championships; Gillis has added a lot of depth to the organization.

I take exception to point 1 the most because itís a very much a speculative point that canít be proven. How can you use that to grade how a GM has performed? If Gillis waits out the other GMs and gets the return he is looking for, then how is it a bad thing?

Overall the report card Jim Boomer Gordon and Scott Laughlin gave Gillis seems to be more on the cynical side and looks to be geared to create debatable topics for listeners and guests.

crazycanuck is online now  
Old
08-14-2012, 03:59 PM
  #83
vanwest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,643
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYVanfan View Post
yeah, they credited the Prez' trophys ...though IMO did not stress enough that having a team of that calibre generally means less playing time for rookies.

gave some grief for losing Erhoff -- did mention that he tried and the Buffalo money was wisely avoided, but the point was Gillis has failed to replace what we lost when Erhoff left, which is not a totally unfair point. IMO, MAG was an issue .. I thought he was an attempt to replace Erhoff, and he made the Kassian trade more palatable...but then he was cast off this summer, which seemed like a squandered asset.

I think it's too easy to criticize him for not moving Luongo. That's such a critical move for the future of the organization -- and what's lost by not rushing that this summer? What chemistry issues do we risk waiting from June until Aug or Sept? Later on, perhaps, but even then, maximizing the return should be the priority.

Can't think of a single UFA or deadline deal that I really wish we had made. Maybe Mueller, Jagr, or Asham or even outside shot, Semin (but too much $ there, I think.)

To be honest, I do worry a bit about the Garrison signing.... really hoping he's as good as Hamhuis. 6 years is a lot to stake on a 28YO with one good year...
I think that he's made some good moves and maybe a couple of questionable ones. I'm not really a big fan of the grades for GM's though. I prefer to break them down to top third, middle third and bottom third. I'd put Gillis' overall performance in the top third. The bottomline is that he took a pretty good team that missed the playoffs the year before he came and turned them into a team that made it to game 7 of the SCF the year before last and then won the President's trophy this past year. He's attracted two pf the top 6 free agents for their year in Hamhuis and Garrison. The results really speak for themselves.

vanwest is offline  
Old
08-14-2012, 04:11 PM
  #84
ddawg1950
Registered User
 
ddawg1950's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,963
vCash: 500
I can think of more than a few instances where GMs have not been patient and moved a player for less than value (Mike Keenan moving Luongo comes to mind) but i really can't think of a GM making a trade where he was too patient and did not get full value.

ddawg1950 is offline  
Old
08-14-2012, 04:12 PM
  #85
Derp Kassian
Registered User
 
Derp Kassian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,287
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddawg1950 View Post
I can think of more than a few instances where GMs have not been patient and moved a player for less than value (Mike Keenan moving Luongo comes to mind) but i really can't think of a GM making a trade where he was too patient and did not get full value.
Howson and Rick Nash?

Derp Kassian is offline  
Old
08-14-2012, 04:21 PM
  #86
Verviticus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 4,939
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derp Kassian View Post
Howson and Rick Nash?
he could have easily kept nash. nothing was actually forcing a trade except that howson was incorrectly trying to be a good human being rather than a hardass

Verviticus is offline  
Old
08-14-2012, 04:27 PM
  #87
NYVanfan
Registered User
 
NYVanfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 6,078
vCash: 500
he gave Lombardi a less than stellar score too ..saying that he didnt like the Richards or Carter trades or the Sutter hiring .. but admitting they worked ...

still on the fence as to whether they are good long term moves or they just got lucky as it all came together at the right time. I will be interested to see how good the Kings really are going forwrd -- my suspicion is less than the juggernaut they were in the playoffs, but still pretty darn good (division winners)

game Nashville good grades, Minny only ok (Parise wanted to come home and brought Suter w him...) Absolutely slaughtered Gauthier (gave him an F-)

I thought their take was interestng, even if I didn'tagree re: Gillis.

The Canucks are in a rare place right now -- not too many glaring holes to criticize. They are nearly a complete team, but are they good enough? I think it can be argued eitherway -- if they get hot at the right time they have the team to win it all...

NYVanfan is offline  
Old
08-14-2012, 04:28 PM
  #88
DJOpus
Registered User
 
DJOpus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,776
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derp Kassian View Post
Howson and Rick Nash?
I think CBJ did okay on that trade.

1st, two potential top 6 roster players, and Erixon (who would be the Canucks best best prospect - generally rated higher than Kassian).

How would you feel if we gave up 1st, Kassian, Hansen, and Booth for Nash (and I'd still take the Rangers package ahead of the one listed for the Canucks).

DJOpus is offline  
Old
08-14-2012, 04:37 PM
  #89
arsmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,793
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYVanfan View Post
he gave Lombardi a less than stellar score too ..saying that he didnt like the Richards or Carter trades or the Sutter hiring .. but admitting they worked ...

still on the fence as to whether they are good long term moves or they just got lucky as it all came together at the right time. I will be interested to see how good the Kings really are going forwrd -- my suspicion is less than the juggernaut they were in the playoffs, but still pretty darn good (division winners)

game Nashville good grades, Minny only ok (Parise wanted to come home and brought Suter w him...) Absolutely slaughtered Gauthier (gave him an F-)

I thought their take was interestng, even if I didn'tagree re: Gillis.

The Canucks are in a rare place right now -- not too many glaring holes to criticize. They are nearly a complete team, but are they good enough? I think it can be argued eitherway -- if they get hot at the right time they have the team to win it all...
Sounds like these guys are bozo's to me.

LA won the cup...the one goal every team has. Lombardi crushed it out of the park.

Gillis did well to, you couldn't have your team better positioned than 1st in the league...they failed to meet expectations, but the team Gillis put together lead the league in points.

arsmaster is online now  
Old
08-14-2012, 04:44 PM
  #90
Mr. Canucklehead
Mod Supervisor
Kitimat Canuck
 
Mr. Canucklehead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Kitimat, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,773
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by arsmaster View Post
Sounds like these guys are bozo's to me.

LA won the cup...the one goal every team has. Lombardi crushed it out of the park.

Gillis did well to, you couldn't have your team better positioned than 1st in the league...they failed to meet expectations, but the team Gillis put together lead the league in points.
Lombardi also made big move after big move (Richards and Carter), while combining that with solid drafting (Kopitar and Doughty), strong free agent signings (Mitchell and Scuderi), and acquiring a strong coach (Sutter). I fail to see an avenue Lombardi did not take to get his team its first championship...bewildering.

Mr. Canucklehead is online now  
Old
08-14-2012, 04:48 PM
  #91
arsmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,793
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Canucklehead View Post
Lombardi also made big move after big move (Richards and Carter), while combining that with solid drafting (Kopitar and Doughty), strong free agent signings (Mitchell and Scuderi), and acquiring a strong coach (Sutter). I fail to see an avenue Lombardi did not take to get his team its first championship...bewildering.
they got Doughty because they were the 2nd worst team in the league the year prior.

They've drafted well outside Doughty, but he wouldn't be the guy I'd mention when it comes to drafting. It was a no-brainer at the time.

arsmaster is online now  
Old
08-14-2012, 05:01 PM
  #92
Mr. Canucklehead
Mod Supervisor
Kitimat Canuck
 
Mr. Canucklehead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Kitimat, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,773
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by arsmaster View Post
they got Doughty because they were the 2nd worst team in the league the year prior.

They've drafted well outside Doughty, but he wouldn't be the guy I'd mention when it comes to drafting. It was a no-brainer at the time.
Sorry - being a fan of a team that's missed its share of no-brainers leads me to compliment the teams that snag them.

Mr. Canucklehead is online now  
Old
08-14-2012, 05:03 PM
  #93
ddawg1950
Registered User
 
ddawg1950's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,963
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derp Kassian View Post
Howson and Rick Nash?
At first glance, I see your point.

But then I realized...Howson wasn't being patient at all. What was the hurry in moving Nash? Rick wanted to get settled maybe? Tough beans.

Howson moved him too quickly and perhaps could have done better holding on, particularly since all portents point to a delayed start to the season.


Last edited by ddawg1950: 08-14-2012 at 05:17 PM.
ddawg1950 is offline  
Old
08-14-2012, 05:12 PM
  #94
Canucker
Registered User
 
Canucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Prince Rupert, BC
Posts: 18,499
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddawg1950 View Post
At first glance, I see your point.

But hen I realized...Howson wasn't being patient at all. What was the hurry in moving Nash? Rick wanted to get settled maybe? Tough beans.

Howson moved him too quickly and perhaps could have done better holding on, particularly since all portents point to a delayed start to the season.
I disagree...I think he should have traded him at the deadline. He likely would have gotten a better deal at that point, prices are always artificially inflated at that point of the season. Not saying he did terribly with what he got, but I think he needed to get a blue chip prospect like Kreider to at least save some face and the trade deadline was the best opportunity to make that happen IMO.

Canucker is offline  
Old
08-14-2012, 05:30 PM
  #95
DJOpus
Registered User
 
DJOpus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,776
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canucker View Post
I disagree...I think he should have traded him at the deadline. He likely would have gotten a better deal at that point, prices are always artificially inflated at that point of the season. Not saying he did terribly with what he got, but I think he needed to get a blue chip prospect like Kreider to at least save some face and the trade deadline was the best opportunity to make that happen IMO.
Erixon was rated above Kreider on a lot of prospect lists last year. Kreider's stock around here has gone up a lot because of a few playoff games but him and Erixon as prospects are pretty similar.

DJOpus is offline  
Old
08-14-2012, 05:33 PM
  #96
ddawg1950
Registered User
 
ddawg1950's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,963
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canucker View Post
I disagree...I think he should have traded him at the deadline. He likely would have gotten a better deal at that point, prices are always artificially inflated at that point of the season. Not saying he did terribly with what he got, but I think he needed to get a blue chip prospect like Kreider to at least save some face and the trade deadline was the best opportunity to make that happen IMO.
The problem I have with that is that we have no idea what Howson was offered at the deadline.

ddawg1950 is offline  
Old
08-14-2012, 05:36 PM
  #97
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,411
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYVanfan View Post
Rented a car this past weekend, it had Sat radio ... Jim Boomer Gordon and Scott Laughlin are doing their annual GM Report Cards on NHL Home Ice on Sirius XM..

Pretty interesting stuff ...when it came to the Canucks, they both pretty much trashed Gillis; C and C- grades, respectively. Chief complaints:

1. Goaltending carousel not handled well (ie the trade shoulde been made sooner)
2. Hodgson not handled well (blasted MG for trashing Coho publicly after the deal.)
3. Where are the kids? No Gillis drafted players in the lineup. Pretty much reiterated this: http://sports.nationalpost.com/2012/...m-mike-gillis/
4. Following #3, overall most of the lineup he inherited. What significant moves has he made on the lineup? Hamhuis and Garrison wanted to come here, and the Booth trade is looking iffy early on.

I know there's Gillis transaction thread, but thought this was interesting enough to post here. Also, I am a Gillis defender, I like everything he's done for the mostpart, but they did raise some good points.



1. See nothing wrong with utilizing both goaltenders in-season, and waiting for a good offer for Lu. Their comment on this situation is misinformed.


2. Hodgson situation was handled __brilliantly__. I mean, to sit on a disgruntled prospect for 3 yrs, without it leaking that he wanted out, and to get the return he did was downright masterful. It was GM'ing at its finest. Gillis has done some things wrong, but this definitely was not one of them.


3. Sadly, I agree with this. Too early to judge the full returns, but it isn't looking good for MG. This is pretty disappointing considering Gillis's agent background. He has an eye for talent, but it isn't translating to draft results.


4. No credit given to his support acquisitions like Demitra, Sundin, Samuelsson, Torres, Malhotra, Higgins, Lapierre, Rome, Ehrhoff etc... ?? Yeah... all inherited right? If the prior GMs did half as well as MG in this regard, odds are they're still here...

Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
08-14-2012, 05:46 PM
  #98
Canucker
Registered User
 
Canucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Prince Rupert, BC
Posts: 18,499
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJOpus View Post
Erixon was rated above Kreider on a lot of prospect lists last year. Kreider's stock around here has gone up a lot because of a few playoff games but him and Erixon as prospects are pretty similar.
IMO Kreider was always a much better prospect than Erixon, even before Erixon left Calgary.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ddawg1950 View Post
The problem I have with that is that we have no idea what Howson was offered at the deadline.
Thats true, but the deadline is historically a "sell high" time...for me its hard to imagine any offers got better beyond that point.

Canucker is offline  
Old
08-14-2012, 05:55 PM
  #99
DJOpus
Registered User
 
DJOpus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,776
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canucker View Post
IMO Kreider was always a much better prospect than Erixon, even before Erixon left Calgary.
Not that its gospel, but THN Future Watch (which is done by pro scouts) had Erixon above Kreider as recently as last year.

So its debatable if nothing else.

DJOpus is offline  
Old
08-14-2012, 05:56 PM
  #100
Drop the Sopel
Feaster famine
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: calgary
Posts: 15,574
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
2. Hodgson situation was handled __brilliantly__. I mean, to sit on a disgruntled prospect for 3 yrs, without it leaking that he wanted out, and to get the return he did was downright masterful. It was GM'ing at its finest. Gillis has done some things wrong, but this definitely was not one of them.
I don't think you'll find anyone else out there that believes Cody Hodgson was handled 'brilliantly' since being drafted. There was the injury in training, the improper diagnosis, the moronic comments from Gillis' head coach, the inevitable trade which left the roster weakened heading into the playoffs followed by Gillis' press conference where he took parting shots at the youngster.

Gillis tried to salvage the situation as best he could but I'm sure he would be the first to say he's disappointed with how everything went down. The jury is still out on the longterm ramifications of this transaction but I doubt a betting man would say we're poised to win this swap...

As For Gillis' grade, I don't know how a guy wins back to back Presidents trophies and comes away with a C-. Even if pretty much every impact player on the roster was a Nonis and Burke acquisition.

Gillis hasn't done anything in the past 12 months to warrant an excellent grade - though his entire body of work has been quite good IMO.

Drop the Sopel is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:40 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.