I'm not saying he hasn't made any mistakes, I disagree that what you listed were his biggest mistakes. In fact, I saw three of the points you listed as things he actually did right (signing Sundin, getting Luongo on a cap friendly deal when comparable netminder contracts are taken into account, and Backes offer sheet). If you want to talk about pissing off the establishment, the Flyers GM did that on a much bigger scale with that bonus-laden sheet to Weber. Backes is making over double today what he did on that offer sheet. His offer sheet was small potatoes in comparison to what we saw last summer.
I don't think Demitra's signing was a mistake at the time, just in hindsight and when injuries and personal issues are taken into account.
Some of his bigger mistakes (in no particular order):
1) Matching Bernier offer sheet (although hindsight is a factor)
2) Marco Sturm signing (which he quickly corrected)
3) Ballard trade (which came days before Hamhuis signing, rendering him redundant)
4) Holding on to Schneider when his trade value is (probably) sky-high and over-valued (higher than Luongo's despite being unproven in a starting role), when the team seemed to be sucking wind after the Boston game and looked like it needed another top 6 forward. Not trading him forced him to re-sign him before offer sheets came in, which causes him to deal from a position of weakness when it comes to moving Luongo
5) Darcy Hordichuk signing
6) Mathieu Schneider, he still thought he deserved 20 mins a night even though his play didn't indicate that. MG seemed to think that he would be happy in a depth role.
7) Luongo Captaincy, too much of a distraction for him when he should have just been focused on stopping the puck.
8) AV re-signing * (with an asterisk) he's said some dumb things in the media, and failed to prepare for a Daniel-less first round. That said, there doesn't seem to be a lot of top-tier coaches out there to replace him with.
Also, the Luongo captaincy smacked, at the time, of a perk of his ridiculous lifetime contract. Gillis behaved more like Gilles Lupien's hostage with a bad case of Stockholm Syndrome than a general manager in an adversarial negotiating position in that contract negotiation.
Last edited by Keke Mortsons helmet: 10-24-2012 at 03:03 AM.
Reason: grammar
Again, the Sundin move was fantastic. You can't call something a mistake if it didn't happen!
The offer was made; it happened. Gillis was merely lucky that Sundin didn't accept. There is no way the team would have been able to fit the Sedins in under the cap if that deal had been signed. The Sundin offer combined with how close MG allowed the Sedins get to free agency makes me believe that he hadn't planned on keeping them around when he first took over the reigns of the team, and I find that frightening.
The offer was made; it happened. Gillis was merely lucky that Sundin didn't accept. There is no way the team would have been able to fit the Sedins in under the cap if that deal had been signed. The Sundin offer combined with how close MG allowed the Sedins get to free agency makes me believe that he hadn't planned on keeping them around when he first took over the reigns of the team, and I find that frightening.
He did say something about not being sure if they would be his first liners going forward when he first took over. I wonder if it was a case of eastern bias, he had just moved from the Toronto market, playing into that. I'm glad that he came around on that one.
Naslund was his former client, and I was surprised at the time that MG allowed him to walk. That was a decision that panned out for him, Naslund was done and MG knew it.
As for Sundin, it would have been tough to fit him under the cap for the second season of that offer, but I'm glad that it turned out the way it did. I still think MG knew that Sundin wasn't interested in anything beyond a 1 year deal when he made that offer, and the large money was a way to scare off competitors for his services.
I admire your consistency. I feel like if we get Edler for less than market, like we did with Bieksa and Garrison, it will be worth the wait. In hind sight, last season was a write off anyway, Ehrhoff wasn't going to be the difference with that mess.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keke Mortsons helmet
I do still wonder though, what kind of a player we might have in Ballard in world sans Vig.
I still think AV and his staff might be the best thing that happened to Ballard. He still has a lot of talent, his skating is elite imo, if he can keep tightening up his play he'll be a much better player. I know we didn't trade for Ballard to get a three year project but he can still end up being a valuable contributor or trade chip. I hope.
I admire your consistency. I feel like if we get Edler for less than market, like we did with Bieksa and Garrison, it will be worth the wait. In hind sight, last season was a write off anyway, Ehrhoff wasn't going to be the difference with that mess.
I still think AV and his staff might be the best thing that happened to Ballard. He still has a lot of talent, his skating is elite imo, if he can keep tightening up his play he'll be a much better player. I know we didn't trade for Ballard to get a three year project but he can still end up being a valuable contributor or trade chip. I hope.
But it's still a big mistake even if things work out well, because Ehrhoff's presence doesn't take away from our ability to get Garrison. That's where you would point to Ballard's contract as a mistake, IMO.
Don't get me wrong though, I don't have too huge of a problem with either deal.
But it's still a big mistake even if things work out well, because Ehrhoff's presence doesn't take away from our ability to get Garrison.
Sure it does, we can't afford Bieksa, Ehrhoff and Garrison at 5.5m, which is what it cost if we cave to Ehrhoff. That also probably means giving Edler even more than that... we'd need to get rid of Ballard and we lose out on Garrison.
Winning the Stanley Cup is all that matters! Even though I'm not a fan of some of the things he's done, we're closer now than we were before he got here...so I'll give him that.
Every gm has a list of mistakes, especially the longer they're gm for. For me, Gillis is the guy who turned this franchise from a bunch of pretenders into true contenders. I remember when we used to complain about how Nonis and Burke never did anything bold, well now Gillis has tried things and some have paid off and some haven't. In the end the positives outweigh the negatives by a mile.
It's not the be all end all. Having a competitive team that can put up a fight against anyone in the league is more important.
Over a 10 year period what would you choose: a team who wins the cup in year 1 and then has 9 non-playoff seasons in a row or a team that is consistenly in the playoffs and challenging for the cup each year but doesn't quite win it?
If I'm being honest, I would take being a good team over 10 years. Which is exactly what the Canucks have been for the last 10 years.
It's not the be all end all. Having a competitive team that can put up a fight against anyone in the league is more important.
Over a 10 year period what would you choose: a team who wins the cup in year 1 and then has 9 non-playoff seasons in a row or a team that is consistenly in the playoffs and challenging for the cup each year but doesn't quite win it?
If I'm being honest, I would take being a good team over 10 years. Which is exactly what the Canucks have been for the last 10 years.
The cup, no question about it. Wouldn't even think twice.
On topic, for me it has got to be Sturm. Everything else you can sort of excuse Gillis given what he knew in the moment.
But Sturm... there is no excuses for that. Just a dumb and desperate signing. Doing something isn't better than doing nothing if your something sucks.
It's not the be all end all. Having a competitive team that can put up a fight against anyone in the league is more important.
Over a 10 year period what would you choose: a team who wins the cup in year 1 and then has 9 non-playoff seasons in a row or a team that is consistenly in the playoffs and challenging for the cup each year but doesn't quite win it?
If I'm being honest, I would take being a good team over 10 years. Which is exactly what the Canucks have been for the last 10 years.
Let me ask you this; Would you rather be known as the team that was great in the Regular Season for 10 years or a team that won at least one Stanley Cup over none?
Your question you asked should be answered without any doubts.
The cup, no question about it. Wouldn't even think twice.
On topic, for me it has got to be Sturm. Everything else you can sort of excuse Gillis given what he knew in the moment.
But Sturm... there is no excuses for that. Just a dumb and desperate signing. Doing something isn't better than doing nothing if your something sucks.
As a good GM, MG turned a bad signing into David Booth who could be a top 6 winger for us. Terrible signing, no doubt about it, but I think it shows he's a good enough GM to turn mistakes into possible rewards.
The offer was made; it happened. Gillis was merely lucky that Sundin didn't accept. There is no way the team would have been able to fit the Sedins in under the cap if that deal had been signed. The Sundin offer combined with how close MG allowed the Sedins get to free agency makes me believe that he hadn't planned on keeping them around when he first took over the reigns of the team, and I find that frightening.
You may be frightened but that's pure speculation on your part about the Sedins and his intentions.
