Does anyone have a scouting report on the twins before they were drafted? I'm curious to see what it was since according to stories, Burke drafted Kesler based on a single shift he took at OSU. I want to know that Burke (and other GMs) had a legitimate reason to draft the twins.
5/6 were already here when Gillis arrived. Both goalies were already here, the coaching staff was already here, Bieksa and Edler as well.
Mike Gillis has made mostly depth moves, some very good ones and some terrible ones(Booth and Ballard) and the best move he made was Ehrhoff and he couldn't keep him and now we lack the transition game, speed, powerplay presence, and aren't able to play the same way without him.
Gillis has literally sat on his ass and made depth moves because he inherited ALL of the key parts of this team. If we don't make it out of the second round it will be 1 year out of 5 that we have and even then we needed 4 games plus overtime to beat a watered down Hawks team and then lucked out with a Preds team that couldn't create anything. Overall the results have been very disappointing considering our regular season success.
I'm honestly not as impressed with him as most are. His contracts have been amazing but then he trades for guys that are overpaid and negates that a bit. He's the exact opposite of a guy that makes bold moves. I want him to get the job done but I don't know if he can.
5/6 were already here when Gillis arrived. Both goalies were already here, the coaching staff was already here, Bieksa and Edler as well.
Mike Gillis has made mostly depth moves, some very good ones and some terrible ones(Booth and Ballard) and the best move he made was Ehrhoff and he couldn't keep him and now we lack the transition game, speed, powerplay presence, and aren't able to play the same way without him.
Gillis has literally sat on his ass and made depth moves because he inherited ALL of the key parts of this team. If we don't make it out of the second round it will be 1 year out of 5 that we have and even then we needed 4 games plus overtime to beat a watered down Hawks team and then lucked out with a Preds team that couldn't create anything. Overall the results have been very disappointing considering our regular season success.
I'm honestly not as impressed with him as most are. His contracts have been amazing but then he trades for guys that are overpaid and negates that a bit. He's the exact opposite of a guy that makes bold moves. I want him to get the job done but I don't know if he can.
How do you explain the team going from being a Bottom 10 team to winning the division, winning the PT twice, and getting to Game 7 SCF? Somehow that same personnel couldn't perform to anywhere near the same level before he arrived.
What did Burke do, outside of drafting the twins and Kesler? Honest question.
When Burke was hired, the Canucks were one of the worst team in the league.
That year, in 1998, the Canucks finished with 58 points, and had the 4th overall pick.
Soon, he traded for Jovanovski and Morrison, and they help formed the nucleus of the West Coast Express era.
Minor, but still important transactions, included the trade for Trett Klatt, and the signing of Andrew Cassels, who added depth to the center position and was virtually a #1 or #2 center for much of his time here, and Scott Lachance, a good and reliable stay at home defenseman.
The hiring of Crawford was also the right move, because he allowed Naslund and Bertuzzi to flourish.
Finally, he did draft and sign Bieksa.
A more questionable move might be the acquisition of Cloutier, but he did have a couple of 30+ wins seasons.
Under Burke, the Canucks had an improvement of 20 points in the very next season, and they made the playoffs 2 years later.
After that, the team continued to make the playoffs, and were always one of the most entertaining teams in the league.
All this time, he had to build a team with an internal budget of around $40 to $45 million dollars, a middle of the road budget, against juggernauts who can spend $70 millions plus.
Of course, Burke made his fair share of mistakes, which included his weak drafts, some useless bargain signings, his eternal search for goalies, and his hardline stance on salaries, which caused important role players to sign elsewhere.
However, I do credit him with the turnaround, and the building of an entertaining and strong product on the ice.
How do you explain the team going from being a Bottom 10 team to winning the division, winning the PT twice, and getting to Game 7 SCF? Somehow that same personnel couldn't perform to anywhere near the same level before he arrived.
Does anyone have a scouting report on the twins before they were drafted? I'm curious to see what it was since according to stories, Burke drafted Kesler based on a single shift he took at OSU. I want to know that Burke (and other GMs) had a legitimate reason to draft the twins.
If I remember correctly, the scouting report was that they were very skilled and creative players who does some amazing things with the puck.
One was a passer, and the other was the finisher.
At that time, people already noted that they had an ESP, and they knew where each other was on the ice.
They also said they needed to work on their strength, but that was less of a concern because it could be built up.
Speed was also a weakness, but since it mattered less back then due to the clutch and hold style of play, most scouts and management were not that concerned.
The real concern was that most thought the Sedins were probably better together, and if separated, one scout estimated that their effectiveness would decrease by about 15% each.
Thus, there was a rumor that claimed that they would probably stay in Sweden if they were drafted by separate teams.
According to stories, that rumor was the only reason why Tampa Bay, who had the 1st overall pick and wanted to take Daniel, relented and traded the pick to Burke.
This is what I gleamed from my memory, so I may be wrong on some accounts.
I am pretty sure there is a video on youtube.
Gillis is a good GM. Do I think he's over rated by some Canuck fans? Definitely. This guy was treated like he walked on water or something until last season. The love affair isn't so bad anymore as people realize hes human. He's more than made his share of mistakes. Some really bad ones. He did inherit a good team here but deserves credit for adding the right pieces. His ego is annoying sometimes and has cost him at times IMO. Overall I am content that he's our GM but the pedestal he's on(or was) did get annoying
Burke getting both Sedins is one the finest example of GM wheeling and dealing that there's ever been.
True, there's no denying that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goldrunner
He built a competative and entertaining team back when the northwest was the toughest division in the league.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nameless1
When Burke was hired, the Canucks were one of the worst team in the league.
That year, in 1998, the Canucks finished with 58 points, and had the 4th overall pick.
Soon, he traded for Jovanovski and Morrison, and they help formed the nucleus of the West Coast Express era.
Minor, but still important transactions, included the trade for Trett Klatt, and the signing of Andrew Cassels, who added depth to the center position and was virtually a #1 or #2 center for much of his time here, and Scott Lachance, a good and reliable stay at home defenseman.
The hiring of Crawford was also the right move, because he allowed Naslund and Bertuzzi to flourish.
Finally, he did draft and sign Bieksa.
A more questionable move might be the acquisition of Cloutier, but he did have a couple of 30+ wins seasons.
Under Burke, the Canucks had an improvement of 20 points in the very next season, and they made the playoffs 2 years later.
After that, the team continued to make the playoffs, and were always one of the most entertaining teams in the league.
All this time, he had to build a team with an internal budget of around $40 to $45 million dollars, a middle of the road budget, against juggernauts who can spend $70 millions plus.
Of course, Burke made his fair share of mistakes, which included his weak drafts, some useless bargain signings, his eternal search for goalies, and his hardline stance on salaries, which caused important role players to sign elsewhere.
However, I do credit him with the turnaround, and the building of an entertaining and strong product on the ice.
Thanks. I asked that question because I wasn't sure if he ever really built the Canucks into a legitimate contender, despite them being a high-scoring and entertaining team to watch. Competitive, yes, but there's a difference. They were able to get by with poor goaltending in the regular season but it would always seem to be a major letdown for them in the playoffs. He deserves credit for the franchise turnaround, but I'm not convinced the Canucks were ever a true threat to win it all, with them being what they were - a one-line team with a decent defense and unreliable goaltending. His stubborn refusal to address this area of weakness would also be a troubling sign of things to come in Toronto several years later.
How do you explain the team going from being a Bottom 10 team to winning the division, winning the PT twice, and getting to Game 7 SCF? Somehow that same personnel couldn't perform to anywhere near the same level before he arrived.
Gillis changed the culture, made AV open it up and brought in some mobile d-men, especially Ehrhoff. He deserves credit for that.
We have played in the worst overall division in the league over the last 5 years. We have made it past the second round ONE time despite all these amazing regular season accomplishments which IMO mean nothing if it doesn't carry into the playoffs.
The year we went to the finals we didn't face an elite team, we played the Hawks after they were torn apart and needed 4 tries to beat them, the Preds that were solid defensively but not great, and a Sharks team known for doing the same thing we do, losing in the playoffs! The road to the finals was easy in 2011 compared to what it would've been in 09 and 10 and 12. It was a great run but everything was set up for us that year.
Nobody can say he makes core additions or tough moves...
Sedin Sedin Burrows
Raymond Kesler Hansen
depth depth depth
depth depth depth
Edler Bieksa
garrison(salo) Hamhuis(mitchell)
depth overpaid depth(ballard)
Luongo
Schneider
Entire coaching staff
He rotates the depth positions year to year but that's it. He gets way too much credit. And IMO we aren't making it out of the second round this year so it will be 1/5 in that regard. Hardly a great job given our regular season point totals.
I'm not saying Gillis is bad because he's not a bad GM, but everything he has accomplished is due to pieces already in place, he just allowed AV to utilize those pieces better and had a bunch of cap room the year he took over to improve the depth from the Nonis days. The reason Nonis had a bad 07/08 was because we had no cap room and thus no depth. But his draft picks like Hansen, Raymond, Edler, Schneider have all been really solid and cheap players for Gillis to take advantage of in addition to all that cap space and a couple local guys wanting to play here.
Also, he hasn't brought in an impact top 6 forward since the 2008 calendar year, despite an obvious need for playoff scoring. It's troubling to think the only way he can get one is if it's a broken down 38 year old that is offered 10 million dollars.
Gillis is a good management guy. The trains arrive on time.
But I don't like his trading record. He's not conservative enough for me.
What has he traded away besides Hodgson and Grabner/2010 first?
A lot of 2/3 round picks, minor league guys.
He hasn't traded or traded for a single top 6 forward(Booth doesn't count) or top 4 d-man(Ballard hasn't been one) other than Ehrhoff, and that's in 5 years!
Can't believe this is even being discussed right now... Absolutely pathetic. Be grateful we have a GM like Gillis.
You can't believe that the GM of the Vancouver Canucks is being discussed in a forum dedicated to the Vancouver Canucks? And you think that that's absolutely pathetic?
Thanks. I asked that question because I wasn't sure if he ever really built the Canucks into a legitimate contender, despite them being a high-scoring and entertaining team to watch. Competitive, yes, but there's a difference. They were able to get by with poor goaltending in the regular season but it would always seem to be a major letdown for them in the playoffs. He deserves credit for the franchise turnaround, but I'm not convinced the Canucks were ever a true threat to win it all, with them being what they were - a one-line team with a decent defense and unreliable goaltending. His stubborn refusal to address this area of weakness would also be a troubling sign of things to come in Toronto several years later.
This sums it up.
Fans like to think the team is close, but it really was not.
There was 1 great line, but it disappears in the playoffs.
The Sedins anchor the 2nd line, but unfortunately, due to how tight defenses can check back in those days, they get shut down fairly easily.
They really did not put everything together until after the rule changes.
Add that with a goalie who was really being shielded by the team in front of him, and is prone to meltdowns here and there, the team really was not a true contender.
It needed to be like L.A., which was a middle of the road team who caught fire and won it all.
Nevertheless, you have to remember, back then, the Canucks were not allowed to spend a lot of money.
They had a middle of the road budget that is at the bottom half of all the teams, and what Burke was able to accomplish with limited resources was quite a feat.
The Canucks may not be true Cup contenders, but they were a top 10 team, and that is a pretty good accomplishment from where they were when he got hired.
Burke, even though he did not win the ultimate prize, deserves a lot of credit for the Canucks' success back then.
Because Nonis endured the rebuild years after Burkes core was gone. And he did a good job of that. He replenished the farm and got Loungo.
Vanuck is right.
Nonis did not replenish the farm at all.
He gave up 2nd rounders like candy, and there really is basically nothing to show for his drafts after the lockout.
The only NHLers he drafted after the lockout were Mason Raymond and Michael Grabner, with Luc Bourdon being a high possibility.
07 was especially bad.
Not 1 player he drafted made even 1 NHL appearance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goldrunner
Gillis is a good management guy. The trains arrive on time.
But I don't like his trading record. He's not conservative enough for me.
As oppose to Nonis'?
Who was super conservative and traded 2nd rounders for over-the-hill depth who did not help the team at all?
I don't mind Gillis' trading.
He made some great trades, with the Ehrhoff trade being the most notable, and took some appropriate risks, such as the Ballard trade and the Hodgson trade.
When he traded for Ballard, Grabner would not have a place on the team, and Bernier was a cap dump, while the 1st rounder seem like an appropriate add on.
For the Hodgson deal, he had worn out his welcome here to the management, and Kassian is a commodity that the Canucks did not have anywhere in the system.
At the same time, he got Gragnani, someone who was the AHL defenseman of the year, and who had potential to be more.
While Kassian had gone cold now, and Gragnani was let go, Hodgson has his own issues, despite scoring more.
This trade was as much as a now trade as it was a future one.
It had to be judged in a few years time, but for now, I am ok with that risk because I see Kassian's potential and I hope he can figure everything out.
Just Kidding, Sorry, I could not resist
