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

Mike Gillis Discussion Thread

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-04-2013, 05:13 AM
  #76
LolClarkson*
Canucks 4 the cup
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Embrace the hate
Posts: 8,102
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NugentHopkinsfan View Post
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!
Is that a word of support for him ? I just can't forgive him for trading away those guys.

LolClarkson* is offline  
Old
03-04-2013, 05:24 AM
  #77
LolClarkson*
Canucks 4 the cup
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Embrace the hate
Posts: 8,102
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nameless1 View Post
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.



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.
umm as some have pointed out, this core is Dave Nonis's. Sure, Nonis handed out some picks but he was giving the West coast express core its last chance and he didnt cheap out. The Canucks were favorites to go deep in those last couple years.

You make it sound like he gutted the farm as bad as George Ferguson Jr or Daryl Sutter when its not even close.

LolClarkson* is offline  
Old
03-04-2013, 05:29 AM
  #78
NugentHopkinsfan
Registered User
 
NugentHopkinsfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 9,087
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goldrunner View Post
Is that a word of support for him ? I just can't forgive him for trading away those guys.
I don't know if it's support but to me he's been pretty conservative overall in all of his moves except the original Sundin offer.

NugentHopkinsfan is offline  
Old
03-04-2013, 05:33 AM
  #79
NugentHopkinsfan
Registered User
 
NugentHopkinsfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 9,087
vCash: 500
And people can talk about Nonis and his drafting but what about Gillis?

Nonis drafted the following in 4 years:

Raymond
Grabner
Hansen
Edler
Bourdon
Schneider

Gillis so far in 5 years:

Schroeder
Hodgson
Jensen
Gaunce
Maybe another one of two will make it as depth guys


Don't know about you guys but I'll gladly take the first group.

NugentHopkinsfan is offline  
Old
03-04-2013, 05:46 AM
  #80
nameless1
HF's Poet Laureate
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,268
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NugentHopkinsfan View Post
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!
Booth is a top-6 guy.
Injury really derailed him though.
Last year, when he started to get into the groove of things and played well, he injured his knee, which took the momentum out of him.
This year, just before the season, he hurt himself and again had to take time to get back to the speed of things.
He is starting to play better now too, so hopefully this time he can continue his success.

I agree with your assessment on Ballard, but I have to give Gillis some lack.
At the time he was a top-4 D, and he had a proven record of success.
I personally really liked him during his time with the Coyotes.
Who knew he would turn into such a train wreck with the Canucks?

You also have to give him credit for Tanev.
The guy was an undrafted free agent, and now he is in a top-6 role with the Canucks.
That has to lessen the blow of Ballard, and lessen the need for another top-4 d-man.

I know it would be nice to have another top 6 winger and a top-4 d-man, and it is easy to criticize the moves that did not pan out, but at the time, who else was available?
Noone knows, except those who work in the NHL front offices.
There may not be anyone available except those 2.

Plus, look at the deals.
With Booth, Gillis traded Samuelsson and Sturm, 2 free agents to be, and guys who did not fit, for him, a vastly more talented player.
Also, those 2 players made more than Booth.
I see that as a win by itself.
Is it a given that another team would take those 2 for a top-6 winger?
It is highly doubtful.

When Gillis got Ballard, it was necessary.
He did not know he would get Hamhuis later on.
Ballard was just insurance, and if he panned out, the Canucks would have had 5 legit top-4 D.
To be honest, that package the Canucks send could probably have gotten back a better d-man, but we don't know what is available at that time.

Hindsight is always 20-20.
It is easier to criticize now then it is at the time.

nameless1 is offline  
Old
03-04-2013, 05:57 AM
  #81
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,299
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NugentHopkinsfan View Post
And people can talk about Nonis and his drafting but what about Gillis?

Nonis drafted the following in 4 years:

Raymond
Grabner
Hansen
Edler
Bourdon
Schneider

Gillis so far in 5 years:

Schroeder
Hodgson
Jensen
Gaunce
Maybe another one of two will make it as depth guys


Don't know about you guys but I'll gladly take the first group.

Nonis was hired before the draft in 2004. Hard to imagine him having an impact on players outside the 1st round. Even with it, Nonis has only Schneider to show for his tenure. The depth picks are good, but I Tanev and Lack alone make up the difference for Gillis. Corrado and others have yet to make their marks as well.

I would take Gillis's drafting over Nonis's any day. DN's drafts were weak from the outset, whim I have agreed with every 1st rounder Gillis has taken. No comparison IMO.

Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
03-04-2013, 06:40 AM
  #82
nameless1
HF's Poet Laureate
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,268
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goldrunner View Post
umm as some have pointed out, this core is Dave Nonis's. Sure, Nonis handed out some picks but he was giving the West coast express core its last chance and he didnt cheap out. The Canucks were favorites to go deep in those last couple years.

You make it sound like he gutted the farm as bad as George Ferguson Jr or Daryl Sutter when its not even close.
The Canucks were favourites only in Nonis' 1st year at the helm.
However, by the end of the season, people saw how the West Coast Express was its former self, and once Bertuzzi was traded, it was clear the philosophy changed.
From that point on, the Canucks would be a team that would built from the net out.
The Sedins were the new 1st line, and Morrison and Naslund became the support.
It was a brand new era, and in that first year, nobody knew what to expect.
Most expect the Canucks to be a playoff team, but most likely as a 6th to 8th seed.
Even after they won the division and made the 2nd round, most analysts think the Canucks would be a playoff team, but certainly not a contender due to the lack of offense.

I did not imply that he gutted the team.
All I said was that he made really bad draft choices, and he did not help by trading away high draft picks for players who were more of a burden than help.
Eric Weinrich, traded for with a 3rd rounder, retire right after the season, and Keith Carney, acquired for a 2nd rounder, retired 2 years later.
When you watch them, it was clear they were past their prime.
Weinrich, in particular, could barely keep up with the play, and that was on a good day.

These moves could be justified.
At the time, the Canucks needed depth, and they seemed to be good ideas at the time.
However, how could anyone defend him when he traded a 2nd rounder for 3 games of Mika Noronen?
Who in the right mind trades a second rounder for a backup?
He has starter potential, I agree, but the Canucks were fighting for a playoff spot, and there had to be a better move than trading for a backup, with a 2nd rounder, no less.

I understood these moves.
Back then, lots of GMs trade high draft picks for "winners" and wily veterans who GMs hope could provide a calming presence, since they had been through it all before.
Burke did the same throughout his time with the Canucks, and Nonis followed suit.
Those were old-school GM moves.

However, Nonis could have used his resources better.
He misread the new NHL, and thought the old way could still work.
Instead of trading for speed and skill, he got veteran presences.
That was his conservatism at work, because he followed what most in the NHL thought would work.
While he did go for it at the deadline, and was willing to pay a high price, he went for the wrong players, and his moves really did not help the Canucks at all.

Yes, Nonis got a lot of the Canucks' core right now, but his team were always short on depth, and the bottom 2 lines were always a mess.
Gillis, while he has a larger budget due to the increase of the salary cap, made more good moves than bad ones, and his moves provided the Canucks with a lot more depth.
From top to bottom, his team were a lot better than Nonis'.
I give Gillis a lot of credit for building such a contender.


Last edited by nameless1: 03-04-2013 at 06:51 AM.
nameless1 is offline  
Old
03-04-2013, 06:50 AM
  #83
nameless1
HF's Poet Laureate
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,268
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NugentHopkinsfan View Post
I don't know if it's support but to me he's been pretty conservative overall in all of his moves except the original Sundin offer.
I don't think Gillis is that conservative.
The way he got a capologist and all the new ways he used to increase player productivity, such as the sleep doctor, showed that he was willing to try new things.

In terms of trades, he is certainly willing to take risks, more so than Nonis.
The Kassian trade comes to mind.
Can you imagine Nonis doing a trade like that?

nameless1 is offline  
Old
03-04-2013, 09:09 AM
  #84
LolClarkson*
Canucks 4 the cup
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Embrace the hate
Posts: 8,102
vCash: 500
[QUOTE=nameless1;60926191]
Quote:
The Canucks were favourites only in Nonis' 1st year at the helm.
However, by the end of the season, people saw how the West Coast Express was its former self, and once Bertuzzi was traded, it was clear the philosophy changed.
From that point on, the Canucks would be a team that would built from the net out.
The Sedins were the new 1st line, and Morrison and Naslund became the support.
It was a brand new era, and in that first year, nobody knew what to expect.
Most expect the Canucks to be a playoff team, but most likely as a 6th to 8th seed.
This wasn't the team that Nonis made questionable trades with. This was essentially a rebuild team and a total underdog. Remember we had guys like Josh Green and Jan Bulis playing meaningful roles.

Quote:
I did not imply that he gutted the team.
All I said was that he made really bad draft choices, and he did not help by trading away high draft picks for players who were more of a burden than help.
Eric Weinrich, traded for with a 3rd rounder, retire right after the season, and Keith Carney, acquired for a 2nd rounder, retired 2 years later.
When you watch them, it was clear they were past their prime.
Weinrich, in particular, could barely keep up with the play, and that was on a good day.
But those were just picks. Mike Gillis traded away fully developed NHL prospects in Grabner and Hodgson.

Quote:
These moves could be justified.
At the time, the Canucks needed depth, and they seemed to be good ideas at the time.
However, how could anyone defend him when he traded a 2nd rounder for 3 games of Mika Noronen?
Who in the right mind trades a second rounder for a backup?
He has starter potential, I agree, but the Canucks were fighting for a playoff spot, and there had to be a better move than trading for a backup, with a 2nd rounder, no less.
Who was that 2nd rounder ?

Quote:
Yes, Nonis got a lot of the Canucks' core right now, but his team were always short on depth, and the bottom 2 lines were always a mess.
Gillis, while he has a larger budget due to the increase of the salary cap, made more good moves than bad ones, and his moves provided the Canucks with a lot more depth.
From top to bottom, his team were a lot better than Nonis'.
I give Gillis a lot of credit for building such a contender.
I agree somewhat. Nonis didn't have pick ups that were close to what Chris Higgins and Max Lappiere are. None that I can remember. And Erhoff was a home run. I cant remember what he did to get Labarbera.

But why he was so sure of himself to make the Grabner and Hodgson deals I will never know. The Hodgson deal was bad timing and its even bad timing now because of injury no less.


He is capable of making steals so why does he feel the need to over-pay ?

He better not even f$%#%#$ think about trading Shredder or Jensen.

LolClarkson* is offline  
Old
03-04-2013, 09:22 AM
  #85
dave babych returns
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,365
vCash: 500
Mike Gillis has both the eye for building value throughout the organization (I'd point to his handling of contract extensions for players like Alex Burrows and Edler, Jannik Hansen, little deals bringing in guys like Chris Higgins and Christian Ehrhoff, acquiring Booth for nothing, signing players like Tanev, etc) and the vision and resolve to pay the going rate to improve his team (the Sundin contract, the 2010 offseason winning a bidding war for Ballard and giving Manny Malhotra his market value) when the timing is right.

(I'd say each of our previous two GMs had one of these traits, but not the other.. although kudos are due to Dave Nonis for recognizing a golden opportunity and scooping up Luongo.)

Overall I'd say the results have been mostly positive - obviously there are some things left to be desired but no GM is perfect.

dave babych returns is offline  
Old
03-04-2013, 09:27 AM
  #86
Tiranis
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Toronto, ON
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 20,959
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goldrunner View Post
But why he was so sure of himself to make the Grabner and Hodgson deals I will never know. The Hodgson deal was bad timing and its even bad timing now because of injury no less.
Grabner would've never accomplished anything here. This is a guy that the Panthers couldn't even trade and had to waive, think about that! Then when he was waived, neither Nonis nor Arniel had their team pick him up. These were the 2 guys that were the most familiar with him and they didn't think he was worthy of a roster spot on their teams. Then he needed 30+ games of 2nd line ice-time while not producing to break out. Where else was he going to get that but on the Islanders?


Last edited by Tiranis: 03-04-2013 at 09:37 AM.
Tiranis is offline  
Old
03-04-2013, 09:31 AM
  #87
Barney Gumble
Registered User
 
Barney Gumble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 19,903
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiranis View Post
Grabner would've never accomplished anything here. This is a guy that the Panthers couldn't even trade and had to waive, think about that! Then when he was waived, neither Nonis nor Arniel had their team pick him up. These were the 2 guys that were the most familiar with him and they didn't think he was worthy of a roster spot on their teams. Then he need 30+ games of 2nd line ice-time while not producing to break out. Where else was he going to get that but on the Islanders?
And people forget, the guy actually *did the same thing* initially for the Islanders (float); difference is, that team was so bad, they had nobody better to take that roster spot (at that cheap salary) & were able to wait until he came around.

Barney Gumble is offline  
Old
03-04-2013, 09:41 AM
  #88
Intoewsables
 
 
Intoewsables's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,138
vCash: 717
Quote:
Originally Posted by NugentHopkinsfan View Post
And people can talk about Nonis and his drafting but what about Gillis?

Nonis drafted the following in 4 years:

Raymond
Grabner
Hansen
Edler
Bourdon
Schneider

Gillis so far in 5 years:

Schroeder
Hodgson
Jensen
Gaunce
Maybe another one of two will make it as depth guys


Don't know about you guys but I'll gladly take the first group.
And I'll take the success the team has had during the Gillis era over the Nonis era, meaning lower picks to work with. Not to mention, that's a pretty unfair way of comparing drafting considering the Nonis picks have had far more development time. If you're going to include guys like Jensen and Gaunce, you may as well include someone like Corrado as well. Also, guys like Tanev and Lack weren't drafted, but they're promising young prospects (especially the former) brought in by Gillis.

To be fair to Nonis, his drafting was certainly better than Burke's but let's not forget about his horrid 2007 draft which hasn't even managed to produce a regular AHL player let alone a legitimate NHL talent. The only hope to salvage anything at this point is Taylor Matson, who has a grand total of 7 AHL games under his belt at 24 years old. Brutal.

Intoewsables is offline  
Old
03-04-2013, 10:19 AM
  #89
LolClarkson*
Canucks 4 the cup
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Embrace the hate
Posts: 8,102
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave babych returns View Post
Mike Gillis has both the eye for building value throughout the organization (I'd point to his handling of contract extensions for players like Alex Burrows and Edler, Jannik Hansen, little deals bringing in guys like Chris Higgins and Christian Ehrhoff, acquiring Booth for nothing, signing players like Tanev, etc) and the vision and resolve to pay the going rate to improve his team (the Sundin contract, the 2010 offseason winning a bidding war for Ballard and giving Manny Malhotra his market value) when the timing is right.

(I'd say each of our previous two GMs had one of these traits, but not the other.. although kudos are due to Dave Nonis for recognizing a golden opportunity and scooping up Luongo.)

Overall I'd say the results have been mostly positive - obviously there are some things left to be desired but no GM is perfect.
So all you are going to give Nonis credit for is the Loungo trade ?

Mike Gillis got over-confident. He should just let the deals come to him. His big deals are not good. Not everyone will agree with you that he won some bidding war for Ballard, that the Sundin signing was smart, that paying Burrows 6 million after his prime and taking on Booths 4.5 million dollar contract were good things.

LolClarkson* is offline  
Old
03-04-2013, 10:19 AM
  #90
Horvat2Virtanen
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Horvat2Virtanen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 33,888
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goldrunner View Post
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.
Um what? Nonis did anything but "rebuilt" He was constantly moving picks for over the hill players his drafting was terrible, aside from the Luongo deal Nonis did nothing to make this team a contender unlike Gillis.

Horvat2Virtanen is offline  
Old
03-04-2013, 10:26 AM
  #91
Barney Gumble
Registered User
 
Barney Gumble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 19,903
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goldrunner View Post
So all you are going to give Nonis credit for is the Loungo trade ?

Mike Gillis got over-confident. He should just let the deals come to him. His big deals are not good. Not everyone will agree with you that he won some bidding war for Ballard, that the Sundin signing was smart, that paying Burrows 6 million after his prime and taking on Booths 4.5 million dollar contract were good things.
1) Course not; not everyone is a clone of one person. Everyone has their own opinions.
2) Sundin blew chunks in the regular season; but when it really counts - the post-season, he was one of our better forwards.
3) Not your or my money - what should you care about what Burrows is actually paid next season? It's his cap hit that is the only relevant thing (seeing as he doesn't have a Luongo length deal). Maybe if there's a local real estate crash, that might be of significance....

Barney Gumble is offline  
Old
03-04-2013, 10:31 AM
  #92
dave babych returns
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,365
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goldrunner View Post
So all you are going to give Nonis credit for is the Loungo trade ?
No. Sorry if it wasn't clear, with the exception of the Luongo trade all Nonis could do is make small, piecemeal improvements to the team (most of which consisted of sensible contract extensions and signing Willie Mitchell).

Nonis' problem is that he did not know when to pony up and make something happen - I'm not saying a GM should do that at any cost, but Dave Nonis left gaping holes on his roster over the span of multiple seasons.. something that can be excused if you're winning but Nonis' team stopped doing that.

Quote:
Mike Gillis got over-confident. He should just let the deals come to him. His big deals are not good. Not everyone will agree with you that he won some bidding war for Ballard, that the Sundin signing was smart, that paying Burrows 6 million after his prime and taking on Booths 4.5 million dollar contract were good things.
Keith Ballard was dealt to the highest bidder on the draft floor in 2010. Mike Gillis went into a situation where multiple teams were inquiring about an established player and came out with said player. It might not have turned out to be a great move for this franchise but you absolutely can claim that Gillis won a bidding war in that case.

He also went out and signed Manny Malhotra and Mikael Samuelsson to market value contracts that worked out excellently (Manny's injury is obviously an exceptional development).

The Sundin signing was risk free. I know you're going to tell me we could have been saddled with a 2 year $20m deal but if you think Sundin was going to take a two year deal when he didn't even know if he'd play for one you are either gullible or letting your frustration with Mike Gillis (or your enthusiasm for arguing) get in the way of the truth.

As for your other comments I'll just say that you've picked some excellent straw men to defeat here.

My original comment was meant to point out the Mike Gillis has a good sense of when to make a push.. not to celebrate the specific deals he made in doing so but to point out that he saw his team was on the verge of greatness and made moves to support that core group in taking the next step (which got them within 1 game of a cup.).

Obviously it remains to be seen whether his sense of timing is as strong going forward.

dave babych returns is offline  
Old
03-04-2013, 10:33 AM
  #93
LolClarkson*
Canucks 4 the cup
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Embrace the hate
Posts: 8,102
vCash: 500
[QUOTE=Tiranis;60930365]
Quote:
Grabner would've never accomplished anything here.
He got a hatrick here. He has more raw talent then Raymond or Hansen. They would find a role for him.

Quote:
This is a guy that the Panthers couldn't even trade and had to waive, think about that!
Evidently that was a mistake. I live in Edmonton and for some reason, even the local Oil guy knew that we gave up quite a bit.
Quote:
Then when he was waived, neither Nonis nor Arniel had their team pick him up.
Are you sure that stuff was crossing their desks at the time ?
Quote:
Then he needed 30+ games of 2nd line ice-time while not producing to break out.
I remember after the trade, the Grabner fans (me) where point counting right away. Its took a lot less then 30 games.

Quote:
Where else was he going to get that but on the Islanders?
None of that matters anymore because he proved himself. If Florida had the brains to keep him, he would be getting a hell of a lot more points then he is now. He would fit that team like a glove.

I work with an Islanders fan and he just loves Grabner. He is fun to watch.

LolClarkson* is offline  
Old
03-04-2013, 10:36 AM
  #94
Barney Gumble
Registered User
 
Barney Gumble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 19,903
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goldrunner View Post
Are you sure that stuff was crossing their desks at the time ?
Nonis was the assistant GM - that's part of his responsibility (we ain't talking about the 50/50 salesperson). The Leafs then were hardly full of legitimate NHL forwards. He drafted and scouted the player personally.

Barney Gumble is offline  
Old
03-04-2013, 10:41 AM
  #95
LolClarkson*
Canucks 4 the cup
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Embrace the hate
Posts: 8,102
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barney Gumble View Post
1) Course not; not everyone is a clone of one person. Everyone has their own opinions.
2) Sundin blew chunks in the regular season; but when it really counts - the post-season, he was one of our better forwards.
3) Not your or my money - what should you care about what Burrows is actually paid next season? It's his cap hit that is the only relevant thing (seeing as he doesn't have a Luongo length deal). Maybe if there's a local real estate crash, that might be of significance....
I think there was room to do better then 4.5 for Burrows (Nonis player)

LolClarkson* is offline  
Old
03-04-2013, 10:41 AM
  #96
Canadian Gold X3
It is what it is.
 
Canadian Gold X3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Nanaimo B.C
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,456
vCash: 500
Grabner wasn't anything special, he would've been in the doghouse for the majority of his career.

Canadian Gold X3 is offline  
Old
03-04-2013, 10:41 AM
  #97
Barney Gumble
Registered User
 
Barney Gumble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 19,903
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goldrunner View Post
I think there was room to do better then 4.5 for Burrows (Nonis player)
I'm game. Who?

Barney Gumble is offline  
Old
03-04-2013, 10:51 AM
  #98
LolClarkson*
Canucks 4 the cup
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Embrace the hate
Posts: 8,102
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave babych returns View Post
No. Sorry if it wasn't clear, with the exception of the Luongo trade all Nonis could do is make small, piecemeal improvements to the team (most of which consisted of sensible contract extensions and signing Willie Mitchell).

Nonis' problem is that he did not know when to pony up and make something happen - I'm not saying a GM should do that at any cost, but Dave Nonis left gaping holes on his roster over the span of multiple seasons.. something that can be excused if you're winning but Nonis' team stopped doing that.



Keith Ballard was dealt to the highest bidder on the draft floor in 2010. Mike Gillis went into a situation where multiple teams were inquiring about an established player and came out with said player. It might not have turned out to be a great move for this franchise but you absolutely can claim that Gillis won a bidding war in that case.

He also went out and signed Manny Malhotra and Mikael Samuelsson to market value contracts that worked out excellently (Manny's injury is obviously an exceptional development).

The Sundin signing was risk free. I know you're going to tell me we could have been saddled with a 2 year $20m deal but if you think Sundin was going to take a two year deal when he didn't even know if he'd play for one you are either gullible or letting your frustration with Mike Gillis (or your enthusiasm for arguing) get in the way of the truth.

As for your other comments I'll just say that you've picked some excellent straw men to defeat here.

My original comment was meant to point out the Mike Gillis has a good sense of when to make a push.. not to celebrate the specific deals he made in doing so but to point out that he saw his team was on the verge of greatness and made moves to support that core group in taking the next step (which got them within 1 game of a cup.).

Obviously it remains to be seen whether his sense of timing is as strong going forward.
Gillis traded away developed prospects just when they were breaking into the league. That is the issue with him.

Nonis didn't do that nor would he.

LolClarkson* is offline  
Old
03-04-2013, 10:56 AM
  #99
LolClarkson*
Canucks 4 the cup
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Embrace the hate
Posts: 8,102
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barney Gumble View Post
I'm game. Who?
Burrows for 3.6

LolClarkson* is offline  
Old
03-04-2013, 10:57 AM
  #100
AndyPipkin
PSN: Lord_Of_War
 
AndyPipkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Victoria, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,489
vCash: 341
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goldrunner View Post
Gillis traded away developed prospects just when they were breaking into the league. That is the issue with him.

Nonis didn't do that nor would he.
No he never had the chance to, because he gave away every 2nd - 4th round pick on a list of terrible hockey players, that for the most part, were out of the league the very next year. Weinrich, Karney, Noronen etc.(It is a very long list.)

Of course Nonis deserves some credit for getting Luongo, but how much credit does he get for having fallen ass backwards into a trade because FLA ownership forced Keenan to move Luongo and he was framiliar with Bertuzzi.

And can people stop saying Burrows was a Nonis or Burke player. The reason he is here with us now has always been because of Craig Heisinger.

AndyPipkin 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 10:07 PM.

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.