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
03-07-2013, 01:11 AM
  #301
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 17,937
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chubros View Post
I seem to recall Samuelsson being upset at being traded.
He liked the player group, but he was not completely happy, had issues with management. Probably AV pissing him off, maybe something Gillis did. I don't know.

http://vansunsportsblogs.com/2012/07...el-samuelsson/

me2 is offline  
Old
03-07-2013, 01:14 AM
  #302
Momesso
Registered User
 
Momesso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,594
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ginner classic View Post
You could make the case that ballard cost us ehrhoff but not really mitchell. Malkin hit cost mitchell as well as a myopic focus on getting two way play from all 6 d....which never materialized with ballard.
Good point. Still hurts!

Mitchell was one of my favorite Canucks. I really thought he should have worn the "C". I was pissed when he wasn't re-signed, but had my rose coloured Canuck glasses when Ballard was acquired at the draft. I thought, in that offseason, he'd be an upgrade.

Momesso is offline  
Old
03-07-2013, 01:55 AM
  #303
vanuck
Griffiths Way Goons
 
vanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Country: Hong Kong
Posts: 10,035
vCash: 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by RezChi View Post
The thing that screws with me the most is that, fine if it was deemed that we HAD to trade Hodgson, why didn't we wait until draft day to get more or during the off season? We were lacking in secondary scoring, then we trade away our best choice for secondary scoring. Then play the player we traded for, for 4th line minutes. Not to mention Kassian wasn't and still isn't that great offensively.
The choice was made to go after Pahlsson because apparently AV had a bigger hand in player personnel decisions than we all thought. Problem was that we targeted the wrong center out of CBJ, and by extension we went with the wrong approach into the playoffs.

vanuck is offline  
Old
03-07-2013, 03:08 AM
  #304
Stories Tales Lies
and Exaggerations
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,124
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanuck View Post
The choice was made to go after Pahlsson because apparently AV had a bigger hand in player personnel decisions than we all thought. Problem was that we targeted the wrong center out of CBJ, and by extension we went with the wrong approach into the playoffs.
Interesting I did not know this, is there a source? All I remember MG say was they looked at previous cup winners and it was the type of transaction that they had made, or made them more like previous winners, something like that.

Stories Tales Lies is offline  
Old
03-07-2013, 08:45 AM
  #305
hockeywoot
Registered User
 
hockeywoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: China
Posts: 975
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Momesso View Post
Exactly. The deal stands as it was made. Grabner being waived is irrelevant.

The only realistic way the trade becomes a "win" now is if we get a new coach who gets better hockey out of Ballard.

As it stands, losing Mitchell that year and taking on Ballard is a painful thought to bear.
Grabner was a redundant asset.
The price was high, but a top-4 D was the greatest need.

Hamhuis wasn't signed.
Bieksa was expected to be traded.
Mitchell was a big question mark.

Parting with Mitchell made sense.
1) Concussion risk
2) Getting more mobile (Remember getting walked around by the speedy Hawks)

hockeywoot is offline  
Old
03-07-2013, 09:43 AM
  #306
Barney Gumble
Registered User
 
Barney Gumble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 19,888
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeywoot View Post
Grabner was a redundant asset.
His waiver situation (had to clear if sent down) was the bigger problem. Canucks knew that he'd be claimed if put on the waiver wire so they'd lose him for nothing. Given the team's history of multiple injuries to the blueline (which continued AFTER Grabner was dealt), we couldn't keep a forward in the pressbox all season long (reason why Tambo was put on waivers).

You can question the acquisition of Ballard by not the reasons for dealing Grabner (get something for an asset rather than lose him for nothing).

Barney Gumble is offline  
Old
03-07-2013, 10:46 AM
  #307
Fat Tony
Registered User
 
Fat Tony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,449
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeywoot View Post
Grabner was a redundant asset.
That was a common refrain. I hope Gillis doesn't have this mindset when he's looking to trade one of Luongo/Schneider.

Fat Tony is offline  
Old
03-07-2013, 10:47 AM
  #308
SoTzuMe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 327
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fat Tony View Post
That was a common refrain. I hope Gillis doesn't have this mindset when he's looking to trade one of Luongo/Schneider.
Why not? Having both makes one of them redundant -> Trade one for fair value.

SoTzuMe is offline  
Old
03-07-2013, 10:54 AM
  #309
Fat Tony
Registered User
 
Fat Tony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,449
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoTzuMe View Post
Why not? Having both makes one of them redundant -> Trade one for fair value.
The mindset was that we can afford to overpay because of the redundancy, ie. not fair value.

Fat Tony is offline  
Old
03-07-2013, 09:52 PM
  #310
LolClarkson*
Canucks 4 the cup
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Embrace the hate
Posts: 8,102
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeywoot View Post
Grabner was a redundant asset.
The price was high, but a top-4 D was the greatest need.

Hamhuis wasn't signed.
Bieksa was expected to be traded.
Mitchell was a big question mark.

Parting with Mitchell made sense.
1) Concussion risk
2) Getting more mobile (Remember getting walked around by the speedy Hawks)
Every problem doesnt have to be solved in one month. The Hamhuis wasn't signed excuse is getting old. Fact is, MG wanted Ballard no matter what.

I would argue that Grabner would be doing better here then he is on the island.

LolClarkson* is offline  
Old
03-07-2013, 09:56 PM
  #311
PearJuice*
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,109
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goldrunner View Post
Every problem doesnt have to be solved in one month. The Hamhuis wasn't signed excuse is getting old. Fact is, MG wanted Ballard no matter what.

I would argue that Grabner would be doing better here then he is on the island.
I wonder if Gillis even consulted with AV before he pulled the trigger on the Ballard deal.

PearJuice* is offline  
Old
03-07-2013, 09:56 PM
  #312
Wizeman*
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,624
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barney Gumble View Post
His waiver situation (had to clear if sent down) was the bigger problem. Canucks knew that he'd be claimed if put on the waiver wire so they'd lose him for nothing. Given the team's history of multiple injuries to the blueline (which continued AFTER Grabner was dealt), we couldn't keep a forward in the pressbox all season long (reason why Tambo was put on waivers).

You can question the acquisition of Ballard by not the reasons for dealing Grabner (get something for an asset rather than lose him for nothing).
I am so sick of this . Making up crap and then pretending its truth.

Name the source where Grabner was going on waivers.

Wizeman* is offline  
Old
03-07-2013, 09:58 PM
  #313
Wizeman*
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,624
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goldrunner View Post
Every problem doesnt have to be solved in one month. The Hamhuis wasn't signed excuse is getting old. Fact is, MG wanted Ballard no matter what.

I would argue that Grabner would be doing better here then he is on the island.
Its not even this. Its this intelligence insulting idea that the Canucks would have stuck the guy on waivers for nothing if they didnt trade him.

WTF? Gillis has had his gaffes, but he aint Dale Tallon. If he doesnt make the Ballard deal, we keep Grabner. It aint rocket science.

Wizeman* is offline  
Old
03-07-2013, 09:59 PM
  #314
PearJuice*
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,109
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wizeman View Post
I am so sick of this . Making up crap and then pretending its truth.

Name the source where Grabner was going on waivers.
I understand the logic in dealing Grabner (although I disagree with it), but I don't understand why Gillis was so insistent on dealing him for yet another player who didn't fit into AV's system.

PearJuice* is offline  
Old
03-07-2013, 10:01 PM
  #315
PearJuice*
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,109
vCash: 500
Mike Gillis has made a lot of good moves over the years, but I think we can all agree that he does not have a great trading record.

I remember when he got hired there was some speculation that ex-agent Gillis was not well liked among GMs, and that this could impact his ability to make deals.

Does anyone else (besides me) suspect that this is a factor in Gillis not getting the Luongo deal done?

PearJuice* is offline  
Old
03-07-2013, 10:03 PM
  #316
ahmon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 6,228
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Momesso View Post
Good point. Still hurts!

Mitchell was one of my favorite Canucks. I really thought he should have worn the "C". I was pissed when he wasn't re-signed, but had my rose coloured Canuck glasses when Ballard was acquired at the draft. I thought, in that offseason, he'd be an upgrade.
Same Mitchell was one of my favourite players, he was the backbone of the defense.

one of the better stay a home man, that can log 20+ mins against the other teams top lines, strong along boards/front of net, hit, fight and lead.

The fact he was from BC was perfect, like you, I wanted him to be captain over Henrik.

I love the Sedins since the draft, but they are not captain material imo


I was shocked we didn't sign Mitchell, let ehrhoff go for almost nothing, and traded Cody.

ahmon is offline  
Old
03-07-2013, 10:27 PM
  #317
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 17,937
vCash: 50
The Luongo situation is turn out pretty messy for Gillis atm. He was ballsy enough to hold out for the right deal and that was fine when things were going well. However, due to the injuries and the teams recent play he's getting backed into a corner and the gloss has come off Luongo after a red hot start, and Schneider is solid but not the amazing goalie he was the last year or two/playoff. If the team falls behind a NW team in the next week or two he's going to have to make some moves and he's going to get bent over a barrel.

me2 is offline  
Old
03-07-2013, 10:28 PM
  #318
BuggSuperstar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 38
vCash: 500
I was thinking about the lines for next game, what do you guys think:

Sedin Sedin Burrows
Grabner Hodgson Kadri
Hansen Kesler Higgins
Sestito Lapierre Weise

oh wait.....GMMG messed up...never mind.

It's easy to criticize and hindsight is 20/20....but.....this lineup is significantly better and could have been a reality.
If AV wasn't such a fan for AHL grinders with no hands, Hodgson and Grabner would have made this lineups top 6 (for minutes at least) and Hodgson's Dad would have been happy.

It was up to GMMG to realize what AV does to this team.
It was up to GMMG to trade Luongo in the summer instead of keeping him around and messing with team chemistry (this is purely a guess on my part, I have no source).

BuggSuperstar is offline  
Old
03-07-2013, 10:29 PM
  #319
vcanuck
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 131
vCash: 500
Im fed up with MG's 'patience'...

The team has so many holes to fill but he hasnt done anything in months... his only acquisition since the off season is a 4th line waiver pickup.

No 3rd line centre, 4m dollar bottom 6 defenceman, 5m dollar back up and no legit top 6 wingers on the 2nd line.

Im suprised he hasnt gotten enough heat from the fans/media for his lack of moves despite the team having won only 3 times in 11 games...

vcanuck is offline  
Old
03-07-2013, 10:31 PM
  #320
vcanuck
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 131
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BuggSuperstar View Post
I was thinking about the lines for next game, what do you guys think:

Sedin Sedin Kassian
Grabner Hodgson Kadri
Hansen Kesler Burrows
Sestito Lapierre Weise

oh wait.....GMMG F&*^ed up...never mind.

It's easy to criticize and hindsight is 20/20....but.....this lineup is significantly better and could have been a reality.
If AV wasn't such a fan for AHL grinders with no hands, Hodgson and Grabner would have made this lineups top 6 (for minutes at least) and Hodgson's Dad would have been happy.

It was up to GMMG to realize what AV does to this team.
It was up to GMMG to trade Luongo in the summer instead of keeping him around and messing with team chemistry (this is purely a guess on my part, I have no source).
Add to that not re-signing or giving Torres that extra year to a list of screwups.

He underestimated the chemistry Lappy and Torres had in the cup run, those 2 were great for us.

Now we get a revolving door in the 4th line wing.

vcanuck is offline  
Old
03-07-2013, 10:45 PM
  #321
sunnyvale420
Registered User
 
sunnyvale420's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 590
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vcanuck View Post
Add to that not re-signing or giving Torres that extra year to a list of screwups.

He underestimated the chemistry Lappy and Torres had in the cup run, those 2 were great for us.

Now we get a revolving door in the 4th line wing.
Phoenix threw torres a bunch of money and a longer term deal than the canucks couldve matched. Thats no fault on MG. i see MGs biggest failure not being able to re-sign ehrhoff and thinking edler would only get better. Buffalo gave ehrhoff 40 million over 10 years, only 4m cap hit. I would like to believe he wouldve agreed to a 6 year 30m contract. So ballard at 4.2 for 4ish years and losing a first round draftee as well as a later date first round pick or ehrhoff at 5? Ehrhoff being a top 2 pmd or ballard a top 4 panther and 5/6 canuck. Only saving grace was getting hamhuis, could you imagine having ballard in the top 4 in vancouver?

sunnyvale420 is offline  
Old
03-07-2013, 10:48 PM
  #322
LolClarkson*
Canucks 4 the cup
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Embrace the hate
Posts: 8,102
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GaryBettman View Post
I wonder if Gillis even consulted with AV before he pulled the trigger on the Ballard deal.
Highly doubt it. Gillis wanted smaller offensive D men.Ballard and Hamuise fit the mould perfectly

LolClarkson* is offline  
Old
03-07-2013, 10:49 PM
  #323
ahmon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 6,228
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunnyvale420 View Post
Phoenix threw torres a bunch of money and a longer term deal than the canucks couldve matched. Thats no fault on MG.
That bunch of money you are talking about is 1.75 mil per year for 2 years. What a bunch of money
Surely the canucks can't afford a 1.75 mil 3rd liner, but paid malhotra 2.5 on the 4th line last year, and 4.2mil for ballard as a 6-7 dman.

ahmon is offline  
Old
03-07-2013, 10:52 PM
  #324
LolClarkson*
Canucks 4 the cup
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Embrace the hate
Posts: 8,102
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GaryBettman View Post
Mike Gillis has made a lot of good moves over the years, but I think we can all agree that he does not have a great trading record.

I remember when he got hired there was some speculation that ex-agent Gillis was not well liked among GMs, and that this could impact his ability to make deals.

Does anyone else (besides me) suspect that this is a factor in Gillis not getting the Luongo deal done?
There was talk of that but its not relevant anymore. There is more hated hockey guys out there. Kevin Lowe for example

LolClarkson* is offline  
Old
03-07-2013, 10:53 PM
  #325
vcanuck
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 131
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunnyvale420 View Post
Phoenix threw torres a bunch of money and a longer term deal than the canucks couldve matched. Thats no fault on MG. i see MGs biggest failure not being able to re-sign ehrhoff and thinking edler would only get better. Buffalo gave ehrhoff 40 million over 10 years, only 4m cap hit. I would like to believe he wouldve agreed to a 6 year 30m contract. So ballard at 4.2 for 4ish years and losing a first round draftee as well as a later date first round pick or ehrhoff at 5? Ehrhoff being a top 2 pmd or ballard a top 4 panther and 5/6 canuck. Only saving grace was getting hamhuis, could you imagine having ballard in the top 4 in vancouver?
He's only making an extra 500k more than his old contract, was 500k really too much to ask for a guy who played his heart out for the team in our Cup run?

The team didnt mind having Malhotra making 2.5m taking faceoffs, or Ballard 4.2m to be a depth defenceman.

I agree with re-sign Ehrhoff, MG's ego/pride/stubborness got in the way of that i believe.

Im sure Ehrhoff wanted to re-sign, but he wanted to get paid and rightfully so after helping the team's PP be tops of the leauge.

MG tried to lowball offer him and now he's playing for another team and our PP has never been the same.

vcanuck 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 03:28 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.