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

Why does Gillis get a free Pass?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-09-2013, 10:51 PM
  #151
CanaFan
Registered User
 
CanaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,756
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barney Gumble View Post
I'll admit I'm guilty of this often in the case of players no longer with the organization (see Cody Hodgson as an example).

I would guess you follow the Fishsticks far closer than me. Any reason why they weren't using a player with goal scoring ability at all on the PP in the playoffs (particularly when Fleury was craptacular in net)? Or do they follow the Canucks model of loading up on one "super PP unit" with no/little time for the 2nd unit?
Not really, I follow Grabner as much as I can but don't follow the NYI more than any other team. Could be chemistry, coaches preference, or maybe even that Grabner pks a fair bit and so is saved for that where his speed is more useful than on a half-wall power play. Besides, even I'll admit he is a primarily shoot-first player in the Phil Kessel mode, so probably isn't the best option on a PP centred around Tavares ...

CanaFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2013, 10:53 PM
  #152
Rick Sanchez
Wub a lub a dub dub
 
Rick Sanchez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Center of nowhere
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,781
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NugentHopkinsfan View Post
So his drafting is questionable at best.

His trading awful without dispute.

His signings good.


That does not make a GM grea convienatly t like so many think. Hasn't had to bring in a coach, starting goalie, or first line forward... he's had it way too easy to be so smug.
So all his trades are awful?

I guess you're just going to conveniently ignore the trades that worked out. Do you really think the Canucks would have made it to the finals without Ehrhoff, Lappy, and Higgins. All of whom were had for peanuts, Hell even though Booth never worked out he was acquired for garbage assets.

Im not saying he has an impecabble trade history but to say his trades are all awful is revisionist history at best. Though judging from all your posts it seems like Gillis ran over your dog, so much hate.

Rick Sanchez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2013, 09:20 AM
  #153
hockeywoot
Registered User
 
hockeywoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: China
Posts: 1,125
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NugentHopkinsfan View Post
So his drafting is questionable at best.

His trading awful without dispute.

His signings good.


That does not make a GM great like so many think. Hasn't had to bring in a coach, starting goalie, or first line forward... he's had it way too easy to be so smug.

You folks have it way too easy to be hyper-critical.
Though all you armchair GMs are experts I'm sure.

Sure drafting could be better, but several have already played in NHL games and looked comfortable.
Not a stretch to think some will see more time next year.
Free agent signings Tanev and Lack are not too shabby.
Corrado was a steal.

His trading is awful? Says who? You?
Well that must make it so.

Trades aren't simply about 'winning the trade'
There has to be a reasonable basis for both GMs to make a hockey trade.
You realize that GMs don't have a magic crystal ball.
They don't have the benefit of hindsight.

Booth trade is a good trade. Fair price.
Acquire help upfront without giving up anything of value.

Roy trade is a good trade.
Acquire a centre (as everyone here was begging for) for the post season.
Not much of value given up. Neither Connauton nor the second would help much this postseason.

Neither trade worked out, but you make those trades 10 times out of 10.

Ballard trade was pricey (1st more than anything) , but one you make when contending for a cup.
Grabner was so awesome that he was waived by the Panthers.
We needed defencemen. (Hamhuis wasn't signed yet)


Hodgson trade is a good trade. (Timing not so great)
Please enlighten me. Who could Hodgson have gotten in return?
A young talented player for the future. Who was available that we should have gotten? hmmm?
Matt Duchene???
Brayden Schenn???
Jordan Eberle???
Ryan O'Reilly??? Landeskog???
Tyler Seguin????
Del Zotto???McDonagh??? lmao

Teams aren't typically looking to trade these kinds of players away.
The problem with you people is not only that you demand perfection, but you EXPECT it.

hockeywoot is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2013, 10:15 AM
  #154
Royal Canuck
Ronnie Hockey!
 
Royal Canuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Victoria, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,291
vCash: 814
Gillis doesn't get a "free pass". Like he said at the press conference, he will be evaluated just like everyone else.

__________________

Twitter |HFBoards Contact | Blog
PSN - TBennz
"You're never a loser until you quit trying. " - Mike Ditka
Royal Canuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2013, 10:44 AM
  #155
Mitts McCann
Registered User
 
Mitts McCann's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,373
vCash: 500
I guess I'm in the minority who loves Mike Gillis? He's a really smart man and I'm comfortable with him at the helm. He leaves no stone unturned. Yes, he's made some trades that he probably wouldn't have in hindsight, but there's risk in every trade. Your not going to win them all. Also, players produce under different circumstances. Just because Grabner scored 30 goals or Hodgson scored 30+ points doesn't mean they would have done it here or been successful here. You can look at Gillis' angle on everything he's done and say "ya that makes sense" but it doesn't always work out the way they planned. At least he has the balls to make moves. Ballard, it made sense - Hodgson trade made sense.... same with Booth. Everybody expects perfection but it doesn't always happen. Name me a gm that's perfect? Not even Holland.

Mitts McCann is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2013, 03:49 AM
  #156
hockeywoot
Registered User
 
hockeywoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: China
Posts: 1,125
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuck This View Post
I guess I'm in the minority who loves Mike Gillis? He's a really smart man and I'm comfortable with him at the helm. He leaves no stone unturned. Yes, he's made some trades that he probably wouldn't have in hindsight, but there's risk in every trade. Your not going to win them all. Also, players produce under different circumstances. Just because Grabner scored 30 goals or Hodgson scored 30+ points doesn't mean they would have done it here or been successful here. You can look at Gillis' angle on everything he's done and say "ya that makes sense" but it doesn't always work out the way they planned. At least he has the balls to make moves. Ballard, it made sense - Hodgson trade made sense.... same with Booth. Everybody expects perfection but it doesn't always happen. Name me a gm that's perfect? Not even Holland.
This. Fans due to their emotional attachment and investment are neither realistic, nor rational.

Making a trade for defence, at a time where defence is a gaping hole. Yup terrible trade
Making a trade to address scoring without giving valuable assets. Yup just terrible.

Moving a young, talented player that is not being a team player and is being unreasonable with icetime demands. Moving said player, before he demands a trade or holds out. Moving said young, talented player for another young, talented player. Yup just terrible.

hockeywoot is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2013, 05:02 AM
  #157
Yossarian54
Registered User
 
Yossarian54's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Perth, WA
Country: Australia
Posts: 1,226
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuck This View Post
I guess I'm in the minority who loves Mike Gillis? He's a really smart man and I'm comfortable with him at the helm. He leaves no stone unturned. Yes, he's made some trades that he probably wouldn't have in hindsight, but there's risk in every trade. Your not going to win them all. Also, players produce under different circumstances. Just because Grabner scored 30 goals or Hodgson scored 30+ points doesn't mean they would have done it here or been successful here. You can look at Gillis' angle on everything he's done and say "ya that makes sense" but it doesn't always work out the way they planned. At least he has the balls to make moves. Ballard, it made sense - Hodgson trade made sense.... same with Booth. Everybody expects perfection but it doesn't always happen. Name me a gm that's perfect? Not even Holland.
No, I tend to agree with you.

I only have two minor gripes, they being not ditching Ballard immediately after 10-11 to allow Ehrhoff to stay; and seeming to want move towards a more grinding style when skill worked just fine up until then. But in both cases, there is a clear and justifiable rationale behind the decisions, which means I am comfortable with the man, if not those particular decisions.

What I find absolutely amazing to the point of complete bafflement is people criticising him for not moving Luongo at the deadline. Say we had moved him. Would we, as a fanbase, have been happy with the idea of Joe Cannata or a randomly obtained backup-calibre (AT BEST) goalie back-stopping this team in the Playoffs? Gillis would have been absolutely pilloried. As it is, the team was ****, and we choked. Oh well. Not really on goaltending. But to suggest that the lack of a deadline Luongo trade was a failing, when the worst case scenario of a Schneider injury came true... it's astonishing.

Yossarian54 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2013, 09:44 AM
  #158
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yossarian54 View Post
e point of complete bafflement is people criticising him for not moving Luongo at the deadline. Say we had moved him. Would we, as a fanbase, have been happy with the idea of Joe Cannata or a randomly obtained backup-calibre (AT BEST) goalie back-stopping this team in the Playoffs?
We were just swept in the first round. How would getting assets for Luongo and playing Canata have resulted in a worse outcome?

Gillis has completely screwed up the Luongo situation, there's just no getting around that.

  Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2013, 09:56 AM
  #159
ddawg1950
Registered User
 
ddawg1950's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,998
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
We were just swept in the first round. How would getting assets for Luongo and playing Canata have resulted in a worse outcome?

Gillis has completely screwed up the Luongo situation, there's just no getting around that.
Ain't over until it's over. And it ain't over yet.

I will agree Gillis put himself, or the team, in a tough position, by waiting for the right deal but I've always thought the draft/FA period will be the time he is moved.

And I like Lou, but he should have shut the **** up after the end of last season and Gillis may have been able to maximize the asset.

ddawg1950 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2013, 10:30 AM
  #160
Yossarian54
Registered User
 
Yossarian54's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Perth, WA
Country: Australia
Posts: 1,226
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
We were just swept in the first round. How would getting assets for Luongo and playing Canata have resulted in a worse outcome?
Yes, I realise that. But that is the purest case of '20/20 hindsight' (and I mean that with its negative connotation) you will ever see.

Imagine if we were about to start a 7 game play-off series. Your number 1 goalie is injured. Which option do you think gives us a better chance to win: playing one of the best goal tenders of the last 10 years, or playing a goal tender with a total of 14 games AHL experience?

The choice is blindingly obvious. It's still blindingly obvious even if you factor in a trade return. You can't play a draft pick in a play-off game. A player returned in a trade, unless it's Sidney ****ing Crosby (and perhaps not even then), doesn't change that. Ben Scrivens doesn't change that.

Here is my contention: had Gillis moved Luongo at the trade deadline, our sweep by the Sharks would have been partially, if not fully, blamed on that very move. Not moving Luongo at the deadline was good asset management, because the reported potential returns were not great enough to outweigh the contingency of having a top-10 NHL goal tender as your backup. It looks to be an even better decision because the injury occurred, and the contingency was required.

Yossarian54 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2013, 10:31 AM
  #161
Canucker
Go Hawks!
 
Canucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Frisco, Texas
Posts: 18,997
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
We were just swept in the first round. How would getting assets for Luongo and playing Canata have resulted in a worse outcome?

Gillis has completely screwed up the Luongo situation, there's just no getting around that.
Yes, we should have given Luongo away at the deadline for nothing of consequence (Scrivens and a couple picks allegedly)...that would have been a MUCH better option.

It's difficult to say if Gillis "screwed up" when you don't know what all the offers were, or if Luongo was willing to waive the NTC in order to make the deal. You are basing your criticism on pure conjecture.

Canucker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2013, 10:34 AM
  #162
Falconator
Registered User
 
Falconator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Vancouver Island
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,079
vCash: 500
Gillis does NOT get a free pass in my books, he's definitely made his share of blunders putting this team together. He's got his work cut out for him this summer!

Falconator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2013, 10:40 AM
  #163
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canucker View Post
Yes, we should have given Luongo away at the deadline for nothing of consequence (Scrivens and a couple picks allegedly)...that would have been a MUCH better option.
I didn't say that.

Quote:
You are basing your criticism on pure conjecture.
I am basing my criticism on the fact that we were just swept in the first round of the playoffs.

  Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2013, 10:52 AM
  #164
Canucker
Go Hawks!
 
Canucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Frisco, Texas
Posts: 18,997
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
I didn't say that.



I am basing my criticism on the fact that we were just swept in the first round of the playoffs.
So you are basing it on emotion rather than facts.

Canucker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2013, 10:59 AM
  #165
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canucker View Post
So you are basing it on emotion rather than facts.
I'm fairly confident that us being swept in the first round is an actual fact, and not just something created by my emotions.

  Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2013, 11:20 AM
  #166
Canucker
Go Hawks!
 
Canucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Frisco, Texas
Posts: 18,997
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
I'm fairly confident that us being swept in the first round is an actual fact, and not just something created by my emotions.


Non-Sequitur much?

Canucker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2013, 11:25 AM
  #167
Bieksallent
Registered User
 
Bieksallent's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,752
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canucker View Post


Non-Sequitur much?
He directly replied to what you criticized him for. That is not a non sequitur.

Gillis has had a poor couple of summers since the cup run and now has his hands tied by the cap and NTCs. He better make a wise coaching appointment or he'll be gone next year.

Bieksallent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2013, 11:34 AM
  #168
Canucker
Go Hawks!
 
Canucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Frisco, Texas
Posts: 18,997
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bieksallent View Post
He directly replied to what you criticized him for. That is not a non sequitur.

Gillis has had a poor couple of summers since the cup run and now has his hands tied by the cap and NTCs. He better make a wise coaching appointment or he'll be gone next year.
He did not. He ran around the issue. He blamed Gillis for "screwing up" the Luongo situation, when I called him on it, he diverted to complaining about being swept (as if it had anything to do with Luongo) and then diverted even further.

Canucker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2013, 11:50 AM
  #169
EpochLink
Canucks and Jets fan
 
EpochLink's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,587
vCash: 500
Everyone is going to hear it from the ownership team

EpochLink is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2013, 12:16 PM
  #170
Yossarian54
Registered User
 
Yossarian54's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Perth, WA
Country: Australia
Posts: 1,226
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
I am basing my criticism on the fact that we were just swept in the first round of the playoffs.
So your criticism of a particular decision made by Gillis is founded on an occurrence that took place after that decision was made?

That does not seem at all valid to me.

Yossarian54 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2013, 12:46 PM
  #171
Pump n Dump
Registered User
 
Pump n Dump's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: North Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 267
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
We were just swept in the first round. How would getting assets for Luongo and playing Canata have resulted in a worse outcome?

Gillis has completely screwed up the Luongo situation, there's just no getting around that.
How can you say that when it is clear now that Schneider wasn't ready to go to start the Playoffs? Even if that weren't so, there is no reason to believe the assets coming back would have generated a different outcome. On the contrary, it's becoming clear that Luongo is going to fetch very little unless Gillis gets lucky and something happens to make for a perfect fit. I can see finding fault with Luongo's contract perhaps or for the decision to go with Schneider as no. 1 but if you take those as given, criticism of Gillis' attempts to trade Luongo is dubious based on the available information.

Pump n Dump is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2013, 01:13 PM
  #172
Luck 6
\\_______
 
Luck 6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 7,558
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
We were just swept in the first round. How would getting assets for Luongo and playing Canata have resulted in a worse outcome?

Gillis has completely screwed up the Luongo situation, there's just no getting around that.
How do you know that? I mean, really. Remember when Halak was traded for what was essentially scraps? Everybody jumped on the GM and said he traded him too soon and didn't wait for a market to develop. Now that Gillis has done that with Luongo, everybody is jumping on him as well.

We don't know what kind of offers were on the table for Luongo, but they must not have been very good last summer. It'd be my guess that most teams were low balling us attempting to get Luongo for cheap thinking we'd have to deal him for the best offer available in the summer. At the trade deadline the offers were even worse as it's difficult to fit a guy like that in mid season, especially in a shortened season.

Now we're at the dawn of another offseason and another draft, and Luongo will almost certainly be traded. But until we see what the return is, how on earth can you say that Gillis screwed up the Luongo situation? Even if the return is a bit worse than it was last summer, at least Gillis was patient and tried to make a deal that would really help us rather than jumping on the first offer that was tabled.

Luck 6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2013, 01:40 PM
  #173
SgtToody
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 667
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddawg1950 View Post
Ain't over until it's over. And it ain't over yet.

I will agree Gillis put himself, or the team, in a tough position, by waiting for the right deal but I've always thought the draft/FA period will be the time he is moved.

And I like Lou, but he should have shut the **** up after the end of last season and Gillis may have been able to maximize the asset.
Can't blame Lou... This cluster muck rests all on Gillis. The bluffing he tossed out regularly "I've got 4 teams calling about him" was a joke everyone saw through. I think Gillis should be canned on that alone...
The list of bad decisions have been well documented. He has had good players in his sights but scrambles when he can't get them (offering Backes to an offer sheet then settling for Bernier; trading for Ballard while aiming for Hamhuis)... He's naturally in love with his own prospects and has sold short on some he inherited.
The team needs to roll back the odometer, seriously.

SgtToody is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2013, 02:03 PM
  #174
ddawg1950
Registered User
 
ddawg1950's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,998
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SgtToody View Post
Can't blame Lou... This cluster muck rests all on Gillis. The bluffing he tossed out regularly "I've got 4 teams calling about him" was a joke everyone saw through. I think Gillis should be canned on that alone...
The list of bad decisions have been well documented. He has had good players in his sights but scrambles when he can't get them (offering Backes to an offer sheet then settling for Bernier; trading for Ballard while aiming for Hamhuis)... He's naturally in love with his own prospects and has sold short on some he inherited.
The team needs to roll back the odometer, seriously.
I think there's always enough blame to go around, but I have thought from the first moment I heard Lou speak about movng on, I thought to myself that he should not have said that.

Players spouting off to the press is almost never a good idea, but in this case Lou put the Canucks at a distinct disadvantage if they were going trying to move him before the new CBA.

So I disagree with you that this all rests with Gillis. This situation has had a lot of people contributing.

However, it is up to Gillis to make it right. And, as I have said previously, I'll wait to see what the outcome is before making a judgement.

ddawg1950 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2013, 03:46 PM
  #175
Upoil
Zaboomafoo
 
Upoil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 606
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yossarian54 View Post
Yes, I realise that. But that is the purest case of '20/20 hindsight' (and I mean that with its negative connotation) you will ever see.

Imagine if we were about to start a 7 game play-off series. Your number 1 goalie is injured. Which option do you think gives us a better chance to win: playing one of the best goal tenders of the last 10 years, or playing a goal tender with a total of 14 games AHL experience?

The choice is blindingly obvious. It's still blindingly obvious even if you factor in a trade return. You can't play a draft pick in a play-off game. A player returned in a trade, unless it's Sidney ****ing Crosby (and perhaps not even then), doesn't change that. Ben Scrivens doesn't change that.

Here is my contention: had Gillis moved Luongo at the trade deadline, our sweep by the Sharks would have been partially, if not fully, blamed on that very move. Not moving Luongo at the deadline was good asset management, because the reported potential returns were not great enough to outweigh the contingency of having a top-10 NHL goal tender as your backup. It looks to be an even better decision because the injury occurred, and the contingency was required.
Great points. Well articulated! Couldn't agree more.

Good post.

Upoil is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 06:22 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.