There are plenty of teams in the league that I think are run poorly that could be competitive in two or three years with a good GM.
But how many of them would have 9 of their 10 best players remain unchanged and be an elite team? It's actually quite surprising how many strides this team has taken without Gillis adding much in the way of impact players. Goes to show maybe he was wrong when he said the group he was left wasn't close to competing - the group he was left was much much better than he thought.
Gillis' transaction history isn't anything to write home about IMO. It's the change in style of play and everything behind the scenes to get the most out of the group he inherited that has made his tenure a big success.
I was convinced when Gillis took over we were poised to get back to winning the NW division with a couple good moves. I wasn't surprised we got back to being a 100 point team without Gillis adding a whole lot that offseason. He stepped into a good situation IMO.
But how many of them would have 9 of their 10 best players remain unchanged and be an elite team? It's actually quite surprising how many strides this team has taken without Gillis adding much in the way of impact players. Goes to show maybe he was wrong when he said the group he was left wasn't close to competing - the group he was left was much much better than he thought.
Gillis' transaction history isn't anything to write home about IMO. It's the change in style of play and everything behind the scenes to get the most out of the group he inherited that has made his tenure a big success.
I was convinced when Gillis took over we were poised to get back to winning the NW division with a couple good moves. I wasn't surprised we got back to being a 100 point team without Gillis adding a whole lot that offseason. He stepped into a good situation IMO.
Nonis regime could not find a player that could do what Ehrhoff could do. It was our biggest hole when Gillis arrived and had if fixed in under 3 months on the job.
Sundin signing basically allowed the Twins and Kesler to breakout (yeah Sundin wasnt awesome here) and become the stars they are today. Im not sure if they get there without their GM making that extremely bold move.
Say what you want about Grabner vs Ballard, the team that had Ballard last year was one win from the CUP.
Samuelsson provided veteran leadership and production for a paltry salary.
Bernier was a calculated risk, a former first round pick with Power Forward tendencies...we know sometimes these guys take a little extra development time, and Bernier had decent numbers before arriving here. Backes would have been better, but that offersheet signified the man meant business and wasnt going to leave any stone unturned.
Burrows' extension - a managerial masterpiece IMO, I dont need to say anything else about that deal.
Letting Ehrhoff go sorta sucked, but we havent missed him this year...his soft play in his own end had to go.
Sedin twins signing a 5 year deal instead of the 10 year deal they wanted, at probably 1.5million or 12-15% below market value.
Malhotra was an excellent signing, his injury makes it look poor, but his addition was one of those "put you over the top" moves.
Hamhuis - well Hamhuis made this play, but Gillis had to show interest to get him here. SOLID MOVE.
I missing a few minor moves for sure, but he has made quite a few solid moves in his time here.
Like you said, he had a good base to build with but he also had to resign them all and fit them in to the team.
Its way to early to assess his drafts, but you can only take your scouts opinions after the first 30-60 picks.
But how many of them would have 9 of their 10 best players remain unchanged and be an elite team?
I disagree that 9 of the team's 10 best players are unchanged. Hamhuis, Higgins and Booth I think are among the team's ten best and last season it would have included been Ehrhoff, Hamhuis, Malhotra and Samuelsson (prior to his injury).
Most teams with problems have problems because they do a poor job of filling out the depth of their roster. I think the majority of teams could be competitive in a few years with a good GM. For example, a GM could step into Columbus and build around Nash, Carter, Umberger, Vermette, Johansen, Wisniewski and Tyutin and put together a solid team with the right acquisitions to fill out that team. Or step into Anaheim and build around Getzlaf, Perry, Ryan, Palmieri, Fowler, Visnovsky, and Hiller. Adding the exact same types of players that Gillis had added to the Canucks the last few seasons (Hamhuis, Ehrhoff, Booth, Higgins, Malhotra, etc.) would get those teams on the right track in short order. Those teams don't have problems at the top end, they have problems filling out their rosters with quality players. That's what Gillis has shown an aptitude for whereas Nonis never really demonstrated this in his time here. He had some hits on players like Pyatt and Carter but they weren't enough to build a good team.
Samuelsson provided veteran leadership and production for a paltry salary.
Bernier was a calculated risk, a former first round pick with Power Forward tendencies...we know sometimes these guys take a little extra development time, and Bernier had decent numbers before arriving here. Backes would have been better, but that offersheet signified the man meant business and wasnt going to leave any stone unturned.
Burrows' extension - a managerial masterpiece IMO, I dont need to say anything else about that deal.
Letting Ehrhoff go sorta sucked, but we havent missed him this year...his soft play in his own end had to go.
Sedin twins signing a 5 year deal instead of the 10 year deal they wanted, at probably 1.5million or 12-15% below market value.
Malhotra was an excellent signing, his injury makes it look poor, but his addition was one of those "put you over the top" moves.
Hamhuis - well Hamhuis made this play, but Gillis had to show interest to get him here. SOLID MOVE.
I disagree that 9 of the team's 10 best players are unchanged. Hamhuis, Higgins and Booth I think are among the team's ten best and last season it would have included been Ehrhoff, Hamhuis, Malhotra and Samuelsson (prior to his injury).
Higgins strong play should push him into the top 10 but I'm just not sold on Booth yet, nor seen enough from him that makes me believe he's a better two-way winger than Raymond or Hansen - and at that salary he should be a lock for the top 6. From what I've seen Booth is the worst playmaker and defensive winger in the top 9. In terms of value I have Booth near the top of the list in terms of undesirable contracts. He's behind other Gillis acquisitions Ballard and Malhotra but probably next in line.
This is the 4th season under Gillis and I think it's actually pretty remarkable how many of the difference makers on the team were here when he got here. Judging by his comments when he took over you would have had to assume at that time he was going to make significant changes to personnel, a personnel that seemingly didn't impress him.
Do you think Gillis' transaction history with trades, signings and drafting stands out above the pack? I'm not convinced it does.
But how many of them would have 9 of their 10 best players remain unchanged and be an elite team? It's actually quite surprising how many strides this team has taken without Gillis adding much in the way of impact players. Goes to show maybe he was wrong when he said the group he was left wasn't close to competing - the group he was left was much much better than he thought.
Gillis' transaction history isn't anything to write home about IMO. It's the change in style of play and everything behind the scenes to get the most out of the group he inherited that has made his tenure a big success.
I was convinced when Gillis took over we were poised to get back to winning the NW division with a couple good moves. I wasn't surprised we got back to being a 100 point team without Gillis adding a whole lot that offseason. He stepped into a good situation IMO.
He was just lowering expectations at that initial press conference. He's not going to say that this team has pieces to make it work...he gave us his bleakest view in case he failed he had all the excuses in the world.
I mean he specifically mentioned the Sedins as guys that he was not convinced were players to build around. 2 seasons later Henrik is the Captain and reigning MVP.
I am a big fan of Gillis, but those who compare his tenure to that of Nonis are comparing apples and oranges. Nonis took over the team at the end of the WCE cycle and the beginning of a rebuild cycle, while Gillis took it over really when it was already ready to challenge for the division title. (His "not close to being a contender" comment was not entirely accurate for all it gets heralded around here -- the 2007-08 Canucks only missed the playoffs because, like the 2005-06 edition, they were playing with a fraction of their regular defense corps. This would have killed any team. They were a division winner in his first year, and it wasn't all thanks to half a year of Sundin).
I love what Gillis has done, but the attempts to make it sound like he turned an incompetent organization on its head are revisionist history. And as others have mentioned, there isn't too much evidence of the drafting getting all that stronger (although the Canucks also haven't had an early pick in quite a while because of their strong seasons).
This is not a knock on Gillis -- the Higgins/Lapierre deadline acquisitions were the Canucks' best since Ronning/Courtnall/Momesso/Dirk/Murzyn, the Ehrhoff acquisition was great, the ability to correct mistakes has been reassuring, etc. But the Nonis hate around here is not only exaggerated, but lacks a lot of perspective as to what was reasonably expected of the team at the time.
It's amazing how time has softened people's perceptions on Nonis. To me he's still one of the most incompetent GM tenures it's been my displeasure to suffer through as a fan. I think he was an idiot and I think people are glossing over his mismanagement.
Nonis' value of a 2nd rounder is what was puzzling to me. Traded them like they were NOTHING.
and drafting Grabner with others on the board (Yes, I knew of a kid named Giroux) was a cluster****.
Heck, even take Stewart! But he took a guy who had the promise of high end speed but wasnt putting up high end points in the WHL.
Giroux on the other hand put up an impressive 1.5PPG in his draft year.
I have no doubt this will happen after the deadline.
Sedin Sedin Burrows
Booth Kesler Higgins
Raymond Hodgson Hansen
Malhotra Lapierre (Trade deadline pick up)
Weise (He has been good, but I think we can upgrade).
Hamhuis / Bieksa
Edler / Salo
Top 4 Dead line guy (Playing as our third pairing) / Ballard
Rome Alberts
Higgins strong play should push him into the top 10 but I'm just not sold on Booth yet, nor seen enough from him that makes me believe he's a better two-way winger than Raymond or Hansen - and at that salary he should be a lock for the top 6. From what I've seen Booth is the worst playmaker and defensive winger in the top 9. In terms of value I have Booth near the top of the list in terms of undesirable contracts. He's behind other Gillis acquisitions Ballard and Malhotra but probably next in line.
Booth is a lock for the top6 IMO. He brings a combination of size+skill+speed that even Raymond cannot match. Even if it's mostly on the offensive end of the ice, it's still unique to this team. In the end, that's why he'll stay there and develop with Kesler. R
Ballard, Malhotra, Booth, and Alberts are the _only_ undesirable contracts on the team, so I'm not sure what the point is there? Still, if Booth puts up 40-50 points on average and drives the net, that contract looks good to me. If Ballard was actually putting up points consistently (20~ points), his contract would be good also. I've had little problem with his game, just his production. Malhotra and Alberts are in a different category - they just bring almost nothing of value right now. You can't say the same for Booth and Ballard.
Quote:
This is the 4th season under Gillis and I think it's actually pretty remarkable how many of the difference makers on the team were here when he got here. Judging by his comments when he took over you would have had to assume at that time he was going to make significant changes to personnel, a personnel that seemingly didn't impress him.
Do you think Gillis' transaction history with trades, signings and drafting stands out above the pack? I'm not convinced it does.
I think Gillis's signings and trades are why there is an appreciation thread open for him. He's been very good at these aspects. Don't want to get into a Nonis vs. Gillis debate - but MG has dwarfed Nonis in this capacity. His eye for talent is just so much better. The only true slip up in my mind was the Bernier deal, but beyond that, he's been outstanding.
On drafting: MG has been poor. Ironically, I believe Gillis and Nonis share traits in their propensity to deal draft picks. MG's learned to localize it to 3rd rndrs, but it's still there nonetheless. What that does is put extreme pressure on an already questionable scouting staff. And now thee cupboard is bare. I will say this though: I've liked every one of his 1st rnd picks thus far. He just desperately needs to sort out his scouting beyond the 1st rnd.
I am a big fan of Gillis, but those who compare his tenure to that of Nonis are comparing apples and oranges. Nonis took over the team at the end of the WCE cycle and the beginning of a rebuild cycle, while Gillis took it over really when it was already ready to challenge for the division title. (His "not close to being a contender" comment was not entirely accurate for all it gets heralded around here -- the 2007-08 Canucks only missed the playoffs because, like the 2005-06 edition, they were playing with a fraction of their regular defense corps. This would have killed any team. They were a division winner in his first year, and it wasn't all thanks to half a year of Sundin).
I love what Gillis has done, but the attempts to make it sound like he turned an incompetent organization on its head are revisionist history. And as others have mentioned, there isn't too much evidence of the drafting getting all that stronger (although the Canucks also haven't had an early pick in quite a while because of their strong seasons).
This is what I'm saying. Gillis was left in a strong position, whereas Nonis was left with a fading core, little cap space and not much in the way of prospects ready to break into the league. Gillis was put in a much much better position to succeed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean
Booth is a lock for the top6 IMO. He brings a combination of size+skill+speed that even Raymond cannot match. Even if it's mostly on the offensive end of the ice, it's still unique to this team. In the end, that's why he'll stay there and develop with Kesler. R
Ballard, Malhotra, Booth, and Alberts are the _only_ undesirable contracts on the team, so I'm not sure what the point is there?
I think Gillis's signings and trades are why there is an appreciation thread open for him. He's been very good at these aspects. Don't want to get into a Nonis vs. Gillis debate - but MG has dwarfed Nonis in this capacity. His eye for talent is just so much better. The only true slip up in my mind was the Bernier deal, but beyond that, he's been outstanding.
I'm not as confident in Booth as you are. Not a fan of his defensive instincts and that could hurt our ability to have Kesler go head to head with the opposition's best - something that may have to happen more frequently with Malhotra struggling to find his form. Hansen and Raymond are better fits in a tough minute 2nd line than Booth IMO.
Ballard, Booth, Malhotra and Alberts are the only undesirable contracts and all guys Gillis brought into the organization. Had he just kept Nonis' guys I think we're better off for it - Willie Mitchell and Michael Grabner being the main 2.
IMO Gillis' trading isn't anything to write home about. We can agree to disagree there.
I'm 100% confident in Gillis and think his push to play an up-tempo style with an emphasis on skill and speed, particularly on the backend is what spearates him from Nonis. I'm just not sold on his trades, nor drafting yet - signings have been hit and miss as well. Pro and amateur scouting still remain question marks for me.
I'm not as confident in Booth as you are. Not a fan of his defensive instincts and that could hurt our ability to have Kesler go head to head with the opposition's best - something that may have to happen more frequently with Malhotra struggling to find his form. Hansen and Raymond are better fits in a tough minute 2nd line than Booth IMO.
Samuelsson wasn't good defensively, yet he was stapled to the 2nd line with Kesler. He was there to facilitate offense. It's the same reason Booth will be given chance after chance there. Each winger pushes offense. Sure, he's questionable on defense. But it will be his ability to generate offense that will keep him on the 2nd line... like it did Sammy.
Raymond and Hansen were factored into the reasoning behind the trade IMO. Raymond struggled offensively in the playoffs, and Hansen isn't relied upon to produce. The nucks needed more offensive push from the 2nd line outside of Kesler. Booth does exactly that. Really, you don't have to be a fan of Booth to understand how he fits here.
Quote:
Ballard, Booth, Malhotra and Alberts are the only undesirable contracts and all guys Gillis brought into the organization. Had he just kept Nonis' guys I think we're better off for it - Willie Mitchell and Michael Grabner being the main 2.
I don't know, that can be debatable. Grabner would have fit this team's style the best, but he had significant issues putting it together here. Mitchell was no longer a fit IMO. Players aside, MG is making choices to promote his style of play here. Those that fit are retained, and the rest are let go/traded. There is a logic behind every move he makes. It's not like some GMs where they leave you scratching your head. How many fans of teams can say that?
Quote:
IMO Gillis' trading isn't anything to write home about. We can agree to disagree there.
I'm 100% confident in Gillis and think his push to play an up-tempo style with an emphasis on skill and speed, particularly on the backend is what spearates him from Nonis. I'm just not sold on his trades, nor drafting yet - signings have been hit and miss as well. Pro and amateur scouting still remain question marks for me.
I'm confused: How are you 100% confident in Gillis but question his trades, some signings, and drafting?? Or am I reading that wrong?
MG's kind of myopic in his focus on PMDs and it's why the back-end is as good as it is. He targeted Ehrhoff, and let Mitchell walk. He targeted a strong skater in Ballard, and didn't pick up Seidenberg etc... He has forgone good options to stay in line with his vision. It may not be the best course, but it's hard to argue with the results.
What signings has he missed on? The glaring mistake is Sturm, but beyond that he's been pretty good. Trades also have been solid, with the Bernier trade as the notable exception. It's only his amateur scouting that is the problem IMO. He definitely needs to address it. It's the one thing, the only thing, that keeps him from joining the elite in my mind.
It's actually quite surprising how many strides this team has taken without Gillis adding much in the way of impact players. Goes to show maybe he was wrong when he said the group he was left wasn't close to competing - the group he was left was much much better than he thought.
When Gillis came on board, he said the team wasn't close to competing at that point in time but that there was a good foundation with solid defense and solid goaltending. Gillis said that the team needed to get faster. That was one of the things he stressed. He also thought the team needed to get grittier and more competitive. Gillis also said that with a few very good decisions or some really bold moves the team wouldn't be far.
Was Gillis wrong? I don't think so. The team CLEARLY wasn't ready to compete for the Stanley Cup at that particular time. The Canucks missed the playoffs the previous year and it wasn't a fluke. The Canucks were not in the same class as the Red Wings and Penguins, not to mention the Blackhawks in Gillis' first year here. If you think the Canucks were close that year you're kidding yourself. Gillis was bang on about where the Canucks were at. The team wasn't fast enough. If Gillis was wrong about one thing, he was wrong about the team having a solid defense and solid goaltending. Against the Blackhawks, the defense and goaltending (the part that Nonis built) were the team's weakest links.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drop the Sopel
Gillis' transaction history isn't anything to write home about IMO. It's the change in style of play and everything behind the scenes to get the most out of the group he inherited that has made his tenure a big success.
Isn't that what Gillis said he wanted to bring? Gillis brought a different approach and got more out of the players than his predecessor. You sound like Gillis shouldn't get credit for building upon the foundation rather than dismantling it and doing all the stuff he did to give the team a competitive edge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drop the Sopel
I was convinced when Gillis took over we were poised to get back to winning the NW division with a couple good moves. I wasn't surprised we got back to being a 100 point team without Gillis adding a whole lot that offseason. He stepped into a good situation IMO.
You make it sound like it's easy to make a couple of good moves. The team missed the playoffs 2 out of 3 seasons under Nonis. The Canucks won the division 3 out of 3 seasons under Gillis.
I'm not as confident in Booth as you are. Not a fan of his defensive instincts and that could hurt our ability to have Kesler go head to head with the opposition's best - something that may have to happen more frequently with Malhotra struggling to find his form. Hansen and Raymond are better fits in a tough minute 2nd line than Booth IMO.
Ballard, Booth, Malhotra and Alberts are the only undesirable contracts and all guys Gillis brought into the organization. Had he just kept Nonis' guys I think we're better off for it - Willie Mitchell and Michael Grabner being the main 2.
IMO Gillis' trading isn't anything to write home about. We can agree to disagree there.
I'm 100% confident in Gillis and think his push to play an up-tempo style with an emphasis on skill and speed, particularly on the backend is what spearates him from Nonis. I'm just not sold on his trades, nor drafting yet - signings have been hit and miss as well. Pro and amateur scouting still remain question marks for me.
Really disagree here. There's no doubt Booth struggles defensively but it's not for lack of effort or reluctance to buy into the system. He just doesn't understand what to do and he's never played on an NHL team with the kind of structure and commitment to 2-way play that we have. Give him some time and there's reason to believe he could learn to be pretty decent without the puck. If he's still a liability when the playoffs roll around we can always go to something like this:
If Malhotra has picked up his game by then and Gillis has been able to add a good checking/grinding winger, that 4th line could handle some decent minutes, take a lot of defensive zone faceoffs and Booth's line would be free of any tough matchups. They could actually do some real damage when you consider the skill on that line and the situations they'd be playing in. I'd hate to be an opposing coach trying to match lines and defense pairings against that group of forwards.
There was a risk involved in taking on Booth's contract but it's manageable, the upside is great and he's a long-term asset. Look at what we gave up in that trade: a bad UFA signing and an aging winger who's been plagued by injuries, both of whom would likely have been gone at the end of this year. Booth has 12 points in 19 games since the trade (Sturm and Samuelsson have combined for 9) which puts him just over a 50-point pace, and his cap hit is 4.25. To me that looks like a very good trade and the contract seems to match the production.
Malhotra's contract is undesirable right now because of a serious injury. Before the injury it looked like a good signing.
Alberts' contract is undesirable but not horrid. It's about 400K away from being a decent investment.
The Sedins and Kesler were signed to great contracts. Hamhuis, Higgins and Lapierre were all excellent acquisitions. I would say all 5 of those players have exceeded expectations from when they were signed or acquired and are outperforming their contracts right now. The Ehrhoff trade was almost too good to be true and he certainly outperformed his contract when he was here. Sami Salo makes 2 million, is on pace for 37 points and is one of our most reliable defensemen. Sulzer has been a very solid pickup. You may not like Ballard and Alberts' contracts, but they are part of the reason we're able to develop Chris Tanev properly in the minors right now. Tanev and Eddie Lack are looking like absolutely brilliant signings.
I agree that Gillis' drafting has not been great but that's really the only area where he hasn't been great.
I'm confused: How are you 100% confident in Gillis but question his trades, some signings, and drafting?? Or am I reading that wrong?
I'm confident in Gillis because he leaves no stone unturned when trying to make the organization stronger, tailors his roster around the way the game is trending and most importantly understands if you want to attract free agents and retain your top personnel you need to cater to the players and create an environment that everyone wants to be a part of.
Even the top management teams will have hits and misses with signings, trades and drafting. I'm not saying his transaction history has been poor, just that he's not infallible like some like to portray. The fact he's targeting the right type of players is why I have faith in him going forward. Pretty much all teams have now caught onto the fact you need skill and speed on the backend but with that quick transition comes the even more pressing need for strong defensive forwards to help defend that 5 man attack. Again, Gillis seems to be well aware of this need and has targeted guys like Malhotra, Higgins, Lapierre and rounded out his roster with the speed and defensive play to thrive against teams that move the puck quickly and like to push the pace of the game.
Just like with Gillis' drafting, I'm not sold on it but at least he's targeting a lot of the right type of players IMO. Whether or not his players pan out remains to be seen but taking a flyer on speed and skill like McNally, Polasek, Connauton, Tanev, Erixon and Corrado is a welcome change from the Rahimi and Ellington's of the recent past.
Gillis instills confidence for many different reasons, even if his transaction history, specifically through trades and the draft don't stand out above the pack. I still believe retaining and getting the most out of Nonis/Burke era players has been the biggest cause for our success.
I really wish we could have seen the Nonis plan through and had Ryan Kesler's development stunted while Fabian Brunnstrom fiddle ****ed around in our Top Six. Would have been awesome.
Nonis is so highly regarded around the league that even with an entire TV network pushing him for every available job, he's still just an errand boy.
One thing that hasn't been mentioned (or I missed it if it was) is how effective Gillis has been at targeting college free agents. Off the top of my head 3 of them have already had an impact with the team - Volpatti, Tanev, and Oberg. Even though Oberg didn't make a huge impact with the team he was packaged with a 3rd round pick for Chris Higgins. I highly doubt we get Higgins for only a 3rd rounder.
Essentially college free agents can be looked at as bonus draft picks. Thus, they are assets. Gillis may not have fleeced every other GM he has made a trade with or hit a homerun with every FA signing, but he has helped make this organization elite in almost every aspect.
I'm confident in Gillis because he leaves no stone unturned when trying to make the organization stronger, tailors his roster around the way the game is trending and most importantly understands if you want to attract free agents and retain your top personnel you need to cater to the players and create an environment that everyone wants to be a part of.
Even the top management teams will have hits and misses with signings, trades and drafting. I'm not saying his transaction history has been poor, just that he's not infallible like some like to portray. The fact he's targeting the right type of players is why I have faith in him going forward. Pretty much all teams have now caught onto the fact you need skill and speed on the backend but with that quick transition comes the even more pressing need for strong defensive forwards to help defend that 5 man attack. Again, Gillis seems to be well aware of this need and has targeted guys like Malhotra, Higgins, Lapierre and rounded out his roster with the speed and defensive play to thrive against teams that move the puck quickly and like to push the pace of the game.
Just like with Gillis' drafting, I'm not sold on it but at least he's targeting a lot of the right type of players IMO. Whether or not his players pan out remains to be seen but taking a flyer on speed and skill like McNally, Polasek, Connauton, Tanev, Erixon and Corrado is a welcome change from the Rahimi and Ellington's of the recent past.
Gillis instills confidence for many different reasons, even if his transaction history, specifically through trades and the draft don't stand out above the pack. I still believe retaining and getting the most out of Nonis/Burke era players has been the biggest cause for our success.
Ok I believe I understand what you are saying. Essentially, MG is not exceptional in anything he does, but that he does enough good things that they should add up to push this org. forward. I can't say I disagree with that. He definitely is NOT infallible. He's made mistakes. The biggest ones to me were the Bernier trade and the Sturm signing. Bernier being the worst. That said, if that's his worst then I'm quite happy with what he's done to date.
Where you may see MG has being mediocre across the board (trades, signings, drafting), I see a distinct difference between his record on trades and signings vs his drafting. His trades and signings I would ranks as good overall. He's had to pay a premium at times, but he targets the right type of players. Also, he seldom overpays. The Ballard deal seemed like a win at the time. Ehrhoff was had for a song. Further, the Bernier trade was an attempt to bring in talent when the nucks had very little. etc... In the end, it's his drafting that has been his weak point, which I think no one expected. It really is surprising how bad its been.
I think he's slowly realizing just what a challenge things will be without a push from his young players. It's why he took chances on Booth and Ballard IMO. He's had to take these risks because he doesn't have capable players to slot in their place. Along those lines, he had to trade for depth players Higgins and Lapierre. If the need to go outside the organization continues, it will be very difficult for the nucks to maintain their standard of performance in the future. Still, I feel he can turn it around in time -- hopefully.
Not to turn this into a Gillis vs. Nonis debate, because there is no debate.
But Nonis definitely does not get enough credit for the foundation he layed here. Sure his deadline acquisitions were busts, the 2007 draft was a disaster and he was painfully conservative.
He also didn't make any moves to set this team seriously back, nor did he make that "job saving" trade (the best trade he made was NOT trading for Brad Richards).
When you consider Nonis acquired an elite goaltender, hired one of the best coaches in the league, left this team without any bad contracts on the books and made some excellent later round draft picks (Edler, Raymond, Hansen) his resume looks pretty good.
Is he an excellent GM? No. But looking around the league at guys like Howson/Gauthier/Sutter etc, I certainly wouldn't put him anywhere close to awful or inept.
Hmm yeah I might have been hard on him in that initial post. I agree that not trading for Brad Richards was a smart move even if it may have played a part in him getting fired. I was not a fan of him but he was far from the worst GM around. The painfully conservative part is dead on though.
What amazes me is that at the deadline last year Gillis moved two 3rd round picks for Higgins and Lapierre, re-signed both of them on great deals... then turned around and managed to re-aquire the 2013 3rd rounder from Florida in the Booth deal + moved Ehrhoff's rights for NYI's 4th round pick in the next draft, which will likely be very close to where our 3rd round pick is.
What amazes me is that at the deadline last year Gillis moved two 3rd round picks for Higgins and Lapierre, re-signed both of them on great deals... then turned around and managed to re-aquire the 2013 3rd rounder from Florida in the Booth deal + moved Ehrhoff's rights for NYI's 4th round pick in the next draft, which will likely be very close to where our 3rd round pick is.
Masterful.
They weren't deadline rentals, they were long term additions that got signed on sweetheart deals.
And got one of the picks back this year. His deadline last year was near perfection.
