HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Vancouver Canucks
Notices

Top 5 Mike Gillis Mistakes

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-15-2012, 01:11 PM
  #51
Taelin
Moderator
Resident Hipster
 
Taelin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,971
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chubros View Post
He played well for Nashville. In the end it didn't work out for them, but I don't think that would have been a terrible move considering that Vancouver was poised for another cup run. That move, plus getting something of immediate value for Hodgson could have seen Vancouver hoisting the cup last June.

We'll never know now, though.
Would have been kind of hard to imagine another Cup run last year, since the team was pretty burnt out from the 2011 playoffs. MG probably gauged that it was not a good year to go "all in". Not that he really does that anyway; why would you put all your eggs in one basket? With the Kassian-Hodgson trade, he prepared for the present and the future.

Taelin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-15-2012, 01:14 PM
  #52
Chubros
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,150
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanwest View Post
On the defensive part of his game, I noticed the weakness with the Sabres when he was put in the top 6. He had by far the worst plus/minus after the trade. How much of that was attributable to playing a bigger role with new teammates is hard to say...
Also, having to adjust to a new system mid-season could have had an impact. I believe that he was a positive +/- player in his 3rd line role in Vancouver, was he not?

Chubros is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-15-2012, 01:14 PM
  #53
Taelin
Moderator
Resident Hipster
 
Taelin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,971
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chubros View Post
Also, having to adjust to a new system mid-season could have had an impact. I believe that he was a positive +/- player in his 3rd line role in Vancouver, was he not?
http://canucksarmy.com/2012/4/24/gil...advanced-stats

Taelin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-15-2012, 01:16 PM
  #54
blendini
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 432
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evo View Post
1 - Bernier: Trade seemed alright at the time. To me the mistake was more taking his time getting him signed, leading to the offer sheet from the Blues shenanigans

2/3 - Mitchell, Weaver: I wouldn't have signed them either at the time

4 - Ballard: Didn't like the trade at the time because I thought Gillis overpaid big time, don't like it now for obvious reasons.

5 - SOB: He had just cleared waivers before we traded him. Gillis wasn't getting a pick for him.

My top 5:

1 - Keeping Ballard over Ehrhoff in 2011 summer
2 - Luongo's extension (too long and ended up putting himself in the situation he's in now)
3 - Too liberal with contracts (Rai & Schneider within 3 days of each other, Anthony, etc)
4 - Pro-scouting blunders (Sturm, M. Schneider, Gragnani, Ballard, Alberts especially for the 2010 playoffs)
5 - Not getting enough value in Hodgson trade; also, timing of the trade (personal opinion)
This is pretty much what I'd say. I'd also add:
1. Overpayment for Ballard
2. Making Lu captain -too much distraction for a goalie
5. A package of Lu and Coho would look pretty sweet for a trade

blendini is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-15-2012, 01:16 PM
  #55
Chubros
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,150
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taelin View Post
Would have been kind of hard to imagine another Cup run last year, since the team was pretty burnt out from the 2011 playoffs. MG probably gauged that it was not a good year to go "all in". Not that he really does that anyway; why would you put all your eggs in one basket? With the Kassian-Hodgson trade, he prepared for the present and the future.
I'll just say that I hope you're right in regards to Kassian and the future. At least there is still a potential for a silver-lining to that deal

Chubros is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-15-2012, 01:22 PM
  #56
Barney Gumble
Registered User
 
Barney Gumble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 19,792
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chubros View Post
Also, having to adjust to a new system mid-season could have had an impact. I believe that he was a positive +/- player in his 3rd line role in Vancouver, was he not?
Think the fact the Sabres were one of the hottest teams at that point mitigated that IMHO. He was a "plus player" on the Canucks because his minutes were heavily sheltered.

Barney Gumble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-15-2012, 01:32 PM
  #57
vanwest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,775
vCash: 500
In reflection, I'd say that his biggest mistake has been moves that he didn't make. IMO, he should have got more scoring and bottom 6 help and toughness for the 2011 playoffs and for the 2012 playoffs as well. I recognize that it's tough to know what was available but a couple of extra pieces could have pushed us over the top in 2011.
Outside of that, the Ballard trade was the only other significant move that I think hurt us. Of course, hindsight is always 20/20 and at the time we didn't have Hamhuis signed.

vanwest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-15-2012, 01:51 PM
  #58
Chubros
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,150
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barney Gumble View Post
Think the fact the Sabres were one of the hottest teams at that point mitigated that IMHO. He was a "plus player" on the Canucks because his minutes were heavily sheltered.
Another way to characterize a rookie receiving sheltered minutes is a coach strategically deploying a player to give him the best chance to succeed. It worked pretty well, too, didn't it? The team was highly successful in that configuration. Anyway, why would Hodgson receive defensive zone starts against top competition when the team's other centres are Ryan Kesler, at the time the reigning Selke winner, and Malhotra, one of the best face-off men in the league?

What's more plausible, that AV was utilizing the assets at hand in such a way to give the team the best possible chance at winning each game, or that AV was knowingly adopting a sub-optimal strategy in order to artificially inflate the trade value of a rookie?

Chubros is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-15-2012, 02:06 PM
  #59
Barney Gumble
Registered User
 
Barney Gumble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 19,792
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chubros View Post
The team was highly successful in that configuration.
Seems like Kesler ran out of gas/didn't get a chance to heal properly as he was - as always - continued to lug the tough minutes while being expected to put up points on the board over the course of a long marathon regular season.

I would classify as being sucessful, a player able to take some of the workload (defensively) off of Kesler.

Barney Gumble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-15-2012, 02:14 PM
  #60
Chubros
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,150
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barney Gumble View Post
Seems like Kesler ran out of gas/didn't get a chance to heal properly as he was - as always - continued to lug the tough minutes while being expected to put up points on the board over the course of a long marathon regular season.

I would classify as being sucessful, a player able to take some of the workload (defensively) off of Kesler.
The best players on every team are going to play the lion's share of the minutes and every team has to manage the minutes and health of their top players over the course of a season, especially if those players exhibit a tendency to get banged up. Perhaps the team shouldn't have rushed Kesler back in the fall or should have sat him down the stretch when the division was locked up.

Chubros is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-15-2012, 02:15 PM
  #61
Chairman Maouth
Global Moderator
 
Chairman Maouth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Fire Lake
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,741
vCash: 50
The Luongo contract and by a considerable margin for me.

I know it seemed like a good idea the time, but that can be said about a lot of the things that have been mentioned here.

__________________
Uncle Jed, I decided I ain't gonna be a brain sturgeon.
Chairman Maouth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-15-2012, 02:19 PM
  #62
Alflives
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,528
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chubros View Post
I'll just say that I hope you're right in regards to Kassian and the future. At least there is still a potential for a silver-lining to that deal
Ultimately his biggest mistake is not having quality scouts in North America. For example, the Hodgson draft. Why did MG trade Hodgson? We all heard MG's comments after the trade: Hodgson, according to Gillis, was selfish and played protected minutes. Was not Tyler Mayers available after Hodgson? It's the poor scouting in North America that is MG's biggest mistake.

Alflives is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-15-2012, 02:25 PM
  #63
Scottrockztheworld*
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,301
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chubros View Post
Also, having to adjust to a new system mid-season could have had an impact. I believe that he was a positive +/- player in his 3rd line role in Vancouver, was he not?
I always see this used to defend Hodgson but NEVER see it in defense of Kassian. Hodgson wasn't the only one switching up systems mid season & Kassian was a 1st year of pro rookie too.

Scottrockztheworld* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-15-2012, 02:35 PM
  #64
Barney Gumble
Registered User
 
Barney Gumble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 19,792
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alflives View Post
Was not Tyler Mayers available after Hodgson? It's the poor scouting in North America that is MG's biggest mistake.
Would've been a huge reach to take Mayers ahead of Hodgson at that point in the draft. Sabres got lucky. I don't blame the scouting (heck knows I can blame them for alot of other things though).

Barney Gumble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-15-2012, 02:51 PM
  #65
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,281
vCash: 500
A little clarification on a few points:


- Grabner was viewed as waiver fodder at the time, but now he has an NHL contract and is scoring at a 1st line rate (goals/60). He's an odd player, but is he still an NHLer? If yes, then that is progression from what he was.


- I don't view letting Ehrhoff walk as a mistake. When you base the premise of your deals on an internal cap covenant, anything seeking to upset that balance must exit. It was a simple decision even though he's a good player.


- Re-signing AV is only a mistake if there was someone better out there. There wasn't a better alternative (even though I'm not an AV fan).


- Lastly, Weaver is very underrated here it seems.

Bleach Clean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-15-2012, 02:54 PM
  #66
dave babych returns
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,365
vCash: 500
So this is the 20/20 hindsight thread?

I don't know if it's been mentioned but Ryan Parent was on a one way deal, he was owed almost $2m when the Canucks acquired him (and he was obviously not going to make the Predators).

The Canucks took on a moderate financial liability in exchange for dumping Shane O'Brien on an NHL team rather than assigning him to the Moose, they weren't going to get anything of value.

Anyway, I'm going to post my top five "mistakes" - with the benefit of hindsight.

1. Not going all in on David Backes - the Canucks should have made an offer that would have truly forced the Blues to consider allowing him to walk.. this player exploded the following season and would have been worth a $4m cap hit pretty easily.

2. Drafting Cody Hodgson (et al) - in 2008 alone the Canucks could have come away from the draft with Erik Karlsson, Derek Stepan, Zac Rinaldo, Tommy Wingels.. Ryan O'Reilly and Dmitri Orlov in 2009, etc.

3. Trading for Keith Ballard - lots of free agent defensemen went in 2010 who have had a better two seasons since..

4. Missing out on moderately priced free agents - Dennis Seidenberg signed a $2.25m one year deal with the Florida Panthers in 2009 and went on to earn a top four role, get dealt to the Bruins, re-sign at another great value contract and contribute to a Stanley Cup victory.

5. Allowing Christian Ehrhoff to walk - shoulda offered him an extension at Dan Hamhuis money in 2010, before he could put up another big season (and before the 2011 UFA class narrowed down so far). It would have seemed like an overpayment at the time but right now it could look great.

So that's my totally unrealistic list of mistakes Mike Gillis made.

We might have gone into the 2011 playoffs with a lineup like..

Sedin-Sedin-Burrows
Backes-Kesler-Samuelsson
Malhotra-O'Reilly-Hansen
Torres-Lapierre-Glass

Hamhuis-Bieksa
Edler-Karlsson
Ehrhoff-Seidenberg

Luongo
Schneider

If only Gillis had done everything perfectly.

dave babych returns is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-15-2012, 03:10 PM
  #67
Chubros
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,150
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chairman Maouth View Post
The Luongo contract and by a considerable margin for me.

I know it seemed like a good idea the time, but that can be said about a lot of the things that have been mentioned here.
I really wish that the Sedins had received the retirement deals in his stead. If there were ever candidates for cap-circumventing contracts, it's these guys, twins that routinely finish in the top 3 in scoring. It's no secret that they were looking for 12 year deals and it was Gillis's unwillingness to put that on the table is what almost led them to walk. If the cap is lowered, the team is going to face a big squeeze when trying to get these guys resigned. Having them long term at $5.3M each would be gold right now.


Last edited by Chubros: 10-15-2012 at 03:20 PM.
Chubros is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-15-2012, 03:25 PM
  #68
Zarpan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,429
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chubros View Post
I'd say Gillis's actions at the deadline last year have to be up there. The team was one or two pieces away from making another run and MG and he blew it. Whether or not you think Kassian was good value for Hodgson, that move could have been made in the offseason. It was never going to help the team right away. Pahlsson's best hockey was behind him and in no way addressed the team's need for scoring. The team also needed another competent defenceman and MG did not acquire one.

I just couldn't understand his decisions on that day. Poor judgement is the only explanation I have for them, which is worrisome.
With the benefit of hindsight, I don't think any deadline deals we could have done would have resulted in us beating LA.

Zarpan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-15-2012, 03:30 PM
  #69
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,642
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chairman Maouth View Post
The Luongo contract and by a considerable margin for me.

I know it seemed like a good idea the time, but that can be said about a lot of the things that have been mentioned here.
I didn't like the contract at the time but I've warmed up to it. 5.3m is a great deal, it looks like the rest is going to work out. Maybe it hurts his trade value? I think he'd be less attractive to me if he was signed @6.7m for the next 6 years, which was likely the alternative.

Scurr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-15-2012, 03:31 PM
  #70
opendoor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,168
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chubros View Post
I'd say Gillis's actions at the deadline last year have to be up there. The team was one or two pieces away from making another run and MG and he blew it. Whether or not you think Kassian was good value for Hodgson, that move could have been made in the offseason. It was never going to help the team right away. Pahlsson's best hockey was behind him and in no way addressed the team's need for scoring. The team also needed another competent defenceman and MG did not acquire one.

I just couldn't understand his decisions on that day. Poor judgement is the only explanation I have for them, which is worrisome.
They really weren't. They hadn't played well in months, D. Sedin and Kesler were injured and the defense was playing like crap. I'm glad Gillis didn't throw away a bunch of assets for quick fixes that would've done nothing.

opendoor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-15-2012, 03:34 PM
  #71
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 46,395
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chairman Maouth View Post
The Luongo contract and by a considerable margin for me.

I know it seemed like a good idea the time, but that can be said about a lot of the things that have been mentioned here.
I really don't see that contract as that bad of a deal. He's easily a top 5 goalie in the league with a cap hit ranked around 10th. It just seems bad because of people on the trade board and ignorant media members who don't know anything about how it's structured.

People seemingly see "long-term contract" and assume its a bad deal. There's a reason the league is looking to outlaw these contracts.

__________________
http://www.vancitynitetours.com
y2kcanucks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-15-2012, 03:40 PM
  #72
opendoor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,168
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
I didn't like the contract at the time but I've warmed up to it. 5.3m is a great deal, it looks like the rest is going to work out. Maybe it hurts his trade value? I think he'd be less attractive to me if he was signed @6.7m for the next 6 years, which was likely the alternative.
Yep. The only problem with Luongo's contract is if it makes him immovable, but given that the Canucks have a few interested teams it doesn't sound like that's really an issue. And like you say, I can't see how he's any more valuable at a cap hit that's $1.5-2 million higher but a few years shorter. At the very least, a $7 million cap hit would mean the Canucks would probably need to take more salary in return in a trade than they will with a $5.3 cap hit.

opendoor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-15-2012, 04:02 PM
  #73
Chubros
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,150
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor View Post
They really weren't. They hadn't played well in months, D. Sedin and Kesler were injured and the defense was playing like crap. I'm glad Gillis didn't throw away a bunch of assets for quick fixes that would've done nothing.
This was much the same group that was one game away from winning it all not one year earlier. And the goaltending they were getting was absolutely stellar. Shore up the defence and add a little goal support and who knows how things would have played out. The way the top seeds all got knocked out would have made it one of the easier paths to the cup, too. We'll never know how things would have played out in an alternate reality, though.

Chubros is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-15-2012, 04:08 PM
  #74
ddawg1950
Registered User
 
ddawg1950's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,653
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chairman Maouth View Post
The Luongo contract and by a considerable margin for me.

I know it seemed like a good idea the time, but that can be said about a lot of the things that have been mentioned here.
I would add naming Luongo captain. Now, that may not have been Gillis alone, but one suspects he was involved. In retrospect, it seems like the beginning of the end.

ddawg1950 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-15-2012, 04:28 PM
  #75
Cogburn
Registered User
 
Cogburn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,733
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
Inspired by this CanucksArmy blog: http://canucksarmy.com/2012/10/12/th...ike-gillis-era

What do you feel are the top 5 mistakes of Mike Gillis's tenure? IMO, they are as follows (in no particular order):

1. Bernier: For a player that had notable motivation and skill based issues, it seemed odd to pursue him. Low IQ player expect to be a Top6er?

2. Mitchell - Whenever you have a tough minute cruncher of any variety or style, you keep them. PCS or not, Gillis should have risked it.

3. Weaver - Seemed minor at the time, but letting Weaver walk for nothing seemed like Gillis didn't know what he had.

4. Ballard - All things being equal, this is not a poor trade on its own IMO. However, it can be when viewed with the Mitchell exit/Grabner progressing/Ballard's inability to mesh with the system.

5. O'Brien - Should have dealt him for a pick and not Parent.


The ones that stay with me are Weaver and Bernier. Bernier for getting a low hockey IQ player to play with the twins...? And Weaver just because he was in-house and would have been a great right-shot option moving forward.
1. Bernier is a "meh". He was a risk, San Jose knew this, Buffalo knew this, that's why he wasn't playing there. Not all "potential" players reach that. I was happy with his preformance, but the annual cap hit at the time was what bothered me. I wish we got Backes instead, but Bernier could have worked. We didn't severly overpay at the time, in my opinion, so I can't say this is the number one error.

2. Losing Mitchell was a mistake in my eyes. I understand why Gillis didn't offer him a multiyear deal, but Willie isn't the kind of guy that would take a PCS laying down. Worst case scenario, and absolute worst, with a deterioration in play but not showing enough symptoms to keep off the ice, we now have with Malhotra.

3. Weaver is a Rome like scenario, but without a coach having a man crush on him. He is doing well in Florida, and power to him. I don't think with our system he would be as effective and wouldn't have the chances he has had to shine. As an inverse to this, look at Ballard. A number two D playing with Bouwmeester, in a system (or even systems if we count Phoenix) that he was better suited for, comes to town at a premium and has had a rough time.

Watch as Rome becomes the top Dman on Dallas now that I have said this.

4. Another coulda, woulda, shoulda. He has the attitude and skills and work ethic to be better then he has been, but I think this is more luck and a little shot of looking at the player on paper and all of us assuming he would be another Hamhuis-like success.

5. Parent wouldn't have been my first choice, but this was more about subtraction then addition. O'Brien clashed with what Gillis wanted his team to be, not unlike Hodgson. I like the player, I wish him well when he isn't playing us, but his behaviour (which I can't even fault him for) made him a "must move" piece for Gillis.

Ohlund+Salo walking for nothing, Naslund walking, and the treatment of BMo by Gillis are all bigger flubs in my eyes then any of these, but as with the other cases listed, I understand why they happened the way they did. That doesn't mean I agree with the way things unfurled, but then again I'm not in a position to know everything would have unrolled like it did.

Cogburn 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 03:25 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.