The biggest error IMO was keeping AV and not hiring Quenville. That's my opinion. I'll get slagged. I don't care. This was a huge error. I wonder what might have been.
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.
Salo wasn't nearly as effective last season as we have come to expect. At $3.5M I'm glad we let him walk.
Ohlund was terrible in his final few seasons here. Letting him walk was a good thing.
Naslund looked very disinterested in his final contract here. No idea why you think letting him walk was a bad thing. We took a step forward when he left.
__________________
I told ya so. I was right all along!
...
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.
I'm with you on these: I don't like them, but I understand that Gillis was trying to put his mark on the organization. It doesn't remove the sting of watching long-term Canucks be denied the opportunity to finish their careers where they belong, though.
I think Mitchell was allowed to walk for much the same reason - Gillis felt pressure to do something besides just rolling with his predecessors' personnel. The loss of Willie's services and leadership was of more significance than the aforementioned guys.
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).
It is the scouting department's job to identify these types of players (Myers) prior to each draft, especially those around the club's draft number. This was a huge mistake, and consequently, it reflects on MG.
Salo wasn't nearly as effective last season as we have come to expect. At $3.5M I'm glad we let him walk.
I agree that his age is beginning to show, but he could have been had for much much less than $3.5M prior to July 1st. Gillis figured he could wait around until August and sign him for pennies again, but it didn't work out that way this time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks
Ohlund was terrible in his final few seasons here. Letting him walk was a good thing.
I flat out disagree with the first part of that. I don't know how negotiations went and what he would have re-signed here for, so I'm unsure about the latter part. My gut tells me that Ohlund would have signed for something fair.
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks
Naslund looked very disinterested in his final contract here. No idea why you think letting him walk was a bad thing. We took a step forward when he left.
Disinterested? I think he was crushed by the pressure he was putting on himself. I don't think there is another player who wanted to succeed more than Nassy did. At the same $4M, I would have taken him over Demitra. He was a classy guy and his retirement in a Canuck uniform should have been accommodated.
Maybe I'm just overly sentimental or something, but it pains me to see guys that give so much to the organization and community to be cast off like that.
we badly need a culture change back then after missing two playoffs in three seasons, letting Naslund go is the right move. The main mistake Gillis made is keeping AV.
People are seriously bemoaning the loss of Naslund (retired after 1 ineffective season), Morrison (waived in the season the Canucks let him go for nothing) , Ohlund (ineffective and now will probably spend the last 5 years of his contract on LTIR eating up Tampa's cap space), and Salo? I think not re-signing guys based on sentimentality are some of Gillis' best moves.
People are seriously bemoaning the loss of Naslund (retired after 1 ineffective season), Morrison (waived in the season the Canucks let him go for nothing) , Ohlund (ineffective and now will probably spend the last 5 years of his contract on LTIR eating up Tampa's cap space), and Salo? I think not re-signing guys based on sentimentality are some of Gillis' best moves.
Yup. Ehrhoff and Mitchell are the only 2 guys he's let walk that I would have re-signed at the money they were looking for.
I agree that his age is beginning to show, but he could have been had for much much less than $3.5M prior to July 1st. Gillis figured he could wait around until August and sign him for pennies again, but it didn't work out that way this time.
I flat out disagree with the first part of that. I don't know how negotiations went and what he would have re-signed here for, so I'm unsure about the latter part. My gut tells me that Ohlund would have signed for something fair.
Disinterested? I think he was crushed by the pressure he was putting on himself. I don't think there is another player who wanted to succeed more than Nassy did. At the same $4M, I would have taken him over Demitra. He was a classy guy and his retirement in a Canuck uniform should have been accommodated.
Maybe I'm just overly sentimental or something, but it pains me to see guys that give so much to the organization and community to be cast off like that.
I think you are being overly sentimental.
Ultimately it comes down to Salo vs Ballard as we couldn't keep both. Ballard is younger and probably has more left to give. Also if we need to dump salary, Connauton comes in at a much cheaper rate.
Ohlund was way too slow to keep up with today's game and he really hadnt looked good. I think people saw the old Ohlund because they didn't want to come to terms with how far his play had fallen, but he was often exposed by faster teams.
Naslund was done here. We needed a culture change, and offensively he just wasn't dangerous anymore. He was overpaid in his final 3 seasons here and became an anchor to whatever line he was on in his final season. It got so bad that he was played with Brad Moran and Brandon Reid because he simply couldn't generate much of anything with anyone else. His decline was sharp and I'm glad we moved on.
It's nice to be sentimental, but these are guys who would have been overpaid for what they brought even at half of their final salary here (with the exception of Salo).
Yup. Ehrhoff and Mitchell are the only 2 guys he's let walk that I would have re-signed at the money they were looking for.
I'm not sure I would've wanted Ehrhoff for 10 years. I do agree with Mitchell though. He was a fan favorite and worth the money but I see why Gillis didn't re-sign him. Mitchell was just coming off a brutal concussion and wasn't even 100% by the Kings training camp iirc. Gillis didn't want to handcuff himself when he had other options at the time. In the long term it was the wrong move(maybe) but at the time it was the right one.
I keep hearing it was a mistake to keep AV, who was Gillis suppose to replace him with?
Bruce Boudreau? Bob Hartley? Kirk Muller? Todd Richards? Randy Carlyle?
I keep hearing it was a mistake to keep AV, who was Gillis suppose to replace him with?
Bruce Boudreau? Bob Hartley? Kirk Muller? Todd Richards? Randy Carlyle?
It is the scouting department's job to identify these types of players (Myers) prior to each draft, especially those around the club's draft number. This was a huge mistake, and consequently, it reflects on MG.
That was a missed opportunity, not a huge mistake. There will always be players that end up being much better than expected, so you can't criticize the scouting department too much as long as their actual pick turned out okay.
Hodgson has turned into a decent player who should be able to carve out a long career, so that pick is probably worth at least a B, which is not a huge mistake.
A huge mistake would be Patrick White or Kyle Beach at the rate he's progressing.
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.
Gillis had taken over as GM only a month or so before that draft, I'm not sure how you think the scouting was his fault.
People are seriously bemoaning the loss of Naslund (retired after 1 ineffective season), Morrison (waived in the season the Canucks let him go for nothing) , Ohlund (ineffective and now will probably spend the last 5 years of his contract on LTIR eating up Tampa's cap space), and Salo? I think not re-signing guys based on sentimentality are some of Gillis' best moves.
In my opinion, the fact that someone would complain about Gillis letting Salo go is by far the worst.
What was the alternative? Trade him at the deadline for a prospect/pick? Yea, we can all imagine how well that would have gone over with Canucks fans
I'm not sure I would've wanted Ehrhoff for 10 years. I do agree with Mitchell though. He was a fan favorite and worth the money but I see why Gillis didn't re-sign him. Mitchell was just coming off a brutal concussion and wasn't even 100% by the Kings training camp iirc. Gillis didn't want to handcuff himself when he had other options at the time. In the long term it was the wrong move(maybe) but at the time it was the right one.
Ehrhoff never would have asked for or received 10 years from the Canucks. They could have easily re-signed him for 5-6 years IMO, had they been willing to pay him more than Kevin Bieksa - something I would have done.
I just don't see how you can justify letting Ehrhoff walk while retaining Keith Ballard. An extra $1-1.5mil in salary for a much much better player. A player that fit this system to a tee and most importantly, had chemistry with Alex Edler.
Ehrhoff never would have asked for or received 10 years from the Canucks. They could have easily re-signed him for 5-6 years IMO, had they been willing to pay him more than Kevin Bieksa - something I would have done.
I just don't see how you can justify letting Ehrhoff walk while retaining Keith Ballard. An extra $1-1.5mil in salary for a much much better player. A player that fit this system to a tee and most importantly, had chemistry with Alex Edler.
Ehrhoff never would have asked for or received 10 years from the Canucks. They could have easily re-signed him for 5-6 years IMO, had they been willing to pay him more than Kevin Bieksa - something I would have done.
I just don't see how you can justify letting Ehrhoff walk while retaining Keith Ballard. An extra $1-1.5mil in salary for a much much better player. A player that fit this system to a tee and most importantly, had chemistry with Alex Edler.
How can be sure that he wasn't looking for a long term contract? I agree with everything you said but I've never seen information disputing that he was looking long term.
How can be sure that he wasn't looking for a long term contract? I agree with everything you said but I've never seen information disputing that he was looking long term.
buffalo gave him a 10 year deal because they wanted a lower cap hit. if we offered a 5-6 year deal for around 5.5 per he would have stayed
Ehrhoff never would have asked for or received 10 years from the Canucks. They could have easily re-signed him for 5-6 years IMO, had they been willing to pay him more than Kevin Bieksa - something I would have done.
I just don't see how you can justify letting Ehrhoff walk while retaining Keith Ballard. An extra $1-1.5mil in salary for a much much better player. A player that fit this system to a tee and most importantly, had chemistry with Alex Edler.
At the time the Ehrhoff decision was made, do you think any GM in the league would have traded for Keith Ballard, even as a salary dump? I think you are forgetting just how little Value Ballard had (and some would argue still has), I doubt teams were lining up for his services.
The decision Gillis had to make was between Ehrhoff and Bieksa. I don't think it was a horrible decision considering we had just watched Bieksa & Hamhuis play at an elite level during the cup run while the last memory of Ehrhoff was of him shying away from physical contact against the Bruins.
With hindsight, maybe the Canucks should have kept Ehrhoff instead, but I don't think you can call the decision a mistake, not at this point anyway.
Gillis tried to sign Mitchell for the same price he got. It was the term that Gillis balked at and LA had no problem giving because they were waaaay below the cap cieling and desperate for D.
