Alright so I have seen a lot of people bashing Gillis lately its like he is AV 2 and they need to fire him now. Anyways who would have fired AV, Gillis or both. Personally if this is all Gillis's fault then we will see in the next 2-4 years.
Some blame lies on AV, some on Gillis, and some on the players themselves. There is not one single person that has caused our problems.
Agreed. The usual pecking order is that the coach gets fired first. If that fails the GM and some players probably are gone. AV was the easy choice to make but I don't see it as a solution to what ails this team. Gillis needs a much better off season this year and the players need to be better.
I think the Gillis hate is a bit bizarre. He put together a tremendous team in 2011, that was one win away from a cup. The season that followed, the team won the President's trophy, but then suffered some injury issues and goaltending problems in the playoffs. This year, we saw....the team was not good enough, so he started making changes.
If, a year from now, he makes a series of moves that totally fail, I think you look at removing him. But he has earned at least next year and maybe another.
The hate for Gillis is bizarre. Cherry's comments were asanine....by the way, where was all the Cherry love for AV when he coached the team? Cherry pisses me off....the whole lot of them over at the CBC are all Canuck haters.
Some blame lies on AV, some on Gillis, and some on the players themselves. There is not one single person that has caused our problems.
Yes
IMO I don't think AV/ coaches were fired because they are getting blamed more then anyone else, but like a lot of people have said It was time for change
I think the owners want a new direction (or to be successful we need a new direction) and changing coaches is an easy way to do that, maximize change without being to drastic
MG may have failed at some things but the nature of the GM job means that you can change tact easier then a coach can.
And the owners obviously trust that MG can change direction, and I trust that they are in the know more then me.
Gillis has a way longer leash than 1 more year. He has made way better moves than most given him credit for. I stand behind him, and I question those who don't. Although not all of his trades have ended in the utmost success, they all seemed like great trades at the time. Some worked out great, some didn't. But compare his trade reputation to that of many GMs and he looks pretty good. His free agent signings have generally been great too and his re-signing capabilities have also been great. He's been an excellent overall GM and I hope he stays the course, he's doing a good job and I like his long term vision.
I don't like how he handled the goalies, but he has done more good than bad here so I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. I'm sure ownership was on board with the Luongo move.
I think Gillis' blunt and sometimes condescending manner with the local media has lead to them being far more aggressive and liberal in their criticism of him this offseason. As is usual for the market, alot of the more ignorant fans are lapping it up.
Of course Gillis isn't without a measure of blame, but I think he's earned far more respect and latitude than he's been afforded lately.
I hear Moj saying that Gillis has done nothing as a GM, and can't help but think that Gillis' crack about the buffet plays into it.
Contrast this with the pity party they were throwing for Nonis after he was canned for doing far less than Gillis has accomplished, and its pretty stark.
For me the problem was coaching, not personnel. The obvious reason being how few players matched or exceeded expectations come playoff time. When nobody elevates their game and most players take a step back, that's a coaching issue, not personnel.
There were some decisions by Gillis I disagreed with but the bottom line is the coaching staff had a strong 1 through 4 down the middle of the ice, decent winger depth, a quality defense and good goaltenders to work with. They couldn't get that group to perform, play with any discipline, composure or confidence.
Gillis needs to have a good offseason to restore some faith. He's going to be watched very closely going forward.
I would have fired Gillis January first. That would give the new guy a chance to do stuff at the deadline. The last straw for me is benching Malhotra and offering no substitute. FFS!
I don't know how much trading fail a GM can survive but Gillis must be setting new records.
Vancouver failed to attract any free agents last season beyond an island guy, who lives nearby. Does that happen to other "contenders"? Should it be allowed to happen again?
Vig used some guys very carefully. When they aren't sheltered by the new coach, they will be exposed. That's a real problem when it's the top line and top right winger.
Gillis accepted a rockin' good core and superstar goaltending and tinkered ineffectually around the margins. All he has built is a pile of fired coaches and ruined players. Ruined assets Luongo, Ballard and Booth will fetch nothing in return and will be very very costly to shed. I do not believe he will survive this when the sum total in known. That this comes during a time of renewal is apt. Gillis has to make cuts and fill holes. He has never done either before. Good luck to him.
I would have fired Gillis January first. That would give the new guy a chance to do stuff at the deadline. The last straw for me is benching Malhotra and offering no substitute. FFS!
I don't know how much trading fail a GM can survive but Gillis must be setting new records.
Vancouver failed to attract any free agents last season beyond an island guy, who lives nearby. Does that happen to other "contenders"? Should it be allowed to happen again?
Vig used some guys very carefully. When they aren't sheltered by the new coach, they will be exposed. That's a real problem when it's the top line and top right winger.
Gillis accepted a rockin' good core and superstar goaltending and tinkered ineffectually around the margins. All he has built is a pile of fired coaches and ruined players. Ruined assets Luongo, Ballard and Booth will fetch nothing in return and will be very very costly to shed. I do not believe he will survive this when the sum total in known. That this comes during a time of renewal is apt. Gillis has to make cuts and fill holes. He has never done either before. Good luck to him.
How is Gillis a bad trading GM? Have a look at his history. I'll only list somewhat meaningful trades.
Bernier for 2nd & 3rd: Not a great trade, but Bernier did score 15 goals the following year, and 11 goals in 59 games the year after.
Nycholat for Shannon: Who cares? We needed more depth on defense.
O'Brien for Krajciek: I think most would consider this a success. O'Brien did pretty good in his tenure here, he was a good #5 defenseman while Krajciek was expendable.
LaBarbara for 7th: Again, no big deal. He was a good back up though.
Ehrhoff and Lukowich for Rahimi and White: This was an awesome trade. We scored a top pairing defenseman on a good contract for essentially nothing.
Andrew Alberts for a 3rd: Uh, ya, whatever? It wasn't a great trade because you can get guys like Alberts for free in free agency. This was at the deadline however and we needed depth, at least we got 3 seasons out of Alberts.
Ballard and Oreskovich for Grabner, Bernier, 1st: This was a tough pill to swallow, but I do understand Gillis' reasoning. Bernier didn't pan out, Grabner seemed to be expendable with the emergence of Raymond, and we didn't get the guy we wanted in the 1st. Keep in mind, this trade would have been voided if the guy we wanted was still available in the 1st. Still, overall this turned out to be a bad one.
Higgins for 3rd: A wonderful trade that has served us perfectly.
Lappierre for 3rd: Again, great trade. We would not have made it to the finals without these 2 guys.
Booth, 3rd for Samuelsson and Sturm: At the time this looked like a wonderful trade. Samuelsson was injured and looked to be on the decline, and the Sturm signing wasn't working out. We gained a 3rd round pick and a young top 6 forward who seemed to have lost his game. He did okay in Vancouver so far when healthy, but his health has been the issue.
Pahlsson for 2x 4th: This is all tied in with the Hodgson trade, as they didn't trust Hodgson in the playoffs. Pahlsson did okay as a Canuck, but most look at this trade as a bit of a failure based on how well we did that post season.
Kassian for Hodgson: Most people do not like this trade. Both because we needed more immidiate help, and because the Canuck fan base was attached to Hodgson. The jury is out if you ask me, Kassian does look like a special player. He just wasn't what we needed right then and there. I do applaud Gillis for going for a young player here though, rather than a rental or a guy like Ott.
Roy for a 2nd and Connauton: Again, looked like a great trade. Roy didn't do much in the post season, but a 4 game sample size isn't much to judge off of.
___________________________
Ok, a few thoughts. There seems to be a trend here, Gillis is willing to trade away mid round picks to help us win now, but he isn't willing to trade away 1st rounders (with the exception of the Ballard trade). I do like this strategy, as it is very unlikely more mid round pick will amount to anything anyways. He also does seem to find us pieces that fit our needs, it's unfortunate that sometimes those pieces don't work out. Could he have brought us in more pieces? Sure, but I don't think it would have changed the end result. I think he brought us enough, but for whatever reason we didn't get the most out of the pieces he brought us. Most Canuck fans were thrilled with the Roy acquisition, and there were talks that our center depth was better this year than it has ever been. So why did we lose so many faceoffs? Why couldn't we score? The faults for that can't be put on Gillis, they have to be put on the guy that should be getting the most out of his players. That's why AV is gone, and the that is why Gillis is still here. Gillis did his job, AV did not. I know we all wanted a guy like Gaborik, but then we'd all be complaining that we gave up more young pieces for an aging vet. Hindsight is 20/20, and you can't have your cake and eat it too.
Honestly, probably the biggest reason the Canucks have been unsuccessful the last couple of years have been circumstance; entering the playoffs unhealthy, etc.
There are certainly specific problems where you can point the finger at either Gillis or Vigneault or both but overall I think it's more complex than saying it's this guy's fault or it's that guy's fault or fire everyone.
I think any NHL head coach knows that when you've been around for half a decade or more and the results are getting worse rather than better, the clock is ticking. Time ran out for AV this year even if there were problems he couldn't possibly be blamed for.
As for Mike Gillis, I think he could have addressed some problems that he did not over the last couple of years, or could have addressed some others more aggressively, but it probably would have required the kind of scorched earth, Paul Holmgren-y tactics that aren't consistent with his MO or for that matter with a winning franchise more often than not. He's going to have to address problems this offseason one way or the other though, and if he fails to do so I think the time for finger pointing will have come.
Now is the time for Gillis to show everyone what kind of GM he is. This is his opportunity to put the doubts to rest and really launch his career as a GM, or show the doubters correct. I am looking forward to this offseason and think it would be foolish to get rid of MG before giving his this opportunity. Like all true Canuck fans on here, I am really hoping he will shine.
Putting the Hodgson trade aside, GMMG has been great.
Drafting, Dealing, Contracts, Everything.
What? How exactly has MG been great?
First of all, his drafting has been absolute garbage. I don't think that's anything anyone can dispute. He has not drafted a single player who has played a full season here. Hodgson was the only regular here amongst his draft picks, and he's no longer on our team.
How has Gillis been good at dealing? His last good trade was probably the Ehrhoff trade, years ago.
IMO Gillis's tenure here is a story of two halves. The first half he was good. He recognized what he had and he made the appropriate moves to supplement them and also to address our needs (in his first season here he recognized he didn't have enough offense and went out and picked up Bernier who was projected as a top 6, Demitra, and Sundin). Since the SCF loss, Gillis has been terrible, with his only positive move being the signing of Jason Garrison, who really wanted to come here anyway.
If Gillis continues his trend this offseason then he very well should be unemployed next year.
__________________
I told ya so. I was right all along!
First of all, his drafting has been absolute garbage. I don't think that's anything anyone can dispute.
You either need to reign in your wild hyperbole, or be prepared for people to dispute a lot of things you claim to find indisputable.. probably both.
I would say Gillis' drafting has been pretty unremarkable on the whole so far.. decent looking high picks, some promising looking later picks but not many home runs and as with all teams plenty of busts.
If you really insist on using superlatives then you have to look at individual drafts - I'd say 2008 and 2010 each look pretty poor, whether you want to take their contexts into consideration or not is your business, and 2009 and 2011 look pretty strong at this fairly early stage.
But anyway, to circle back to your comments anyone can dispute that "his drafting has been absolute garbage" and many intelligent posters would.
