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

Mike Gillis Discussion Thread

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-05-2013, 03:52 PM
  #226
B-rock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,069
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fat Tony View Post
Like I said, I never believed it was either/or between these two.

I think AV would have used him if he could get past the early season funk he has. He's got the crazy legs that AV loves.
I personally doubt that. The reason Grabner was jettisoned was because his battle level amounted to and still amounts to somewhere just above zero.

Look at the forwards on the Canucks and the one thing they have in common, with a couple exceptions, is they are willing to battle hard for pucks along the boards. The Sedins are an exception with their skill but even their game dictates that they win a huge amount of battles along the walls. Gillis and AV repeatedly reference the players' "willingness to battle for the puck" as something that dictates their success.

The first two or three years that Hansen came up, AV played him sporadically because he didnt battle like he does now. I credit AV for bringing Hansen's game to the level its at now. I think ideally, thats where hes trying to take Kassian as well, which is why Kass gets demoted to the fourth line occasionally- until he routinely battles his ass off in the corners and the wall in both zones, AV sees him as a liability . I think if AV had a team full of Hansen/Higgins he'd be happy as a pig in ****.

Grabner is the furthest thing from a puck battler, which on AV's team, and a lot of teams in the NHL, gets him sent packing. He absolutely can skate like the wind but that's not as high on AV's list.

B-rock is offline  
Old
03-05-2013, 04:39 PM
  #227
Royal Canuck
Go Jumbo Joe!
 
Royal Canuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Victoria, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,185
vCash: 814
OR AV treats Grabner like he treats Ballard and just puts him in the doghouse all the time.

I've watched a few Islanders games this year (mainly to watch Tavares) and Grabner is very shaky in his own end, something that AV can't stand.

__________________

Twitter |HFBoards Contact | Blog
PSN - TBennz
"You're never a loser until you quit trying. " - Mike Ditka
Royal Canuck is offline  
Old
03-05-2013, 04:56 PM
  #228
CanaFan
Registered User
 
CanaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,125
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanuck View Post
After 2004 he sure didn't improve on the team's drafting. Even if it was a phenomenal haul and we consider it an anomaly, it's not like his follow-ups were anything to write home about either. He did nothing with most of the mid to late-round picks starting from 2005. Compare that to Gillis who we'll also give the responsibility for his first draft to, for the sake of fair comparison; yet in 2009 we already have 4 guys who've reached the AHL level (and 2 more next year) - a vast improvement compared to the year before.

You can also judge how bad a team's drafting is by seeing just how far off the mark they're missing decent players on the ones that didn't make the NHL. From 2005 onward, the majority of those draftees never even made it as AHL regulars - only 4/14 made it to that level. Out of the 2009 crop alone MG will already go 5-for-6 next season.

From the way he was missing BPA's in the 1st round it wasn't a good trend either.
I understand the intense desire to compare Gillis' and Nonis' draft records, and so the temptation to resort to mostly-irrelevant evaluations like # of players who make it to the AHL. But I find that a completely fallacious approach. Draft success should be based on NHL success and that alone. I don't care if 100% of the Wolves today are Gillis draft picks if none of them eventually become NHL players. And who is on the Wolves today that screams future Edler, Raymond, Hansen, Schneider, or Grabner? Rodin? Connauton? Sauve? I can't predict the future but none of those guys screams future NHLer to me and, given the generally negative reviews of our prospects, it doesn't for most others either. I'm thrilled Hodgson made it, and Schroeder is coming along nicely but beyond our 1st round picks (including Jensen and Gaunce) where is this cornucopia of emerging NHL talent that you see on the farm? You may be right that more players are in the AHL under Gillis (I really haven't bothered to check) but until they start making the NHL - either in Vancouver or elsewhere a la Grabner - it really isn't much of an accomplishment.

CanaFan is offline  
Old
03-05-2013, 05:53 PM
  #229
vanuck
Griffiths Way Goons
 
vanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Country: Hong Kong
Posts: 10,660
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanaFan View Post
I understand the intense desire to compare Gillis' and Nonis' draft records, and so the temptation to resort to mostly-irrelevant evaluations like # of players who make it to the AHL. But I find that a completely fallacious approach. Draft success should be based on NHL success and that alone. I don't care if 100% of the Wolves today are Gillis draft picks if none of them eventually become NHL players. And who is on the Wolves today that screams future Edler, Raymond, Hansen, Schneider, or Grabner? Rodin? Connauton? Sauve? I can't predict the future but none of those guys screams future NHLer to me and, given the generally negative reviews of our prospects, it doesn't for most others either. I'm thrilled Hodgson made it, and Schroeder is coming along nicely but beyond our 1st round picks (including Jensen and Gaunce) where is this cornucopia of emerging NHL talent that you see on the farm? You may be right that more players are in the AHL under Gillis (I really haven't bothered to check) but until they start making the NHL - either in Vancouver or elsewhere a la Grabner - it really isn't much of an accomplishment.
And this is where the point made on the previous page that Gillis' picks haven't had enough time to mature - hence it being still too early to judge - comes in relevant. But his draft choices are already starting to pay dividends - more so than Nonis' ever did over the sum of 4 drafts.

Plus, why should it be considered a fallacious approach to looking at things? Of course, NHL success is the objective but there's a very real difference in the way you go about achieving that. It's not terribly difficult to get at least one quality player from your 1st rounder. So essentially it's a wash for both GM's in that regard (when one of them isn't reaching for busts, at least), and even then MG's strategy has still shown to be better. But where the difference truly lies is in the later rounds. Hence why we use the AHL benchmark to compare.

Having even the players who weren't able to reach the NHL still be of a good enough quality to play in the AHL speaks to something about your consistency in identifying at least decent talent. If you keep doing that over a long period of time you're going to come up with NHL players more often than not. Look at the good drafting teams over the past 15 years or so - like OTT, NJD, DET, COL, BUF etc. - you'll find many examples where even their failed draft picks were good enough to be regular players at that level. With Nonis, his failed picks were so far off the mark that you don't even know what they were thinking at the time they made their selections. That alone is just one reason why MG's drafting is superior.

Even if you don't think much of Rodin, Connauton and Sauve... at least they're still either as good or better than the mostly crap Nonis that turned out.

vanuck is offline  
Old
03-05-2013, 06:54 PM
  #230
CanaFan
Registered User
 
CanaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,125
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanuck View Post
And this is where the point made on the previous page that Gillis' picks haven't had enough time to mature - hence it being still too early to judge - comes in relevant. But his draft choices are already starting to pay dividends - more so than Nonis' ever did over the sum of 4 drafts.

Plus, why should it be considered a fallacious approach to looking at things? Of course, NHL success is the objective but there's a very real difference in the way you go about achieving that. It's not terribly difficult to get at least one quality player from your 1st rounder. So essentially it's a wash for both GM's in that regard (when one of them isn't reaching for busts, at least), and even then MG's strategy has still shown to be better. But where the difference truly lies is in the later rounds. Hence why we use the AHL benchmark to compare.

Having even the players who weren't able to reach the NHL still be of a good enough quality to play in the AHL speaks to something about your consistency in identifying at least decent talent. If you keep doing that over a long period of time you're going to come up with NHL players more often than not. Look at the good drafting teams over the past 15 years or so - like OTT, NJD, DET, COL, BUF etc. - you'll find many examples where even their failed draft picks were good enough to be regular players at that level. With Nonis, his failed picks were so far off the mark that you don't even know what they were thinking at the time they made their selections. That alone is just one reason why MG's drafting is superior.

Even if you don't think much of Rodin, Connauton and Sauve... at least they're still either as good or better than the mostly crap Nonis that turned out.

I think we're starting to go in circles a bit now, which isn't your fault or mine, I just think we're at a fundamental disagreement on what constitutes "good drafting".

I look at Nonis' 4 drafts and see a significant contribution to the core of this team. I see our #1 (or #2 at worst Dman), our current #1 goalie, 2/3 of our 3rd line, plus a young 30 goal scorer on another team. For a mere 4 drafts that is a good haul. End of story. Look at any team around the league and few have had a better 4 year span. Yes, you can always find a bad pick (Ellington, White) or a player that we passed on that in hindsight (or even at the time) looked like a mistake (Kopitar). But drafting is about what you get, not about what you miss. You can't dismiss this with statements like "well, but after 2004 ..." or "Except for Grabner 2006 sucked ...". Sure, well after Hodgson 2008 sucked. The difference is you feel there hasn't been enough time to write off guys like Sauve and Prab Rai as there has been for Taylor Ellington and Sergei Shirokov. But its getting close.

What baffles me is that you don't seem to want to give Nonis much/any credit for producing current, legit NHL players but are more than willing to give Gillis the benefit of the doubt on a bunch of maybe's and could be's. I've yet to see Gillis produce anyone as good as Edler or Schneider but you seem to think that having a farm team full of Rodin's and Sauve's shows that his drafting is *definitively better*. And then to fall back on the "he hasn't had enough time yet" but AT THE SAME TIME say that Nonis mostly picked busts is unfair. Gillis' picks may still bust, given as much time as Nonis' picks. Most will actually. And a bust is a bust, whether he busts in college or in the AHL.

CanaFan is offline  
Old
03-05-2013, 08:33 PM
  #231
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 19,347
vCash: 1000
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanaFan View Post
This isn't about whether we "need" a shoot-first or playmaking player, or at least it wasn't when I jumped into this conversation. It was about Raymond "outscoring" Grabner, which isn't entirely true (Assists yes, Goals no). Whether or not you feel we need Raymond more than Grabner is a totally different discussion.

*btw Raymond is hardly a "playmaking" forward. His tunnel-vision and penchance for skating the puck into oblivion are well known around these boards. Just because Grabner is worse doesn't turn Raymond magically into a playmaker.
Just because Grabner scores more goals doesn't turn him into Stamkos either.

What matters when it comes to production is goals scored by the team while that player is on the ice. Raymond typically does this better than Grabner.

Take last year, Raymond was terrible last year following his back problems, only 10g 10a in 55 games but he still managed to be on the ice 35 goals for. Grabner had 20g 12a in 78 games but only 43 goals for (I won't go into his -18 NYI was mess in general).

Simply looking at goals a meassure of ability to contribute to wins is faulty. Watching you try and turn Raymond's assists into a negative was hillarious. There is a reason Grabner has a goals to assists ratio that is way off norm, he gets the puck and tunnels visions. This will make his stats look better, especially goals, but it's not great for utilising his team mates. I wouldn't be surprised if half his assists are off rebounds.

I don't have a problem with Grabner, dealing him will keep trash plugs was disappointing. Just having a guy like him on the 3rd line would be nice, someone who can score without over reliance on the other plugs to make nice plays (ie Lappiere's tunnel vision wouldn't be so bad if he had Grabner's hands and speed to finish).

me2 is offline  
Old
03-05-2013, 08:37 PM
  #232
serge2k
Registered User
 
serge2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,411
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by me2 View Post
Just because Grabner scores more goals doesn't turn him into Stamkos either.

What matters when it comes to production is goals scored by the team while that player is on the ice. Raymond typically does this better than Grabner.

Take last year, Raymond was terrible last year following his back problems, only 10g 10a in 55 games but he still managed to be on the ice 35 goals for. Grabner had 20g 12a in 78 games but only 43 goals for (I won't go into his -18 NYI was mess in general).

Simply looking at goals a meassure of ability to contribute to wins is faulty. Watching you try and turn Raymond's assists into a negative was hillarious. There is a reason Grabner has a goals to assists ratio that is way off norm, he gets the puck and tunnels visions. This will make his stats look better, especially goals, but it's not great for utilising his team mates. I wouldn't be surprised if half his assists are off rebounds.

I don't have a problem with Grabner, dealing him will keep trash plugs was disappointing. Just having a guy like him on the 3rd line would be nice, someone who can score without over reliance on the other plugs to make nice plays (ie Lappiere's tunnel vision wouldn't be so bad if he had Grabner's hands and speed to finish).
I'd argue that's a pretty useless metric when you have two very different players on two very different teams (top 5 offense vs bottom 3).

serge2k is offline  
Old
03-05-2013, 08:47 PM
  #233
CanaFan
Registered User
 
CanaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,125
vCash: 500
Nvm. Will reply later.


Last edited by CanaFan: 03-05-2013 at 08:55 PM. Reason: misread
CanaFan is offline  
Old
03-05-2013, 08:55 PM
  #234
arsmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 18,673
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanaFan View Post
Congrats, you are probably the first person in history to try to discredit a player for a) Scoring more goals and b) being on the ice for more goals scored for. It really is a brilliant piece of manipulation to make Raymond look somehow the better. I wonder why GMs throw so much money at players who score goals rather than just the players who have the highest "goals-scored-while-on-the-ice-that-you-didn't-necessarily-score-or-assist-on" index? Who knows, maybe guys like Crosby and Stamkos are fleecing the league with their misleadingly high goal totals while some no-name 4th line has scored 0 goals but has been on the ice while someone else scored 2. "Why he has a GSWOTITYDNSOAO index of infinity!!"
Instead of acting like a jerk. Look at the context.

Grabner was on the ice for 8 more goals in 23 more games.

Not that impressive.

I'm so sick of hearing about Grabner. He's a one trick pony. We'd have lost him to waivers.

Edit* in terms of drafting 2008 was a transition year. Gillis has to get a pass there.

Nonis had Zero transition years as GM here, he had been in the organization a long time before getting the GM gig. He knew what was going on. 2007 is on him, and it's the worst draft ever. Not even an AHLer in there.

Start judging Gillis from 2009 and onwards and it's extremely hard to evaluate, considering most people use 5 years as the bench mark to get a good grasp on judging drafts.

2009 can be graded in 2014. Let's open this up in a year and see how it looks.


Last edited by arsmaster: 03-05-2013 at 09:14 PM.
arsmaster is offline  
Old
03-05-2013, 09:23 PM
  #235
arsmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 18,673
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanaFan View Post
I think we're starting to go in circles a bit now, which isn't your fault or mine, I just think we're at a fundamental disagreement on what constitutes "good drafting".

I look at Nonis' 4 drafts and see a significant contribution to the core of this team. I see our #1 (or #2 at worst Dman), our current #1 goalie, 2/3 of our 3rd line, plus a young 30 goal scorer on another team. For a mere 4 drafts that is a good haul. End of story. Look at any team around the league and few have had a better 4 year span. Yes, you can always find a bad pick (Ellington, White) or a player that we passed on that in hindsight (or even at the time) looked like a mistake (Kopitar). But drafting is about what you get, not about what you miss. You can't dismiss this with statements like "well, but after 2004 ..." or "Except for Grabner 2006 sucked ...". Sure, well after Hodgson 2008 sucked. The difference is you feel there hasn't been enough time to write off guys like Sauve and Prab Rai as there has been for Taylor Ellington and Sergei Shirokov. But its getting close.

What baffles me is that you don't seem to want to give Nonis much/any credit for producing current, legit NHL players but are more than willing to give Gillis the benefit of the doubt on a bunch of maybe's and could be's. I've yet to see Gillis produce anyone as good as Edler or Schneider but you seem to think that having a farm team full of Rodin's and Sauve's shows that his drafting is *definitively better*. And then to fall back on the "he hasn't had enough time yet" but AT THE SAME TIME say that Nonis mostly picked busts is unfair. Gillis' picks may still bust, given as much time as Nonis' picks. Most will actually. And a bust is a bust, whether he busts in college or in the AHL.
Such an incredible double standard.

Nonis' draft produced our #1 goalie you say. Well it took that goalie 9 bloody years to get there.

You gonna give the 2009 draft 9 years to analyze?

A 30 goal scorer on another team? I wouldn't call him that, but I'll play...Gillis produced a 1st line center on another team (I don't actually believe CH is a 1st line center but that his role). Calling Grabner a 30 goal scorer is like calling Jonathan cheechoo a 50 goal scorer. He hit he mark ONCE. He only has 32 points last year.

We don't know what we have from these other drafts. Look how long it took Hansen to become what he is.

I'm willing to give Gillis' picks a 5 year period before making claims one way or the other (and I'm not overly fond of his drafts....although if Lack develops like most think he will and Tanev continues his ascension, the core of this team moving forward will have quite a # of Gillis transactions, no?).

arsmaster is offline  
Old
03-05-2013, 09:38 PM
  #236
King of the ES*
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,728
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fat Tony View Post
He's made some good moves and bad moves. I would only rate him as average among NHL GMs right now.
We are witnessing his worst move, right now, playing out before our eyes.

He made a big mistake by not trading Cory Schneider earlier - like, when his value was high (after the 2011 Cup run, perhaps). Now, we're stuck with a good goalie that doesn't want to be here, but who there are no buyers for, due to his contract. We're also basically stuck with Schneider, because Luongo doesn't want to be here.

To borrow a phrase from Buffett, Gillis got caught with his pants down while the tide went out. Got too greedy, with his two great goalies, and now he's in an awful bargaining position that gets worse by the day.

How this has been handled is tragic. I like both goalies, they're both good, but, IMO, the obvious guy to keep was Luongo, though it's too late now.

What a mess.

King of the ES* is offline  
Old
03-05-2013, 09:46 PM
  #237
Wizeman*
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,624
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by arsmaster View Post
. We'd have lost him to waivers.
Take issue with this. We would not have put Grabner on waivers. He would have sat in the press box just like his replacement- Jeff Tambellini- did.

Quote:
Originally Posted by arsmaster View Post
Such an incredible double standard.


You gonna give the 2009 draft 9 years to analyze?
this one is a very good point. We all know Burkie sweated like a dog to get us the second sedin , and drafted Ryan Kesler. He also drafted Bieksa in the 5th round and picked up Burrows out of nowhere to boot.

But we forget his gaffes too.

Nonis drafts are pretty damn sweet , finding Raymond in the second and Edler in the third.

Patrick white aside, he did very good.

Gillis drafting hasnt had a chance yet.

His 2008 draft cant be measured as it translated into a 2009 pick. His 2010 was thrown out the window unfortunately but Jensen and Gaunce look promising.

We have to have this discussion at least in 2015 or later for the 2009 draft. We have little buds coming through the topsoil but it aint time for the harvest by a long shot.

Wizeman* is offline  
Old
03-05-2013, 10:01 PM
  #238
Chubros
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,159
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by King of the ES View Post
We are witnessing his worst move, right now, playing out before our eyes.

He made a big mistake by not trading Cory Schneider earlier - like, when his value was high (after the 2011 Cup run, perhaps). Now, we're stuck with a good goalie that doesn't want to be here, but who there are no buyers for, due to his contract. We're also basically stuck with Schneider, because Luongo doesn't want to be here.

To borrow a phrase from Buffett, Gillis got caught with his pants down while the tide went out. Got too greedy, with his two great goalies, and now he's in an awful bargaining position that gets worse by the day.

How this has been handled is tragic. I like both goalies, they're both good, but, IMO, the obvious guy to keep was Luongo, though it's too late now.

What a mess.
You don't know that trading Schneider would have eliminated Luongo's desire to be elsewhere. It likely would have lessened it, but no one can know that for sure. The mistake, in my opinion, was signing Lu to such a lengthy contract. That is also likely the biggest sticking point holding up a trade. Relax though, it'll happen in the end. And, in my opinion, it is still in the team's best long term interest.

Right now though, Luongo seems to be more valuable as injury insurance/ someone to share the heavy load of the shortened season. If Luongo only fetches futures (1st round pick/ top prospects), Gillis might as well wait until the off season to trade Luongo. Lu seems to be okay with that.

On another note, although I haven't been Gillis's biggest supporter, I am looking forward to seeing how he fares with some big names potentially hitting the FA market this offseason. Contract negotiations have clearly been one of Gillis's strengths as a GM, and that makes sense given his background as a player agent.

Chubros is offline  
Old
03-05-2013, 10:02 PM
  #239
CanaFan
Registered User
 
CanaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,125
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by arsmaster View Post
Such an incredible double standard.

Nonis' draft produced our #1 goalie you say. Well it took that goalie 9 bloody years to get there.

You gonna give the 2009 draft 9 years to analyze?

A 30 goal scorer on another team? I wouldn't call him that, but I'll play...Gillis produced a 1st line center on another team (I don't actually believe CH is a 1st line center but that his role). Calling Grabner a 30 goal scorer is like calling Jonathan cheechoo a 50 goal scorer. He hit he mark ONCE. He only has 32 points last year.

We don't know what we have from these other drafts. Look how long it took Hansen to become what he is.

I'm willing to give Gillis' picks a 5 year period before making claims one way or the other (and I'm not overly fond of his drafts....although if Lack develops like most think he will and Tanev continues his ascension, the core of this team moving forward will have quite a # of Gillis transactions, no?).
Point #1: Nonis' drafts have produced NHL level talent. Fact. Semi-elite talent in the form of Edler and Schneider. Above average talent in Grabner (you wouldn't call him a 30 goal scorer? Well he has scored 30 in 1 of 2 full seasons. Pretty sure that is enough to call him a "30 goal scorer"). Solid talent in Hansen and Raymond. That isn't even factoring in Bourdon. Yes, most of that talent has taken several years to arrive. It's not a point for Nonis, but it is reality.

Point #2: Gillis HAS NOT produced equivalent NHL talent YET. Notice the YET?? Ya, I've been saying numerous times that it is too early to judge Gillis' drafts b/c he hasn't had the same amount of time as Nonis. Go read my ****ing posts before calling me out on a double-standard. But by the same token, numerous posters here want to anoint Gillis as the de facto "superior drafter" based on a bunch of players who are - ? what, playing at the AHL level?? Who *may* still bust? Who haven't had 5-6 years to demonstrate clearly whether they are actually quality draft picks at all? That is the real double standard here, and it is being perpetuated by so many posters around here. You want to say "No, no you can't compare Gillis to Nonis b/c he hasn't had 9 years to develop NHL players." Then you want to say "But look at all the busts that Nonis drafted compared to Gillis, who has so many players doing well in the AHL and junior hockey." How can you call Nonis out for drafting busts when Gillis' picks could very well bust themselves, given the same amount of time?

**I do agree that further time is needed to properly evaluate Gillis' drafting. We can agree on that at least.

CanaFan is offline  
Old
03-05-2013, 10:07 PM
  #240
King of the ES*
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,728
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chubros View Post
You don't know that trading Schneider would have eliminated Luongo's desire to be elsewhere. It likely would have lessened it, but no one can know that for sure. The mistake, in my opinion, was signing Lu to such a lengthy contract. That is also likely the biggest sticking point holding up a trade. Relax though, it'll happen in the end. And, in my opinion, it is still in the team's best long term interest.

Right now though, Luongo seems to be more valuable as injury insurance/ someone to share the heavy load of the shortened season. If Luongo only fetches futures (1st round pick/ top prospects), Gillis might as well wait until the off season to trade Luongo. Lu seems to be okay with that.
Who cares if Luongo would want to be somewhere else even without Schneider? He's under contract, so we would not be obligated to move him, unless he pulls a Lindros, but technically anyone can do that at any time, so we're infinitely exposed to that risk.

The contract's length isn't really a problem, IMO. At least we'd have stability there for the next 9 years. Lou's a star goaltender and I don't think he'll just suddenly forget how to play hockey at the age of 38. Might not be elite, but he'd be good enough. And $5.3M against the cap is entirely manageable.

Totally disagree on the whole idea of "insurance". It'll look even worse if/when scoring becomes an issue, which you can argue is an issue today. On any given night, we have $4 - $5M sitting on the bench and adding no value to the outcome of the game. That is not good asset management.

King of the ES* is offline  
Old
03-05-2013, 10:55 PM
  #241
Chubros
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,159
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by King of the ES View Post
Who cares if Luongo would want to be somewhere else even without Schneider? He's under contract, so we would not be obligated to move him, unless he pulls a Lindros, but technically anyone can do that at any time, so we're infinitely exposed to that risk.
Or he could to decide to exercise the clause in his contract that says he can ask for a trade in what is it, two years from now?

Quote:
Originally Posted by King of the ES View Post
The contract's length isn't really a problem, IMO. At least we'd have stability there for the next 9 years. Lou's a star goaltender and I don't think he'll just suddenly forget how to play hockey at the age of 38. Might not be elite, but he'd be good enough. And $5.3M against the cap is entirely manageable.
The cap his is the best part of the deal (as it should be in a cap evasion type deal). Only time will tell if the term makes it the albatross that detractors refer to it as.

Quote:
Originally Posted by King of the ES View Post
Totally disagree on the whole idea of "insurance". It'll look even worse if/when scoring becomes an issue, which you can argue is an issue today. On any given night, we have $4 - $5M sitting on the bench and adding no value to the outcome of the game. That is not good asset management.
Only if there's a better option available toward which to deploy that money. I'd argue that there isn't. For the team, in its current configuration, Luongo's $5.3m cap hit is better spent than Ballard and Booth's $4.2 apiece. And either of those guys could have been bought out early if there were anything worthwhile to spend it on.

And its not just the insurance factor. It's also easing the load in a shortened season. I think you'll see goalies that try to play too many games this year struggle to get through the playoffs/ get injured.

Chubros is offline  
Old
03-06-2013, 01:25 AM
  #242
vanuck
Griffiths Way Goons
 
vanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Country: Hong Kong
Posts: 10,660
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanaFan View Post
I think we're starting to go in circles a bit now, which isn't your fault or mine, I just think we're at a fundamental disagreement on what constitutes "good drafting".

I look at Nonis' 4 drafts and see a significant contribution to the core of this team. I see our #1 (or #2 at worst Dman), our current #1 goalie, 2/3 of our 3rd line, plus a young 30 goal scorer on another team. For a mere 4 drafts that is a good haul. End of story. Look at any team around the league and few have had a better 4 year span. Yes, you can always find a bad pick (Ellington, White) or a player that we passed on that in hindsight (or even at the time) looked like a mistake (Kopitar). But drafting is about what you get, not about what you miss.
Currently, outside of Hodgson and Schroeder, there are no other NHL players to compare with the ones Nonis drafted. Hence the point everyone made about time. On aggregate, Schneider, Edler and Hansen took an average of 4.3 years to establish themselves in the league. We'll see how MG's picks do, but we can already look at the rest of the picks in comparison - solely because of the point I made originally.

Another thing is that even with the players he did get in the 1st round, the justification of the pick was often questionable because you're not as likely to succeed every time when you pass up obvious fallers and reach for the guys you want.

Quote:
You can't dismiss this with statements like "well, but after 2004 ..." or "Except for Grabner 2006 sucked ...". Sure, well after Hodgson 2008 sucked. The difference is you feel there hasn't been enough time to write off guys like Sauve and Prab Rai as there has been for Taylor Ellington and Sergei Shirokov. But its getting close.
I've already accounted for 2008 - it can be pretty much written off. And like you said, because 2004 was such a good haul we can just ignore the failed picks. But my original point was that his drafting got worse every year, hence why I used 2005-2007 as a frame of reference.

Quote:
What baffles me is that you don't seem to want to give Nonis much/any credit for producing current, legit NHL players but are more than willing to give Gillis the benefit of the doubt on a bunch of maybe's and could be's. I've yet to see Gillis produce anyone as good as Edler or Schneider but you seem to think that having a farm team full of Rodin's and Sauve's shows that his drafting is *definitively better*. And then to fall back on the "he hasn't had enough time yet" but AT THE SAME TIME say that Nonis mostly picked busts is unfair. Gillis' picks may still bust, given as much time as Nonis' picks. Most will actually. And a bust is a bust, whether he busts in college or in the AHL.
Well that's because I'm also comparing two different things: 1) MG's NHL'ers vs. DN's NHL'ers, plus 2) MG's non-NHL'ers vs. DN's non-NHL'ers. That's what seems to be confusing you here. We cannot draw a conclusion for the first one because, again, of insufficient time elapsed.

However, for the 2nd one we don't need to wait - at all. By next season Sauve, Rodin, Connauton, Andersson, Price and Cannata will have shown they're already better than most of the non-NHL'ers Nonis managed to produce. Here the difference in time elapsed doesn't even matter in this case because the process is already showing to be better than what Nonis had in place when he was here. Hope that clears it up.

I do give him credit for the NHL'ers he did produce. But after the terrific start he had, it was all downhill. The failed picks that Nonis came up with couldn't even reach a minimum standard of quality - a standard that MG's already attaining in fewer years to boot. Which is why Nonis was much more hit-or-miss with his picks though compared to Gillis' early returns so far.

As for 'a bust is a bust'... I have to disagree. Not all busts are the same. Even if a guy doesn't make it and only tops out as an AHL star, you can still see what they saw in him when they took him. And that's fine - they can't all make it to the NHL. Whereas many of Nonis' were complete misses. Most of them never even reached the minors. That's why you shouldn't only look at the end result and dismiss the process that produced those other guys at the same time. Because one is more likely to produce talent - and thus more sustainable - than the other. You can always expect the majority of your picks to not pan out, but they shouldn't be off the mark by this much. As in, barely even ECHL quality or worse.

vanuck is offline  
Old
03-06-2013, 02:04 AM
  #243
LolClarkson*
Canucks 4 the cup
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Embrace the hate
Posts: 8,102
vCash: 500
Shorty by Hodgson



Hodgson had 2 goals tonight.

Grabner had one

LolClarkson* is offline  
Old
03-06-2013, 02:09 AM
  #244
CanadianPirate
Registered User
 
CanadianPirate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,123
vCash: 500
I don't understand why Tanev doesn't count as an nhler for Gillis. Yes he was a signed college free agent and not a draft pick but how is that any different than a draft pick? Both require amateur scouting and development within the organization. To me Tanev is a testament to the main thin Gillis has brought the organization, development. This can be seen by the number of ahlers that Gillis has drafted.

CanadianPirate is offline  
Old
03-06-2013, 11:23 AM
  #245
dave babych returns
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,365
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goldrunner View Post
Shorty by Hodgson

Hodgson had 2 goals tonight.

Grabner had one
Do I know you from another board?

dave babych returns is offline  
Old
03-06-2013, 02:13 PM
  #246
monster_bertuzzi
registered user
 
monster_bertuzzi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 30,144
vCash: 500
Gillis has been abysmal for the past two years. How many monumental errors can you count?

monster_bertuzzi is offline  
Old
03-06-2013, 02:16 PM
  #247
Stories Tales Lies
and Exaggerations
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,441
vCash: 500
Hindsight GMing

Stories Tales Lies is offline  
Old
03-06-2013, 02:24 PM
  #248
Grub
First Line Troll
 
Grub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: B.C
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,310
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by monster_bertuzzi View Post
Gillis has been abysmal for the past two years. How many monumental errors can you count?
Signing Marco Sturm
Trading Grabner+1st Round Pick for 6th Defensemen Keith Ballard
Trading Cody Hodgson for Zach Kassian
Signing Garrison to an overpaid price
Letting Erhoff Walk
Holding on to Luongo for so long that we have 2 number 1's
Re-signing Alain Vigneault

Just a view on the top of my head.

None of his move has improved this team since the cup run.


But ofcourse I can't forget that Mike Gillis is a God for re-signing our Nonis bred players.

Grub is offline  
Old
03-06-2013, 02:33 PM
  #249
Stories Tales Lies
and Exaggerations
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,441
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grub View Post
Signing Marco Sturm
Trading Grabner+1st Round Pick for 6th Defensemen Keith Ballard
Trading Cody Hodgson for Zach Kassian
Signing Garrison to an overpaid price
Letting Erhoff Walk
Holding on to Luongo for so long that we have 2 number 1's
Re-signing Alain Vigneault

Just a view on the top of my head.
IMO

Signing Marco Sturm, Hardly monumental
Trading Cody Hodgson for Zach Kassian, I do this trade again today
Signing Garrison to an overpaid price, Thats what you pay on FA market for a top 4 guy that is rock solid on the PK and has a bomb like his.
Letting Erhoff Walk, Garrison > Erhoff all things considered
Holding on to Luongo for so long that we have 2 number 1's, Best mistake in the League
Re-signing Alain Vigneault, Say what you want about AV but he deserved the bonus of extension after what he has done here, I he gets fired tomorrow or not

Stories Tales Lies is offline  
Old
03-06-2013, 02:34 PM
  #250
Tiranis
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Toronto, ON
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 21,030
vCash: 500
I don't know in what world Garrison is overpaid based on his recent play. An absolute rock defensively and he's only getting started. He clearly has offensive upside too.

Tiranis is online now  
Closed Thread

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 09:54 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.