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 - Part II

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-20-2013, 06:42 PM
  #26
Falconator
Registered User
 
Falconator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Vancouver Island
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanuckLuck View Post
Good lord...We just came 1st in the league and this year we are in the playoff picture in an extremely competitive conference that has MANY teams struggling - not just Vancouver.

to suggest this is all Mike Gillis' fault is hilarious
You're fooling yourself, and so is MG, if you believe this is a team that can beat the best in the West over a seven game series. We haven't had a second line for almost three years now, we have very little organizational depth to deal with these injuries even though MG has been drafting for us for five years.

Gillis has royally screwed up the Luongo trade situation because he's such an arrogant ass, he should've traded him when someone actually offered him something. He's got a coach who puts the one offensively talented young center we have left on the fourth line but he put Lappy on the second line. Until last night that is.

He brought in Ballard and Booth which has for all intents and purposes been a waste of almost 9 million cap dollars. He traded Cody Hodgson when he knew we had very little center depth and now he scrambling for a center which will cost him more assets.



Last edited by Falconator: 03-20-2013 at 06:53 PM.
Falconator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2013, 07:07 PM
  #27
CanuckLuck
Registered User
 
CanuckLuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Kelowna, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,371
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Falconator View Post
You're fooling yourself, and so is MG, if you believe this is a team that can beat the best in the West over a seven game series. We haven't had a second line for almost three years now, we have very little organizational depth to deal with these injuries even though MG has been drafting for us for five years.

Gillis has royally screwed up the Luongo trade situation because he's such an arrogant ass, he should've traded him when someone actually offered him something. He's got a coach who puts the one offensively talented young center we have left on the fourth line but he put Lappy on the second line. Until last night that is.

He brought in Ballard and Booth which has for all intents and purposes been a waste of almost 9 million cap dollars. He traded Cody Hodgson when he knew we had very little center depth and now he scrambling for a center which will cost him more assets.


The bolded is what remains to be seen. Clearly Gillis has decided to add size and a more rugged line-up to the playoffs. A less dominant team - yes; A better playoff team? We will see. You should stop pretending like you know all the answers before the equation has been solved.

[mod]


Last edited by Dado: 03-20-2013 at 07:15 PM. Reason: unnecessarily poking the bear
CanuckLuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2013, 07:34 AM
  #28
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,299
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diamonddog01 View Post
You know what else is a _FACT_ and that you have alluded to above? That Gillis offered Ehrhoff a contract. So prior to dumping him for a 4th he offered him the same contract Bieksa signed for.

So that tells me that despite his putrid, catastrophic playoffs (your view, not mine) Gillis still wanted him on this team, and attempted to resign him.

So what does that tell you? Perhaps Gillis didn't view him as this putrid liability if he was willing to offer him a contract? Or do you think Gillis tries to resign players he views as horrible?

You can't have it both ways. Unfortunately for our team Gillis, as you said, chose the covenant over the player.


Gillis recognized his worth as a puck mover, that's why he wanted him back. What's the sense in losing that for nothing? In a vacuum, this team is better with Ehrhoff than without. That's not in contention. What is in contention is the degree of importance of Ehrhoff to this team.

In 2011, he outscored the next best D producer by 17 points. Injuries factored in, but based on that production alone, his agent was well justified in asking for 5m+ market value. Gillis balked, why? Why did Gillis choose to enforce the covenant here to what appeared to be the best point-producing Dman on the team?

In other words, if his regular season was great, and his playoffs were at the very least good (as you are contending), why still force him in line with the others? My point is that something had to have hurt Ehrhoff's perceived value to the team. RE: Playoffs. That's why they were as strict with their demands. And it's why they were more willing to break the covenant for the offensive-minded Edler instead.



Quote:
What objective data do you need to be proven right? You are the one making an assertion here - ie Ehrhoff was the worst player of all time in the playoffs. I think this is a gross exaggeration, shoulder injury aside. In a debate you should back up your claims, instead of asking those refuting them to provide evidence of their rebuttal.

You are the one going on about Fenwick. Not me. I simply repeated your claims. You want proof that they were better at ES in 2011 than 2013 then let's go back to good ol' 5-5 F/A.

2011 - 2nd overall at 1.32

2013 - 11th overall at 1.08


I've even bolded it for you. I'll let you think this through...(quickly or slowly, it is entirely up to you). I disagree that bumping up the sv% would improve our 5-5 F/A to 2nd or 1st overall, and you have absolutely no way to determine how much. In any case sure, sv%, our PP, and yes, the presence of Ehrhoff and balanced D
pairings all contributed to us being better at 5-5 2 years ago.


Question: You said you "disagree that bumping up the sv% would improve our 5-5 F/A". Then you said "In any case sure, sv%... contributed to us being better at 5-5 2 years ago"... So that means it is a factor or it's not?

As opendoor alludes, it is the most significant of factors. Of course there are others, but this one is the biggest. Therefore, I think it disingenuous to repeatedly tout the exclusion of Ehrhoff as being the biggest factor in the team's ES differences.




Quote:
You unfounded arrogance is at times breathtaking. Perhaps if you read through the posts better you would fare better in these threads. It's a convenient way to ignore points that you don't have an answer for, but it certainly doesn't do much to help your argument.

Garrison has been with Hamhuis for a grand total of what - 8 games? And you're basing that he's a better fit for our team on that sample size? Vs Ehrhoff who was here for several years. Despite the fact that Edler - Bieksa pairing is a mess? Um...wow. Again, you are so focused on the advanced stats of a particular player you are missing the bigger picture or context at large. In this case both temporally and holistically.

If Ian White were to gel with Edler, the same way Ehrhoff did, and this enabled us to get the Hamhuis - Bieksa pairing back on track, improving the team's ES/5-5 play, specialty teams, and place in the standings, to 2011 levels:

I make that call each and every time. As does every good GM in the league.

_If_ we acquire Ian White.
_If_ he gels with Edler.
_If_ they gel in the same way as Edler+Ehrhoff.
_If_ Hamhuis and Bieksa can be paired together.
_If_ Hamhuis and Bieksa get "back on track".
_If_ these things add up to improved 5-5 play.
_If_ these things actually improve the PP.
_If_ these things result in a higher spot in the standings.
_If_ these improve play to match 2011 levels.

Does this sound like big picture/context or just wishful thinking? Be honest.

Couple of things:

- White isn't on Garrison's level. The undue focus on pairings and handedness is causing you to favour an inferior Dman. Surely you can see that as illogical. Not to mention that the big picture focus on the right side is being diminished by the game due to Garrison playing well there.

- Nothing is preventing Hamhuis to be paired with Bieksa right now. Not technically. They haven't done it because neither player has played well. And when they were together, they were bad. So the coaching staff is "babysitting" Hamhuis right now. Garrison is the rock on that pairing. When Hamhuis gets up to speed, then I think you will see HamJuice reunited. It's sure nice to have Garrison as an option there in the meantime.

- Garrison has spent 155 of his total 448 min with Hamhuis. When together, Hamhuis's Goals For % and his Corsi For % have gone up. Alone, Garrison is better at both. Me thinks Garrison is helping Hammer a good deal.

Bleach Clean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2013, 10:15 AM
  #29
dave babych returns
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,365
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goldrunner View Post
Thread getting derailed much ?

Mike Gillis somehow managed to devolve this team of skill. He traded the right prospects and acquired the right roster players to have exactly no finesse and skill outside of the Sedins.

I don't know how someone can make this claim with any degree of seriousness when you look at the roster Dave Nonis left behind.

dave babych returns is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2013, 10:30 AM
  #30
CanaFan
Registered User
 
CanaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,715
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave babych returns View Post
I don't know how someone can make this claim with any degree of seriousness when you look at the roster Dave Nonis left behind.

The putrid roster that included Luongo, Burrows, Edler and drafted Scheider, Raymond, Hansen, and Grabner? And already included (from the BB years, of which Nonis was part of) Sedins, Kesler, and Bieksa?

Yah, that ****er Nonis really left nothing but table scraps for poor boy-genius Mike Gillis to work with ...

CanaFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2013, 10:44 AM
  #31
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,299
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanaFan View Post
The putrid roster that included Luongo, Burrows, Edler and drafted Scheider, Raymond, Hansen, and Grabner? And already included (from the BB years, of which Nonis was part of) Sedins, Kesler, and Bieksa?

Yah, that ****er Nonis really left nothing but table scraps for poor boy-genius Mike Gillis to work with ...

That same roster that missed the playoffs and ensured Nonis's expulsion out of here?

Even with Nonis, the core pieces were here, but his biggest failing was supplementing them properly. Something Gillis has done for 4.5 years here. (4 years with the best winning percentage in the league).

Bleach Clean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2013, 10:44 AM
  #32
dave babych returns
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,365
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanaFan View Post
The putrid roster that included Luongo, Burrows, Edler and drafted Scheider, Raymond, Hansen, and Grabner? And already included (from the BB years, of which Nonis was part of) Sedins, Kesler, and Bieksa?

Yah, that ****er Nonis really left nothing but table scraps for poor boy-genius Mike Gillis to work with ...
This again.

My point is that Nonis tried to coast over some mighty thin ice without enough NHL depth, I don't know how you call a roster that regularly featured the likes of Jeff Cowan, Brad Isbister, Lukas Krajicek, Aaron Miller, Matt Pettinger and a rotating cast of Jason Jaffray, Mike Brown, Rick Rypien, Nathan MacIver, etc etc.. I don't know how you call that "skilled."

And you can point out that the Canucks used first year pro Mason Raymond (and gave second year pro Jannik Hansen five games) as though that supports the case that the Canucks team Mike Gillis joined wasn't desperately understaffed with NHL players but to me that's a strike against Nonis.

Nonis had his up years and his down years at the draft table and made some smart acquisitions and re-signings.

But he chronically left holes open on his roster and there's simply no disputing that the best club he could put on the ice was vastly less skilled than the best Canucks teams Mike Gillis has iced - and the results support that.

In fact I'd wager the worst rosters Nonis has subjected us to are also significantly worse than the one Gillis presides over now or at any time, that was discussed in another thread recently and I didn't really see much disagreement.

..

I don't dispute that the team we see on the ice this year is markedly worse than most of Mike Gillis' other efforts, and in that respect he has failed to meet the standard he set here.

That doesn't mean though that he has not consistently iced better teams than his predecessors.

Oh and I'm not really interested in engaging in a bunch of "but Mike Gillis didn't trade away the entire roster and rebuild from scratch so he gets no credit for his teams success" nonsense, so you can save it.

dave babych returns is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2013, 10:58 AM
  #33
CanaFan
Registered User
 
CanaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,715
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave babych returns View Post
This again.

My point is that Nonis tried to coast over some mighty thin ice without enough NHL depth, I don't know how you call a roster that regularly featured the likes of Jeff Cowan, Brad Isbister, Lukas Krajicek, Aaron Miller, Matt Pettinger and a rotating cast of Jason Jaffray, Mike Brown, Rick Rypien, Nathan MacIver, etc etc.. I don't know how you call that "skilled."

And you can point out that the Canucks used first year pro Mason Raymond (and gave second year pro Jannik Hansen five games) as though that supports the case that the Canucks team Mike Gillis joined wasn't desperately understaffed with NHL players but to me that's a strike against Nonis.

Nonis had his up years and his down years at the draft table and made some smart acquisitions and re-signings.

But he chronically left holes open on his roster and there's simply no disputing that the best club he could put on the ice was vastly less skilled than the best Canucks teams Mike Gillis has iced - and the results support that.

In fact I'd wager the worst rosters Nonis has subjected us to are also significantly worse than the one Gillis presides over now or at any time, that was discussed in another thread recently and I didn't really see much disagreement.

..

I don't dispute that the team we see on the ice this year is markedly worse than most of Mike Gillis' other efforts, and in that respect he has failed to meet the standard he set here.

That doesn't mean though that he has not consistently iced better teams than his predecessors.

Oh and I'm not really interested in engaging in a bunch of "but Mike Gillis didn't trade away the entire roster and rebuild from scratch so he gets no credit for his teams success" nonsense, so you can save it.

I'm not disputing there weren't "holes" on the 2004-2008 teams. But to say that Nonis left a putrid roster for Gillis, when the entire core of his current roster - with the exception of Hamhuis - was acquired by Nonis/Burke - makes no sense. Has Gillis done a nice job of filling those 3rd and 4th line holes or build up the D? Sure. But people around here love to deify Gillis with false arguments about what a terrible roster he inherited or how his drafting is light years ahead of Nonis'. I have nothing against Gillis, he's a great cap manager, has put together a well rounded team, and benefitted tremendously from outstanding production from Luongo, Sedins, and Kesler, which has previously mitigated the need for him to acquire any more 'core' players. So he has only ever dabbled around the core, adding players like Samuelson, Booth, Demitra, etc. But the holes are starting to show with Kesler being perma-injured, Luongo starting to show cracks, and the Sedins falling from their Art Ross levels. Whether he can right the ship on his own - without the benefit of Nonis' scraps - remains to be seen.

*As for the "holes" in Nonis' 2005-2008 rosters, you might want to give some consideration to the fact that the NHL salary cap was at 39, 44, and 50 million in each of those seasons. By the time Gillis came along the cap had jumped to 57 million and Naslund's 6M contract had just expired, which explains how Gillis was able to miraculously scrape together $10M to throw at Sundin in his first year to fill in some of those holes ...


Last edited by CanaFan: 03-21-2013 at 11:16 AM.
CanaFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2013, 11:18 AM
  #34
dave babych returns
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,365
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanaFan View Post
But to say that Nonis left a putrid roster for Gillis, when the entire core of his current roster - with the exception of Hamhuis - was acquired by Nonis/Burke - makes no sense.
No, it makes sense.

Nonis left a putrid roster behind where players were consistently depended on the play well above their heads in roles they either weren't ready for yet or would never be qualified for.

By the time those players that would eventually be ready to be key NHL players were ready, Nonis had flunked his way out of a job - that doesn't make the rosters they were a part of before being ready any better and it doesn't make Nonis look any better for putting them in those positions.

dave babych returns is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2013, 11:23 AM
  #35
tantalum
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Missouri
Posts: 10,149
vCash: 500
This just in...every new GM uses the core pieces left behind from the old GM. How come it's some kind of negative against Gillis for doing so? Gillis recognized there were good pieces, NO ONE has ever said Nonis (and Burke) didn't leave behind nice pieces but neither one left behind a good organization or organizational depth.

While people are whining that Gillis has depleted teh organizational depth they are failing to recognize some things (1) you can't keep everybody; player movement happens and (2) they are calling up guys after several injuries who are the equivalent of NHL regulars under Nonis! So yes, the depth doesn't look great. The prospect pool is questionable (keep in mind three prospects have graduated to the bigs the last 2 years in Tanev, Kassian and Schroeder...all Gillis finds) but as a whole it is better than it was.

tantalum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2013, 11:34 AM
  #36
CanaFan
Registered User
 
CanaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,715
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tantalum View Post
NO ONE has ever said Nonis (and Burke) didn't leave behind nice pieces but neither one left behind a good organization or organizational depth.
Incorrect.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dave babych returns View Post
I don't know how someone can make this claim with any degree of seriousness when you look at the roster Dave Nonis left behind.

CanaFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2013, 11:49 AM
  #37
SoTzuMe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 327
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanaFan View Post
Incorrect.
Those aren't equivalent statements.

SoTzuMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2013, 11:51 AM
  #38
CanaFan
Registered User
 
CanaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,715
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave babych returns View Post
No, it makes sense.

Nonis left a putrid roster behind where players were consistently depended on the play well above their heads in roles they either weren't ready for yet or would never be qualified for.

By the time those players that would eventually be ready to be key NHL players were ready, Nonis had flunked his way out of a job - that doesn't make the rosters they were a part of before being ready any better and it doesn't make Nonis look any better for putting them in those positions.

I don't understand what point you are trying to make. What does any of this have to do with the pieces (roster) that Gillis inherited? Did he inherit some crappy pieces like Ritchie or Pyatt? Sure. And they were promptly turfed and replaced with other, depth players like Bernier and Wellwood. What's the big difference here? Sure he eventually added solid pieces like Higgins, Tanev, Malhotra, and Lapierre. But he's made his share of mistakes as well. Bernier was a huge bust. Demitra underperformed. Shane O'brien was run out of town. Some of his moves have paid off - Hamhuis was a great signing, Samuelson was a solid add for one season at least - but Nonis made his share of solid moves too (Mitchell, Luongo, Burrows).

You seem to think Nonis made nothing but mistakes and Gillis made only brilliant moves based on the results of the teams (Presidents trophies for Gillis, missing playoffs twice for Nonis). What do you think had more to do with the Canucks winning their two President's Trophies: Sedins developing into Art Ross players and Kesler into a Selke-level player or the addition of Chris Higgins to the 3rd line? Should Gillis get credit for creating a good environment for them to thrive? Sure. But to heap praise on his for bringing in depth players while pouring scorn on Nonis for his depth players (while oddly ignoring the fact that Nonis acquired many of our current core players) is blatantly biased. You love Gillis, cool I get it. But your attempts to selectively pick at Nonis while pimping Gillis is ridiculous.

CanaFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2013, 12:26 PM
  #39
Catamarca Livin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,971
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanaFan View Post
I don't understand what point you are trying to make. What does any of this have to do with the pieces (roster) that Gillis inherited? Did he inherit some crappy pieces like Ritchie or Pyatt? Sure. And they were promptly turfed and replaced with other, depth players like Bernier and Wellwood. What's the big difference here? Sure he eventually added solid pieces like Higgins, Tanev, Malhotra, and Lapierre. But he's made his share of mistakes as well. Bernier was a huge bust. Demitra underperformed. Shane O'brien was run out of town. Some of his moves have paid off - Hamhuis was a great signing, Samuelson was a solid add for one season at least - but Nonis made his share of solid moves too (Mitchell, Luongo, Burrows).

You seem to think Nonis made nothing but mistakes and Gillis made only brilliant moves based on the results of the teams (Presidents trophies for Gillis, missing playoffs twice for Nonis). What do you think had more to do with the Canucks winning their two President's Trophies: Sedins developing into Art Ross players and Kesler into a Selke-level player or the addition of Chris Higgins to the 3rd line? Should Gillis get credit for creating a good environment for them to thrive? Sure. But to heap praise on his for bringing in depth players while pouring scorn on Nonis for his depth players (while oddly ignoring the fact that Nonis acquired many of our current core players) is blatantly biased. You love Gillis, cool I get it. But your attempts to selectively pick at Nonis while pimping Gillis is ridiculous.
That is everything!! The Canucks have an environment where players develop. This is worth more than drafting and good trades or anything. Kesler, the Sedins, Burrows and now Hansen developed under the Gillis era. Many assume that these players would have developed anyways. To me it was not guaranteed, perhaps the signing of Sundin was what got the Sedins to the next level, perhaps it was just an change in philosophy. Or was it Ehrhoff. Nobody knows what it was, but we do know something happened under Gillis that did not happen under Nonis. Is it giving Gillis too much credit? Perhaps, but if a GM is judged on the results of his team, then he deserves it. Burke won most of his trades, drafted ok, but at the end of the day his team kept losing.
In Gillis's first year AV lost 10 in a row, the Canucks had dropped out of the playoffs, the team had missed the playoffs in two out of three years before. Was it clear that that team was going to win the division 4 years in a row with 2 President Trophies and a cup final run? No, it seemed as likely that the team was going to miss the playoffs, lose the Sedins and lose Luongo and do a total rebuild. The patience he showed was amazing. Right now we are under pressure again. It is hard to have faith that he will get the team a center or a right d man, but he has performed underpressure before. Perhaps he can do it again. I think it is likely if we kept Nonis we would have missed the playoffs 4 years ago, that the Sedins would be playing in Toronto, and Luongo would be long gone. We would have Calgary's team right now. With Fabian Brumstrom on our third line.

Catamarca Livin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2013, 12:36 PM
  #40
CanaFan
Registered User
 
CanaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,715
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Catamarca Livin View Post
That is everything!! The Canucks have an environment where players develop. This is worth more than drafting and good trades or anything. Kesler, the Sedins, Burrows and now Hansen developed under the Gillis era. Many assume that these players would have developed anyways. To me it was not guaranteed, perhaps the signing of Sundin was what got the Sedins to the next level, perhaps it was just an change in philosophy. Or was it Ehrhoff. Nobody knows what it was, but we do know something happened under Gillis that did not happen under Nonis. Is it giving Gillis too much credit? Perhaps, but if a GM is judged on the results of his team, then he deserves it. Burke won most of his trades, drafted ok, but at the end of the day his team kept losing.
In Gillis's first year AV lost 10 in a row, the Canucks had dropped out of the playoffs, the team had missed the playoffs in two out of three years before. Was it clear that that team was going to win the division 4 years in a row with 2 President Trophies and a cup final run? No, it seemed as likely that the team was going to miss the playoffs, lose the Sedins and lose Luongo and do a total rebuild. The patience he showed was amazing. Right now we are under pressure again. It is hard to have faith that he will get the team a center or a right d man, but he has performed underpressure before. Perhaps he can do it again. I think it is likely if we kept Nonis we would have missed the playoffs 4 years ago, that the Sedins would be playing in Toronto, and Luongo would be long gone. We would have Calgary's team right now. With Fabian Brumstrom on our third line.
Wow. At least I know where you are coming from now. So this discussion isn't about rosters then, it is about environment. Got it. Next time, if you are going to predicate a discussion as being about rosters - i.e. the players who play on a team - please be sure that is exactly what you mean. The rest of your post is pure speculation. Would the Sedins have been Art Ross players under a Nonis environment? No one knows, but you assume they wouldn't. Would Nonis have brought in a player like Sundin once he had the cap room, as Gillis did? No one knows, but you assume he wouldn't have. Fine. Make all the assumptions you want, they seem to satisfy your need to twist the parameters of the discussion to suit your intent. I'll remain steadfast that the core of today's team was draft, acquired, or developed in large part under Nonis/Burke. That is a fact. To call this a putrid roster is patently wrong. The rest - environment, depth players, whatever - may impress you but it merely tells me Gillis isn't incompetent, not that he is a brilliant GM.

Ironic that you cite Burke as a guy who won most of his trades, drafts, etc but "kept losing". Except when he went on to Anaheim to win a cup where he had a ready-built core that just required the right "environment" in order to turn from an also-ran team into a dominant cup winner. What does that tell you about focusing solely on the results and not the process that lead to the results?


Last edited by CanaFan: 03-21-2013 at 12:42 PM.
CanaFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2013, 01:01 PM
  #41
dave babych returns
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,365
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanaFan View Post
Incorrect.
My post was in response to the claim that "Mike Gillis somehow managed to devolve this team of skill" which may be true compared to other Mike Gillis teams but is not true compared to previous rosters this franchise has iced.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CanaFan View Post
I don't understand what point you are trying to make. What does any of this have to do with the pieces (roster) that Gillis inherited? Did he inherit some crappy pieces like Ritchie or Pyatt? Sure. And they were promptly turfed and replaced with other, depth players like Bernier and Wellwood.
The point is that when we're talking about a skilled team we are talking about the 20 skaters the team puts out on the ice every night.

I guess you can say that a Canucks squad where you have a few core players (Sedins, Kesler, Ohlund, Salo, Bieka, Mitchell) and a much larger group of has beens, never weres or not yets (Raymond, Edler, Bourdon, Hansen, Burrows, etc, etc) is a more skilled group than the ones Gillis put together but I just don't agree.

Dave Nonis did not fill out his NHL roster with NHL players and as a result had to surround his core with players who were not good enough to succeed in their roles.. in hindsight a roster with Raymond/Hansen/Burrows/Sedin/Naslund looks like it has enough wingers but when the former three went into that season with 10 career NHL goals between them it becomes pretty frickin obvious just how unprepared they were to make an impact.

That is why I say that Mike Gillis' teams have been more skilled than Dave Nonis' in general - because Gillis took a core group and surrounded them with better role players and with young players more ready to make an impact at the NHL level than Nonis had (even though they were the same players).

(Is that evaluation fair to Nonis? I don't particularly care. Nonis gambled that he could neglect to address issues on his teams and lost his job, maybe it's unfair, that's life.)

Quote:
You seem to think Nonis made nothing but mistakes and Gillis made only brilliant moves based on the results of the teams (Presidents trophies for Gillis, missing playoffs twice for Nonis).
You seem to have problems reading my posts, or at any rate problems somewhere along the lines of reading, comprehending, formulating and composing a response. Because that is pretty much explicitly not what I've said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by dave babych returns View Post
Nonis had his up years and his down years at the draft table and made some smart acquisitions and re-signings.
One other thing I've said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by dave babych returns View Post
Oh and I'm not really interested in engaging in a bunch of "but Mike Gillis didn't trade away the entire roster and rebuild from scratch so he gets no credit for his teams success" nonsense, so you can save it.
We're not talking about Stan freaking Bowman here, sitting down in the head seat presiding over a juggernaut team that proceeded to take the league by storm..

Mike Gillis inherited a pretty good NHL team and steadily improved it to the point that it was one of the league's best (until last year anyway).

Quote:
What do you think had more to do with the Canucks winning their two President's Trophies: Sedins developing into Art Ross players and Kesler into a Selke-level player or the addition of Chris Higgins to the 3rd line? Should Gillis get credit for creating a good environment for them to thrive? Sure. But to heap praise on his for bringing in depth players while pouring scorn on Nonis for his depth players (while oddly ignoring the fact that Nonis acquired many of our current core players) is blatantly biased. You love Gillis, cool I get it. But your attempts to selectively pick at Nonis while pimping Gillis is ridiculous.
Blah, blah, blah.

I love how you accuse me of being "selective" in the same paragraph where you suggest that anyone thinks that the Canucks were made an elite team by acquiring Chris Higgins.


Last edited by dave babych returns: 03-21-2013 at 01:08 PM.
dave babych returns is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2013, 01:04 PM
  #42
Catamarca Livin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,971
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanaFan View Post
Wow. At least I know where you are coming from now. So this discussion isn't about rosters then, it is about environment. Got it. Next time, if you are going to predicate a discussion as being about rosters - i.e. the players who play on a team - please be sure that is exactly what you mean. The rest of your post is pure speculation. Would the Sedins have been Art Ross players under a Nonis environment? No one knows, but you assume they wouldn't. Would Nonis have brought in a player like Sundin once he had the cap room, as Gillis did? No one knows, but you assume he wouldn't have. Fine. Make all the assumptions you want, they seem to satisfy your need to twist the parameters of the discussion to suit your intent. I'll remain steadfast that the core of today's team was draft, acquired, or developed in large part under Nonis/Burke. That is a fact. To call this a putrid roster is patently wrong. The rest - environment, depth players, whatever - may impress you but it merely tells me Gillis isn't incompetent, not that he is a brilliant GM.

Ironic that you cite Burke as a guy who won most of his trades, drafts, etc but "kept losing". Except when he went on to Anaheim to win a cup where he had a ready-built core that just required the right "environment" in order to turn from an also-ran team into a dominant cup winner. What does that tell you about focusing solely on the results and not the process that lead to the results?
Assuming is all any of us can do because Nonis got fired!! There is no alternate universe where we can see what would have happened if Nonis stayed. However, his major off season addition was going to be Fabian Brumstrom. The team twice under his watch had imploded and missed the playoffs. It seems likely that would have happened again if he stayed around one more year. If the Canucks had lost 10 in a row under Nonis, AV would likely have been gone. These are all assumptions which are only worthy if you are making them Let's get back to results 4 division titles, 2 P.T.'s on cup final 5 playoff series victories, vs, one division title, 2 times missed playoffs 1 playoff victory with the same core in place as you like to point out. Something changed no one knows what it was, you assuming it would have happened under Nonis is the biggest stretch of all. You seem to be saying Gillis did nothing but got extremely lucky that, the Sedins and Kesler became elite players the same year as he arrrived. I am more inclined to say the environment changed and this facilited them and therefore the team becoming better. We both agree the team is better under Gillis so the only thing in question is why. You say it just happened on its own inspite of Gillis, i say a change in management and philosophy facilitated this change. To each their own.

I jumped in on a debate you were having with Dave B. so i did not talk about rosters at all. I undestand the confusion as i took up his side of the debate.


Last edited by Catamarca Livin: 03-21-2013 at 01:07 PM. Reason: clarity
Catamarca Livin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2013, 01:13 PM
  #43
CanaFan
Registered User
 
CanaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,715
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave babych returns View Post



Blah, blah, blah.
Cool. Thanks for the intelligent discussion. I'll be sure to avoid trying similar again in future. Back to important things for me ...

CanaFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2013, 01:19 PM
  #44
Catamarca Livin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,971
vCash: 500
No one can be impressed with how Gillis has handled the center, goalie and Ballard situation thus far. Hopefully he resolves these issues in a way that makes the team a lot better. I feel these issues should have been resolved before this season began, however i do feel Gillis deserves a lot of credit for this teams past success.

Catamarca Livin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2013, 01:35 PM
  #45
dave babych returns
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,365
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanaFan View Post
Cool. Thanks for the intelligent discussion. I'll be sure to avoid trying similar again in future. Back to important things for me ...
So I wrote a 400 word response and you object to the three least meaningful ones, take your ball and go home?

Boy, it's a good thing that you are here to remind us all of how "selective" we are.

dave babych returns is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2013, 01:40 PM
  #46
ddawg1950
Registered User
 
ddawg1950's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,719
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Catamarca Livin View Post
No one can be impressed with how Gillis has handled the center, goalie and Ballard situation thus far. Hopefully he resolves these issues in a way that makes the team a lot better. I feel these issues should have been resolved before this season began, however i do feel Gillis deserves a lot of credit for this teams past success.
Your last few posts are perfectly on point.

There is a feeling of gloom and near panic among a certain segment of the fan base. And of course the media has far more fun with a franchise that is struggling vs. one that is contiually winning (how boring!).

But this is a tough biz and mistakes are made by everyone. I am willing to let the season unfold...and even though he has mishandled certain aspects, Gillis still has my trust to patiently turn this around.

Unfortunately, even though we beat St Louis, I don't see that turnaround yet. But we still have some hockey to play.

ddawg1950 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2013, 01:56 PM
  #47
tantalum
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Missouri
Posts: 10,149
vCash: 500
On one hand Gillis gets lambasted for not addressing the Luongo, Ballard and center situation (keep in mind the center situation going into the season was somewhat assuming malhotra would be fine).

On the other hand had he simply let such assets go for a weak return he'd be lambasted for moving them and harming the depth of the team.

Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

tantalum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2013, 02:05 PM
  #48
lush
@jasonlush
 
lush's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,319
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tantalum View Post
On one hand Gillis gets lambasted for not addressing the Luongo, Ballard and center situation (keep in mind the center situation going into the season was somewhat assuming malhotra would be fine).

On the other hand had he simply let such assets go for a weak return he'd be lambasted for moving them and harming the depth of the team.

Damned if you do and damned if you don't.
Exactly, and there are so many more hypotheticals as well. Say Gillis did sign another center in the offseason? Fans would get upset he was not giving enough opportunity to guys like Shroeder probably.

lush is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2013, 02:06 PM
  #49
Elbows of Bure
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 484
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tantalum View Post
On one hand Gillis gets lambasted for not addressing the Luongo, Ballard and center situation (keep in mind the center situation going into the season was somewhat assuming malhotra would be fine).

On the other hand had he simply let such assets go for a weak return he'd be lambasted for moving them and harming the depth of the team.

Damned if you do and damned if you don't.
I agree with this. The only wrinkle I'd like to add is the much mentioned Hodgson-trade timing. If Gillis knew the extent of Kesler's injury, which I hope he did at the time, Hodgson should have been retained. At the time of the trade, I didn't mind it, but, hindsight, damn, it's twenty-twenty.

And, who knows, Botchford has suggested that Luongo has nixed trade(s) to Toronto. We could have been running with Kadri and Bozak on our roster, for better or for worse. While we have to acknowledge that Gillis gave Luongo his contract, NTC and all, and has himself to blame for Luongo not agreeing to waive it, there are rumours of the Aquilini's having a hand in Luongo's contract. Those Aquilini's love their Italian bad-boy.

Elbows of Bure is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2013, 03:17 PM
  #50
tantalum
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Missouri
Posts: 10,149
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elbows of Bure View Post
I agree with this. The only wrinkle I'd like to add is the much mentioned Hodgson-trade timing. If Gillis knew the extent of Kesler's injury, which I hope he did at the time, Hodgson should have been retained. At the time of the trade, I didn't mind it, but, hindsight, damn, it's twenty-twenty.
Well as I have mentioned we do know a few things. One is that Gillis had a limited list of players he'd accept for Hodgson (Friedman). A player on that list came available (Kassian) while others did not (Sutter, Carlson, Clifford). I think it's also fair to suggest that Hodgson on the roster or not they were going to acquire a Pahlsson type player (AV wanted that type of player, had HOdgson not been moved he still wanted that type of player). Hodgson wasn't scoring, his icetime was dropping anyways and they had to protect him on a nightly basis. Heck even being protected by only having offensive zone starts and out against 3rd and 4th lines he was getting destroyed. The conclusion I have come to is that they weren't going to play him much for the remainder of the year and they sold high. I think they also very much believed a trade request was coming down the pipe in the offseason if Hodgson didn't see a lot of time in the playoffs. Why? Well because his agent had already had to talk him down from that cliff the summer before because as a rookie he was miffed he didn't get oodles of icetime in the playoffs and he was complaining about icetime during the season (how loud do the complaints get if the time continues to be low or cut altogether?). I may be wrong but I'm pretty confident it is a logical lay out of the situation.

Quote:
And, who knows, Botchford has suggested that Luongo has nixed trade(s) to Toronto. We could have been running with Kadri and Bozak on our roster, for better or for worse. While we have to acknowledge that Gillis gave Luongo his contract, NTC and all, and has himself to blame for Luongo not agreeing to waive it, there are rumours of the Aquilini's having a hand in Luongo's contract. Those Aquilini's love their Italian bad-boy.
I don't believe Botchford knows much in regards to whether or not such things are true to tell you the truth. And there is NO doubt that ownership had a hand in the deal....there isn't an ownership group in the NHL that wouldn't be personally involved in such a deal.

tantalum 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 05:20 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.