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

Scott Gomez

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-05-2008, 12:04 AM
  #51
Cogliano13Gagner89
Registered User
 
Cogliano13Gagner89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Oil Fan in Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,533
vCash: 500
I wouldn't say Gomez has Gretzky like vision and passing skill....Your talking about a man who put up over 130 assists a year constantly.

Cogliano13Gagner89 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2008, 12:15 AM
  #52
hlrsr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,389
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Pauser View Post
I was playing devil's advocate, what can I say?

And yes, he got lucky that Raymond developed. Last time I checked Luongo wasn't a goal scorer, and teams don't rely on their defense to be their primary source of scoring.
"Devil's advocate" .. quality excuse, has a nice ring to it, too.

Anyway, without those extremely unlucky issues, we make the playoffs and you no longer have such "solid grounds" (heavy emphasis on the quotes) to firing Nonis, and neither would Aquilini.

PS - defense can provide some secondary scoring support, and with our team, that was the case. In addition, having a [relatively] healthy defense (and really, Luongo playing like himself) would go a long way towards being able to move one of them for a forward during the season, especially with the emergence of Edler. Try to consider all scenarios.


Last edited by hlrsr: 08-05-2008 at 12:21 AM.
hlrsr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2008, 12:23 AM
  #53
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 47,411
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by hlrsr View Post
"Devil's advocate" .. quality excuse, has a nice ring to it, too.

Anyway, without those extremely unlucky issues, we make the playoffs and you no longer have such "solid grounds" (heavy emphasis on the quotes) to firing Nonis, and neither would Aquilini.

PS - defense can provide some secondary scoring support, and with our team, that was the case. In addition, having a healthy defense (and really, Luongo playing like himself) would go a long way towards being able to move one of them for a forward during the season, especially with the emergence of Edler. Try to consider all scenarios.
Except everyone knew Nonis's team wasn't going to go far in the playoffs, and the only reason we'd have made it or possibly won a round is because of Luongo.

Defense can provide SOME secondary scoring support, but when you rely on it to be your primary source you have problems. Nonis's mistake was re-signing Salo. Without Salo on the books we would have had enough cap space to go after a guy like Gomez or Drury or Briere...whether their contract terms are what this team needs or not is another issue. The fact is, Nonis had an opportunity to improve this teams offense and he didn't do it. Gillis is addressing that in this offseason.

y2kcanucks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2008, 12:24 AM
  #54
Angelo25
 
Angelo25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,255
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hlrsr View Post
"Devil's advocate" .. quality excuse, has a nice ring to it, too.

Anyway, without those extremely unlucky issues, we make the playoffs and you no longer have such "solid grounds" (heavy emphasis on the quotes) to firing Nonis, and neither would Aquilini.

PS - defense can provide some secondary scoring support, and with our team, that was the case. In addition, having a [relatively] healthy defense (and really, Luongo playing like himself) would go a long way towards being able to move one of them for a forward during the season, especially with the emergence of Edler. Try to consider all scenarios.
That movie was on Friday night. Keanu is such a bad actor..

Angelo25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2008, 12:35 AM
  #55
Zombie Jesus
Registered User
 
Zombie Jesus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 489
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Pauser View Post
Except everyone knew Nonis's team wasn't going to go far in the playoffs, and the only reason we'd have made it or possibly won a round is because of Luongo.

Defense can provide SOME secondary scoring support, but when you rely on it to be your primary source you have problems. Nonis's mistake was re-signing Salo. Without Salo on the books we would have had enough cap space to go after a guy like Gomez or Drury or Briere...whether their contract terms are what this team needs or not is another issue. The fact is, Nonis had an opportunity to improve this teams offense and he didn't do it. Gillis is addressing that in this offseason.
I take it math isn't your strong suit then.

Without Salo we would have saved $3.5 million in cap room, but then someone would have to take that spot on the roster, which would have cost $450,000 at the very least. The Canucks had about $2 million in unused cap space. That leaves about $5 million in room to bid for three players who wound up with $10 million, $7.1 million, and $10 million to play that season.

Zombie Jesus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2008, 12:43 AM
  #56
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 47,411
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by CHacker View Post
I take it math isn't your strong suit then.

Without Salo we would have saved $3.5 million in cap room, but then someone would have to take that spot on the roster, which would have cost $450,000 at the very least. The Canucks had about $2 million in unused cap space. That leaves about $5 million in room to bid for three players who wound up with $10 million, $7.1 million, and $10 million to play that season.
Actually I'm an accountant...but thats beside the point.

I take it common sense isn't your strong suit eh? Neither is capology.

Let's see...by your math we have $5 million in cap space...okay. So say we go for one of those three CENTERS, then there's no room for Morrison. Deal him for a pick and we're saving another $3.2 million. That's $8.2 million in cap space. Neither of the 3 players I mentioned had a cap hit that came close to that ($1M less).

Catch my drift?

y2kcanucks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2008, 12:54 AM
  #57
hlrsr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,389
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Pauser View Post
Except everyone knew Nonis's team wasn't going to go far in the playoffs, and the only reason we'd have made it or possibly won a round is because of Luongo.

Defense can provide SOME secondary scoring support, but when you rely on it to be your primary source you have problems. Nonis's mistake was re-signing Salo. Without Salo on the books we would have had enough cap space to go after a guy like Gomez or Drury or Briere...whether their contract terms are what this team needs or not is another issue. The fact is, Nonis had an opportunity to improve this teams offense and he didn't do it. Gillis is addressing that in this offseason.
I agree, the team probably wouldn't have done much in the playoffs. But Nonis gets to execute on this offseason like he had planned.

Let me re-finish this sentence for you -

"The fact is, Nonis had an opportunity to improve this teams offense last summer, and instead chose to wait until the next offseason where we'd have more cap space and different/better options for players, and more tradeable assets. Gillis is now picking up where Nonis left off."

I am going to remove myself from this argument here with you. Why? We are going to end up going in circles and you will start right back up with your "we needed offense, Nonis didn't deliver, and therefore he didn't do his job" shtick.

It's a frustrating argument for me to deal with. Why? It's not because it's good, it's because shows that either you're purposely being an idiot to make it harder for me, or that you completely lack any sort of understanding of the typical challenges a GM faces when building an organization, and really just the big picture of this particular team. I'm not going to waste my time sitting here explaining it to you especially, because all I'm going to hear in reply is more oversimplified arguments that still don't take the big picture into account.

G'day!

hlrsr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2008, 12:58 AM
  #58
Zombie Jesus
Registered User
 
Zombie Jesus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 489
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Pauser View Post
Actually I'm an accountant...but thats beside the point.

I take it common sense isn't your strong suit eh? Neither is capology.

Let's see...by your math we have $5 million in cap space...okay. So say we go for one of those three CENTERS, then there's no room for Morrison. Deal him for a pick and we're saving another $3.2 million. That's $8.2 million in cap space. Neither of the 3 players I mentioned had a cap hit that came close to that ($1M less).

Catch my drift?
Okay, so Nonis needs to also move Morrison to make room by dumping him for a pick, that is really good asset and cap management BTW. That is a hell of a lot different then
Quote:
Nonis's mistake was re-signing Salo. Without Salo on the books we would have had enough cap space to go after a guy like Gomez or Drury or Briere
now isn't it?

Zombie Jesus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2008, 01:06 AM
  #59
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 47,411
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by CHacker View Post
Okay, so Nonis needs to also move Morrison to make room by dumping him for a pick, that is really good asset and cap management BTW. That is a hell of a lot different then now isn't it?
When there's a player out there who can improve your team, you get him.
And it would have been good asset management to get, say, a 3rd round pick for Brendan Morrison while upgraded that position.

y2kcanucks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2008, 01:29 AM
  #60
Zombie Jesus
Registered User
 
Zombie Jesus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 489
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Pauser View Post
When there's a player out there who can improve your team, you get him.
And it would have been good asset management to get, say, a 3rd round pick for Brendan Morrison while upgraded that position.
So you would be willing to part with a 20 goal, 50 point guy for a 3rd round pick so you might be able to sign Gomez, Drury, or Briere?

Or are you saying hold on to Morrison until you sign one of those guys and move him for the cap space once you need it?

Zombie Jesus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2008, 01:33 AM
  #61
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 47,411
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by CHacker View Post
So you would be willing to part with a 20 goal, 50 point guy for a 3rd round pick so you might be able to sign Gomez, Drury, or Briere?

Or are you saying hold on to Morrison until you sign one of those guys and move him for the cap space once you need it?
Teams are allowed to go over the cap by, I think 10%, in the offseason, so obviously you would hold on to him until you got someone signed.

y2kcanucks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2008, 01:44 AM
  #62
Zombie Jesus
Registered User
 
Zombie Jesus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 489
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Pauser View Post
Teams are allowed to go over the cap by, I think 10%, in the offseason, so obviously you would hold on to him until you got someone signed.
And if the players targeted sign elsewhere would you still try and trade Morrison?

Also, you still haven't addressed this:

Quote:
Nonis's mistake was re-signing Salo. Without Salo on the books we would have had enough cap space to go after a guy like Gomez or Drury or Briere
I still don't see any mention of dumping Morrison in that statement.

Zombie Jesus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2008, 02:04 AM
  #63
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 47,411
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by CHacker View Post
And if the players targeted sign elsewhere would you still try and trade Morrison?

Also, you still haven't addressed this:



I still don't see any mention of dumping Morrison in that statement.
Well obviously you wouldn't trade Morrison unless you could upgrade.

And of course there's no mention of Morrison in that statement. Because he re-signed Salo, we were handcuffed with the cap. He could have gotten creative and gone through the trade route (similar to how Gillis acquired Bernier) but speculating on who/what trade is pointless because there are endless possibilities.

y2kcanucks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2008, 03:19 AM
  #64
Zombie Jesus
Registered User
 
Zombie Jesus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 489
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Pauser View Post
Well obviously you wouldn't trade Morrison unless you could upgrade.
So you would have wound up doing exactly what you are complaining Nonis did.

Quote:
And of course there's no mention of Morrison in that statement. Because he re-signed Salo, we were handcuffed with the cap. He could have gotten creative and gone through the trade route (similar to how Gillis acquired Bernier) but speculating on who/what trade is pointless because there are endless possibilities.
He could have gotten just as creative with that Salo contract as he could without. He doesn't bring in Miller (1.500), doesn't resign Cowan (0.725), dumps Cooke (1.508) and Morrison (3.2). That screws depth, and still leaves you with a two league minimum players, one replacing Miller and one replacing Cowan and Cooke forcing Isbister and Linden in the lineup more, but that still gives you about $7.9 million to throw at someone. Hell you don't sign Isbister and get someone at the league minimum you can throw an even $8 million at someone.

But perhaps the UFAs out there looked at the situation and realized that being a line by themselves wasn't going to help their numbers and politely declined an offer from the Canucks. Maybe they didn't want the travel or some other reason.

Regardless all these senarios wind up with the Canucks marginally better in one position, and the depth of the team reduced dramitically over all.

I could play the same games with what Gillis has done, but it is really pointless and ultimately futile.

Zombie Jesus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2008, 05:22 AM
  #65
hlrsr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,389
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Pauser View Post
Nonis's mistake was re-signing Salo. Without Salo on the books we would have had enough cap space to go after a guy like Gomez or Drury or Briere...whether their contract terms are what this team needs or not is another issue. The fact is, Nonis had an opportunity to improve this teams offense and he didn't do it. Gillis is addressing that in this offseason.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Pauser View Post
The player that this thread is about was available as a FA last offseason, and Nonis failed to sign him. Yeah it was a good thing that he didn't based on what he went for, but now people are suggesting bringing him in a year later?
Mhm..

hlrsr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2008, 07:14 AM
  #66
Cocomero*
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 8,498
vCash: 500
Can you just stop talking about Drury? We could've offered him 10 mil and he still wouldn't have signed here. I do indeed recall him saying (during an interview with TSN) that he didn't want to return to Canada after his time in Calgary.

Cocomero* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2008, 09:25 AM
  #67
Junius
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 914
vCash: 500
The mistake Nonis made was not pushing harder and giving up more for Brad Richards. He makes that deal and the Canucks make the play-offs and he keeps his job. They also have a solid two line punch with the Sedin line and the Richards line for years to come.

Clearly it would have taken more of the team's youth with probably both Schneider and Bourdon (along with Kesler) being traded but it would have solved the primary problem on the team. It might even be that Naslund and Morrison were still here. Nazzy as a line mate and Mo as the 3rd line center.

Junius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2008, 10:09 AM
  #68
Barney Gumble
Registered User
 
Barney Gumble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 20,455
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Junius View Post
The mistake Nonis made was not pushing harder and giving up more for Brad Richards. He makes that deal and the Canucks make the play-offs and he keeps his job. They also have a solid two line punch with the Sedin line and the Richards line for years to come.
Don't be so sure of that. Other than the one great 1st game as a Star - he did pretty much jack on a GOOD team at the time (which the Canucks weren't at that point).

Add in the Stars were much deeper to handle reductions of roster players than the Canucks were at the time.

1st game as a Star: 0G/5A (Canucks needed goals)
next 11 games as a Star: 2G/4A -----> meh.

Who the heck were going to be Richards wingers? Raymond was out for the season at that point - and he's a developing prospect still. Plus you take out Kesler (one of the likely players to be dealt) and Edler - how does that make the Canucks better - short or long-run?

Barney Gumble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2008, 12:50 PM
  #69
Flinch*
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,652
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Pauser View Post
Mason Raymond made the team out of camp due to a good camp. Nonis got lucky that Raymond was able to step up without having to spend a single full season in the AHL.

Matt Pettinger and Kris Beech were brought in to solve our scoring woes? First off, they weren't brought in during the offseason...but nevermind that, are you suggesting that those are top 6 forwards?
No, I was saying that your assertion that Ritchie and Isbister were the only forwards brought in is wrong.

Flinch* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2008, 12:55 PM
  #70
Flinch*
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,652
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Pauser View Post
Actually I'm an accountant...but thats beside the point.

I take it common sense isn't your strong suit eh? Neither is capology.

Let's see...by your math we have $5 million in cap space...okay. So say we go for one of those three CENTERS, then there's no room for Morrison. Deal him for a pick and we're saving another $3.2 million. That's $8.2 million in cap space. Neither of the 3 players I mentioned had a cap hit that came close to that ($1M less).

Catch my drift?
You're ignoring the fact that none of those players were worth the contracts that they were signed to and that, amidst the 'Naslund is overpaid' folks on here we'd have 'Gomez is overpaid' arguments as well.

Drury would not come to Vancouver as he's interested in playing in America.

Briere went to Philly for a number of reasons, one of them being Biron being on the team.

That leaves Gomez, who is a slightly better version of Brendan Morrison, at twice the salary. Whoopty ****.

Again, just because you can throw a ton of money at a player doesn't mean that you should.

Flinch* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2008, 02:14 PM
  #71
eklunds source
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Ed Snider's basement
Posts: 7,920
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flinch View Post
That leaves Gomez, who is a slightly better version of Brendan Morrison, at twice the salary. Whoopty ****.

Gomez has averaged 65 points a year. The most amount of games he's missed in a season is 10, and he averages 79 games a year. He has tied the lead league for assists. When put between Elias and Gionta (not quite as talented as Nazzy/Bert were in '02-'03) he put up 33 goals and 84 points. He has 2 stanley cups, the Calder trophy, and has been named to the AllStar team twice.

Morrison is 4 years older and much more injury prone (ironman streak aside, he played hurt a LOT). In a more offensive system and given more ice time he put up 13 points a year less. His best year he put up 71 points playing with then-allstars Naslund and Bertuzzi. He has no cups, finished 5th in Calder voting, and has no awards since the AHL all-rookie team and Hobey Baker.

I LOVE BMo - he's a guy that plays hurt and brings a lot to his team. I wish we had kept him but I acknowledge he had to go...

To say Gomez is slightly better really underrates Gomez. He has twice the amount of playoff games - and I know that relates to the team he's on, but it still adds to his experience - and has 3x as many playoff points. He's led his team in ATOI by a forward the last 2 years and possibly longer.

Given a choice between BMo at 3.2 and Gomez at 7, I'd take Gomez. You don't win cups by having cap space, and having 2 players at 3.2 to 3.5 is less valuable than having 1 at 7. It's the same reason the team getting the best player in a trade (Luongo/Krajicek) usually wins the team giving up more assets (Bertuzzi/Allen/Auld).

eklunds source is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2008, 03:19 PM
  #72
Flinch*
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,652
vCash: 500
He's also small, is more of a playmaker than a goal scorer (which is PRECISELY what the Canucks need, amirite?) and has had more than 20 goals in exactly one season, which are my primary reasons for saying he's an upgraded version of Mo.

Don't get me wrong, I think he's a great player, but throwing $7.0M at him wouldn't have done anything to help our offensive problems and would give us the weakest middle this side of a Twinkie. The Canucks would also be hamstrung, much like the Ducks are right now, if we had signed him, as there'd be few people willing to take Morrison off our hands. On top of all that, we wouldn't really have been able to add much else to the top six with obtaining Gomez.

Flinch* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2008, 04:08 PM
  #73
pitseleh
Registered User
 
pitseleh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,645
vCash: 500
I agree that Gomez would not have made sense for this team going into last offseason. He would have pushed the team right to the cap even with moving Morrison and would have really hurt the team's depth.

For the sake of discussion (because there are some cap numbers that are being thrown around here), here is what the Canucks had going into last offseason:

Sedin-Sedin-XXX ($7.15 million)
Naslund-Morrison-XXX ($9.2 million)
Burrows-Kesler-Cooke ($3.75 million)
xxx-xxx-xxx
xxx

Ohlund-Salo ($7 million)
Bieksa-Mitchell ($4 million)
Krajicek-Edler ($1.65 million)
xxx

Luongo ($6.75 million)
xxx

So Nonis had $39.5 million committed to 14 players. Filling out the fourth line, depth defenseman and forward, and backup with an average salary of around $600k plus Chouinard's buyout would leave the Canucks at $43.5 million with 20 players signed. Re-signing Taylor Pyatt puts the Canucks at $45 million. Nonis could have left around $1.3 million in wiggle room and fit in a $4 million forward.

In the case of signing Gomez for $7 million and trading Morrison, it would have left the Canucks near the cap limit and not signing players like Isbister and Ritchie would not have been an option to clear space because of the need for depth.

At the time I liked the Miller signing but now that I better understand the cap implications of the signing it hamstrung the Canucks in having the cap space to make a play for a bonafide top-6 forward for what was a marginal upgrade in an area of strength over a near minimum wage player in Fitzpatrick.

pitseleh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2008, 04:37 PM
  #74
hlrsr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,389
vCash: 500
^^ I agree pitseleh that once we recognize there was going to be no big overhaul of our offense last season (trading away one of or both of Nas+Mo and going after a big name) since it didn't make sense, that there probably was more Nonis could have done to bring in some offense. At the very least, picking up Mark Recchi off waivers.

However IMO, at this point we are no longer talking about "fixing" the offense, we are talking about "helping" the offense. It's pretty likely that whatever help Nonis brings in at this point is somewhat marginal and needs other players around him to succeed, of which we don't have much outside of the twins. So while he should have done something, in the grand scheme of the organization, not doing anything just wasn't that big of a deal, as what really needed to happen was a "fixing" of the offense which would likely take place in the next offseason. It certainly wasn't a big enough deal to warrant firing and introducing a massive amount of instability to a franchise that is entering one of its most important offseasons in history where it needs to lure in big name free agents, let alone handing to a guy who has no experience at all.

As for Miller, I'm still ok with the signing as he is a CLEAR upgrade on Fitzpatrick (I don't think it's marginal.) It also allowed us to keep Edler developing in the minors (however long that lasted) and Miller makes much more sense as a partner for Krajicek than Edler does.

That said, another thing to consider is that I'm fairly sure Miller was signed on July 9th or something, well after the first day of free agency. For all we know, Nonis may have been putting that money towards other $4Mish players who were available (who were they BTW?) but nothing came of it.

hlrsr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2008, 05:00 PM
  #75
pitseleh
Registered User
 
pitseleh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,645
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hlrsr View Post
^^ I agree pitseleh that once we recognize there was going to be no big overhaul of our offense last season (trading away one of or both of Nas+Mo and going after a big name) since it didn't make sense, that there probably was more Nonis could have done to bring in some offense. At the very least, picking up Mark Recchi off waivers.

However IMO, at this point we are no longer talking about "fixing" the offense, we are talking about "helping" the offense. It's pretty likely that whatever help Nonis brings in at this point is somewhat marginal and needs other players around him to succeed, of which we don't have much outside of the twins. So while he should have done something, in the grand scheme of the organization, not doing anything just wasn't that big of a deal, as what really needed to happen was a "fixing" of the offense which would likely take place in the next offseason. It certainly wasn't a big enough deal to warrant firing and introducing a massive amount of instability to a franchise that is entering one of its most important offseasons in history where it needs to lure in big name free agents, let alone handing to a guy who has no experience at all.
I agree that it was going to be difficult for Nonis to fix the offense last offseason, but I'd say that not even addressing it in the least was a huge problem. Even an average top-6 forward added to the group they had last season would have made a huge difference and would have stopped a Kris Beech or a Jason Jaffray from having to play a role in the top-6 at points in the season.

As for the firing issue, I think it goes far beyond just the offense last season, but I don't think this is the thread to get back into that.

Quote:
As for Miller, I'm still ok with the signing as he is a CLEAR upgrade on Fitzpatrick (I don't think it's marginal.) It also allowed us to keep Edler developing in the minors (however long that lasted) and Miller makes much more sense as a partner for Krajicek than Edler does.
I should have been more clear. Miller is a better defenseman than Fitzpatrick and a clear upgrade, but in terms of the effect on the performance of the team I see it as a marginal upgrade for what amounted to a significant portion of the team's available cap space. You start to hit diminishing returns with respect to investment in the depth positions on the team and adding Miller to the team resulted in what I see as being a marginal upgrade.

Quote:
That said, another thing to consider is that I'm fairly sure Miller was signed on July 9th or something, well after the first day of free agency. For all we know, Nonis may have been putting that money towards other $4Mish players who were available (who were they BTW?) but nothing came of it.
That's a fair point, but I don't think that it necessarily absolves the blame for the inability to bring in a top-6 forward because it's a separate issue altogether. And it also limited the team from engaging in trades in the future for players that were basically salary dumps (i.e. Schaefer, Vrbata, Cullen).

pitseleh 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 04:57 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.