Lemieux Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 This guy is grossly overrated. He has come up with bad contracts after bad contracts. Overpaying Ballard, Booth, Sundin (thank goodness he did not take the 2-year $20mil contract), Demitra (RIP), and Luongo. These are good players, but definitely not at the salary that they are making. Now they are really stuck with Luongo, an older goalie with more and more mileage. This guy was overused in Florida, and you just don't see him playing at the same level 2 or 3 years down the road. This situation has caused the whole Schneider thing. Schneider looks like a young solid number one that could carry the Canucks into the next decade. He has solid moves, unlike the Sieve Cloutier. He's a calming presence. Because of the no-trade clause to Luongo, Schneider has to be moved. People defend Gillis and say that he had got the Canucks into the finals. The main pieces, i.e. Kesler, Sedins, Edler, Bieksa, Salo, Burrows were all pieces from the past regimes. The only guy that Gillis could truly claim to be a valuable asset was ehrhoff. Gillis is really sacrifing the future of the team for immediate gains. It's really sad to see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keslerforthecup Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 are you high? Luongo is an amazing goalie, and has many good years to come, he is only payed 5 million which is not that bad for a gold medalist. Sundin, yes he was overpaid, but he did ok in the playoffs and showed good leadership. Booth, he is a great player who is doing better now once he settled in with the team. Pavol Demitra....... how dare you. And yes, ballard is overpaid for a 3rd defenseman, but he is starting to do better Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad Marchand Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 This guy is grossly overrated. He has come up with bad contracts after bad contracts. Overpaying Ballard, Booth, Sundin (thank goodness he did not take the 2-year $20mil contract), Demitra (RIP), and Luongo. These are good players, but definitely not at the salary that they are making. Now they are really stuck with Luongo, an older goalie with more and more mileage. This guy was overused in Florida, and you just don't see him playing at the same level 2 or 3 years down the road. This situation has caused the whole Schneider thing. Schneider looks like a young solid number one that could carry the Canucks into the next decade. He has solid moves, unlike the Sieve Cloutier. He's a calming presence. Because of the no-trade clause to Luongo, Schneider has to be moved. People defend Gillis and say that he had got the Canucks into the finals. The main pieces, i.e. Kesler, Sedins, Edler, Bieksa, Salo, Burrows were all pieces from the past regimes. The only guy that Gillis could truly claim to be a valuable asset was ehrhoff. Gillis is really sacrifing the future of the team for immediate gains. It's really sad to see. Hamhuis? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrdinaryBoy Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 Everything Gillis does has a point. Sundin was brought in at that high price to show that Vancouver was a prime destination for free agents. I'd say it's worked in attracting people: Booth and Ballard are definite upgrades over Chouinard and Carney. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asmodeus Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 I dunno....I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. He hasn't necessarily done anything really spectacular...certainly nothing to warrant genius accolades....but he has managed to help develop a winning culture amongst the club and done a pretty good job convincing certain core players to stay with the club for less than market value. The solution he comes up with to deal with the Schneider situation is going to do a lot to define how successful he's been as a GM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TotesMagotes Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 Wait a minute....Luongo isn't worth 5.2 M a year...? Have you had your coffee yet? Also Gillis didn't make Ballard and Booths contracts. He traded for them, and who cares? We had the cap space and it's not your money so what's wrong with you? So many things wrong with this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niloc009 Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 You may want to get your facts straight. Ballard and Booth weren't signed by Gillis. Sundin's contract was so worth it. He developed Kesler and the twins into who they are today. Demitra was a bit of an overpayment, but he was a free agent. Luongo's contract is a bit long, but when he signed it he was a top 3 goalie in the league. His cap hit is still very great though. It's sad that we're losing Schneider because of it, but we'll be trading him for assets to use in the future. And Gillis didn't inherit Art Ross twins, 41 goal scoring second liner, defensively amazing offensively great Nashville cast off, a top 2 and still young defenceman, or a young centre with huge potential. He drafted, or developed, or signed these players that are the core. So shut your face about Burke/Nonis building this team. They laid the foundation, but Gillis built the powerhouse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugemanskost Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 This how a successful team is built today, Lemieux. The Canucks have a window of opportunity, with the core that they have now, to compete for a cup. "Immediate gains", as you have put it, are exactly what they need right now, in the form of another reliable defender. They need to add smallish pieces rather than huge ones. I honestly don't see where MG is "sacrificing the future". Ehrhoff was a good offensive player. I'm not sorry to see him struggle in Buffalo. I'm not sure how "valuable" he really is or was. Gillis is building his team well, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lemieux Posted February 5, 2012 Author Share Posted February 5, 2012 I concede that Hamhuis is a good signing, but he did it while offering a ridiculous $1.5M contract offer to Willie Mitchell, the horse. He unfortunately suffered a concussion while playing like a warrior, and they treated him like sh*t. Could've at least helped contain some of the bad Bruins in the playoffs. Now, that role belongs to Andrew Alberts, which is scary to say the least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 I dunno....I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. He hasn't necessarily done anything really spectacular...certainly nothing to warrant genius accolades....but he has managed to help develop a winning culture amongst the club and done a pretty good job convincing certain core players to stay with the club for less than market value. The solution he comes up with to deal with the Schneider situation is going to do a lot to define how successful he's been as a GM. I think this post is pretty much bang on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbcpanel Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 How could anyone think Luongo's contract is bad? Top 5 goalie in the league yet his salary isn't even in the top 5 of goalie cap hits and not even in the top 60 of players cap hits. It's 12 years long so we could get that kind of bargain. Other teams have done that with their superstars as well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugemanskost Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 I concede that Hamhuis is a good signing, but he did it while offering a ridiculous $1.5M contract offer to Willie Mitchell, the horse. He unfortunately suffered a concussion while playing like a warrior, and they treated him like sh*t. Could've at least helped contain some of the bad Bruins in the playoffs. Now, that role belongs to Andrew Alberts, which is scary to say the least. Mitchell was offered a 2 year $7M dollar contract by LA. Why would Mitchell stay here for $1.5? Willie was coming off of a long concussion layoff and a $1.5M risk was all MG was willing to take at the time. Can you blame him? In hindsight, keeping Mitchell would have been great but, with what LA offered, There was no way he would have stayed here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 Wait a minute....Luongo isn't worth 5.2 M a year...? Have you had your coffee yet? Also Gillis didn't make Ballard and Booths contracts. He traded for them, and who cares? We had the cap space and it's not your money so what's wrong with you? So many things wrong with this thread. It's not the cap hit, rather the term, 12 years. That's far to long of a contract, in fact MG always spoke out against those long term contracts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benzito Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 Why are you complaining? And why are you complaining about the GM of all things.. We are 2nd in the West and 3rd in the league.... Luongo has a cap hit of 5.2, Bryzgalov 5.6 .. You can compare his contract with the elite's in the league and you'd realize that he is actually somewhat of a bargain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benzito Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 It's not the cap hit, rather the term, 12 years. That's far to long of a contract, in fact MG always spoke out against those long term contracts. There are 'outs' in the contract. It's not like the contract is written in stone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lemieux Posted February 5, 2012 Author Share Posted February 5, 2012 Mitchell was offered a 2 year $7M dollar contract by LA. Why would Mitchell stay here for $1.5? Willie was coming off of a long concussion layoff and a $1.5M risk was all MG was willing to take at the time. Can you blame him? In hindsight, keeping Mitchell would have been great but, with what LA offered, There was no way he would have stayed here. It was obvious that the Canucks needed DEFENSIVE help. If he had been offered 6mil for 2 years I am sure Mitchell would've stayed. It wasn't that big of a risk considering he was only 32 and the contract was for only two years. Instead, he went for an undersized Ballard who was making more than 4+ for multiple years, never having played a playoff game. This to me, is a bad decision. Ballard was sitting in the box in the playoffs. Mitchell would've been at least a top four, along with Ehrhoff, Edler, Hamhuis (and when healthy, Salo). It was obvious though, that Salo couldn't keep the Bruins out of the dirty area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grumpworsley Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 Higgens, Hamhuis, Hodgson, Re-sign sedins, Schneider etc. Its not so much what you are paying a player these days but it is about how the amount you are paying them fits into your cap budget. So for example say if the Canucks had 6 million room at the cap. would you consider it a mistake to blow that money on a single player? If that is the type of player your team needs to send you over the top then he is worth maxing out your cap. So to answer your question if that is what it is No I do not think Gillis is over rated. He takes risks and his rewards seem to be out weighing his losses so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-DLC- Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 But do you not grasp how the climate of things is responsible for this, NOT Mike who just has to play within the perimeters? Brian Burke was in Sweden, ready to pounce on the Sedins when MG flew out there to make sure they stayed here. That could've been the deal breaker for the Canucks (where would we be without them??). I'd consider that pretty significant. So you mourn the loss of Mitchell while I celebrate the securing of the Sedins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tearloch7 Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 Like your namesake, Mario, you muddle facts and opinions to suit your agenda .. MG is doing a very good job at building and maintaining a competetive team who can win it all in any given year for the forseeable future .. trolling MG is so yesterday .. ALL GM's are susceptable to making an error .. the only people who never make any mistakes are those who never do anything .. MG is right much more often than he is wrong .. so shut it unless you can substantiate your goofery with "facts" .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tearloch7 Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 Mitchell is NOT the answer .. ANOTHER left side defenseman .. JUST what we need .. coming off a consussion .. if MG had signed Willie and Willie had crumpled at the first head shot, Lemieux and the rest of his ilk would have been calling for MG's head .. furter waste of ink .. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.