Snake Doctor Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 I don't agree with the OP's post. I think he needs to get his facts straight before he blabbers on like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one-x Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 hmmm, has op forgotten what we traded for ehrhoff? and the hammy contract? I want to say kesler but I'm not sure if that was him or nonis. Also the cap hit of both the sedins is roughly the same as ovi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 GILLIS IS A GOD even god makes mistakes ... you were born This post is about as stupid as the op.Infact if I were him I would report this post. Some of you never learn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddhas Hand Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 OP is spot on. Modern day sports media are just lackeys for the home team so you never hear any real criticism of Gillis but there is lots to go around. Just because he studies their bowel movements it doesn't mean he's some super GM. It's been a revolving door of hacks around the core that he inherited. We would be Columbus if it wasn't for the previous regimes. tell me mate have you achieved anything worth talking about in your life .your statement about the media is ludicrous , i used to think the aussie media and public were the classic , we love you when you win but when you lose you will be crucified type of fan , but you guys in vancouver have taken that to another level . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George_Costanza Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 If the negative feature still existed something tells me you would certainly not have a positive rating...heck you may even challenge the Burrows thread by clutch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuck nit Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Mario was one of the best to ever play the game. He recorded the second best PPG in NHL history,THE BEST GPG in NHL history -with a bad back,no exercise regime,a fight with cancer and no McSorley covering his hooped back.No Kurri,no Coffey,no Messier. This guy played hockey like nobody I have ever seen before or since. Lemieux was pure brilliance and I wish I could go back in time and watch him play all over again. Bobby Orr called him "the most talented player I've ever seen." In 1992-93, Lemieux averaged a career best 2.67 points per game. Highest goals-per-game average including playoffs, career (among players with 200-or-more goals): Mario Lemieux, .749 Most goals, one home playoff game-5 Most goals, one period-4 Most shorthanded goals, one season: Mario Lemieux, 13, 1988–89 When we talk hockey gods Mario is in that category.A lawyer/player agent/newbie GM with one cup final is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChuckNORRIS4Cup Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 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 Are you high? Luongo makes 6.7 million, but it's a cap hit of only 5.3 million. September 2, the Canucks announced that they had signed Luongo to a 12-year contract extension worth $64 million for a $5.33 million annual salary cap hit.[97] The front-loaded deal, which will expire by the time Luongo is 43 and includes a no-trade clause, sees him make $10 million in 2010–11, then approximately $6.7 million annually through to 2017–18, $3.3 million and $1.6 million the subsequent two seasons, before tailing off to $1 million for the final two years.[97] The contract contains two additional clauses to circumvent the no-trade clause that allow Luongo to facilitate a trade after the fifth year and for the Canucks to also facilitate a trade after the seventh year.[98] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lemieux Posted February 7, 2012 Author Share Posted February 7, 2012 By your own admission all of these great players were brought in before Gillis. Yet I dont recall the Canucks getting to the finals with these same players before Gillis, do you? In fact they couldnt get past the 2nd round. Gillis has come in and done what needed to be done. He saw the issue with our blue line always being depleted because of injury so he went out and made sure it wouldnt be an issue. You can easily sit there it your high chair and knock Gillis for Ballards contract, but the fact is Gillis did not make that contract. Ballard and his contract were acquired in a trade. On top of that who could know that Ballard would under perform to the level he has? Are you trying to say you did? Gillis managed to bring in Samuelsson, Ehrhoff, Hamhuis, Malhotra, Lapierre, Booth and Ballard. When the team needed defence he went and got the best free agents available. When they needed another center he got Malhotra (its no coincidence Kesler emergence as a star happened to come when the defensive specialist arrived). This city was clamoring for a big body to play next to Kesler, he went and got Booth for some spare parts. He also resigned Kesler, Burrows (4 year, 8 million.contract), negotiated the deal with the Sedins (a steal a 6 mil per) and got Schnieder signed to his current contract. This team couldnt cut it before Gillis came in.The core might have already been here but he kept it intact and at a very managable Cap hit. He also brought in the depth, and that is what got us to the finals. GM's are not psychics. They make mistakes, all of them. But Gillis has made far more good moves than bad ones, and at least he has made moves to address the issues that this team has had. So yes he inherited some great talent, but what exactly did Nonis manage to do with it? Your reply stands out, in this sea of useless replies, so I will give you my reply. Quote: By your own admission all of these great players were brought in before Gillis. Yet I dont recall the Canucks getting to the finals with these same players before Gillis, do you? In fact they couldnt get past the 2nd round. This can be easily explained. They were boys a few years ago. Now they are men. Just look at how Kesler and the Sedins have changed. And don't get me talking about the previous "core" players like Cloutier, the one-man wrecking crew. Quote: You can easily sit there it your high chair and knock Gillis for Ballards contract, but the fact is Gillis did not make that contract. Ballard and his contract were acquired in a trade. On top of that who could know that Ballard would under perform to the level he has? The task of the GM is to assess the risk. He's paid millions to do it. Acquiring the player is the GM's job. You can't blame the scouts or any other people. Afterall, the scouts are the people that you hire. Besides, the one who can make the decision is the GM. He gave up a first rounder PLUS Grabner, who was a 14th-overall first rounder from the previous regime PLUS Bernier, who was a first rounder himself. Three first rounders can get you a player like Phil Kessel (not that I am a fan of his play, but he is definitely a better player than Ballard) My point is that Nonis wasn't given another shot, and all the credits have gone to Michael Gillis. When the Canucks falter in the near future, they will blame this guy. The problem with this team over the years (I have watched the Canucks for over 20 years) is that it hasn't brought in proven winners in their prime, like a Scott Niedermayer or a Forsberg. They had had Mark Messier and Sundin, good players on the decline, and good talents without the winning credentials like Bure. They simply have no game changers. A Joe Sakic, Yzerman, Scott Stevens is a game changer. Bringing in Corey Perry won't help. What they need is a Zetterberg type, a warrior that can go all out and play a team game. So far, Gillis has not shown that he is capable of doing that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leftwinglockdown Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Your reply stands out, in this sea of useless replies, so I will give you my reply. Quote: By your own admission all of these great players were brought in before Gillis. Yet I dont recall the Canucks getting to the finals with these same players before Gillis, do you? In fact they couldnt get past the 2nd round. This can be easily explained. They were boys a few years ago. Now they are men. Just look at how Kesler and the Sedins have changed. And don't get me talking about the previous "core" players like Cloutier, the one-man wrecking crew. Quote: You can easily sit there it your high chair and knock Gillis for Ballards contract, but the fact is Gillis did not make that contract. Ballard and his contract were acquired in a trade. On top of that who could know that Ballard would under perform to the level he has? The task of the GM is to assess the risk. He's paid millions to do it. Acquiring the player is the GM's job. You can't blame the scouts or any other people. Afterall, the scouts are the people that you hire. Besides, the one who can make the decision is the GM. He gave up a first rounder PLUS Grabner, who was a 14th-overall first rounder from the previous regime PLUS Bernier, who was a first rounder himself. Three first rounders can get you a player like Phil Kessel (not that I am a fan of his play, but he is definitely a better player than Ballard) My point is that Nonis wasn't given another shot, and all the credits have gone to Michael Gillis. When the Canucks falter in the near future, they will blame this guy. The problem with this team over the years (I have watched the Canucks for over 20 years) is that it hasn't brought in proven winners in their prime, like a Scott Niedermayer or a Forsberg. They had had Mark Messier and Sundin, good players on the decline, and good talents without the winning credentials like Bure. They simply have no game changers. A Joe Sakic, Yzerman, Scott Stevens is a game changer. Bringing in Corey Perry won't help. What they need is a Zetterberg type, a warrior that can go all out and play a team game. So far, Gillis has not shown that he is capable of doing that. Your assessment that our core players were boys before Gillis got here and men now as the sole reason for why they have made such big strides is a joke. You cannot ignore the fact that they developed under Gillis and not Nonis. Sedins did not look like they were ever going to be more than 80pt players and Kesler did not look like he was going to be anything more than a 3rd line checking center. Their developments into star players in this league occurred under Gillis and the culture of winning he has instilled in the locker room. Also, the fact that you value Bernier as a first rounder in your argument shows how ridiculous a claim you are making. While Bernier was a first rounder, he did not reach his potential when he was with the Sharks or the Canucks and he still has not reached his potential after being traded. Grabner couldn't even make this team out of training camp and had to be traded and then waived to finally get going. While Grabner did have a good first year with the Islanders, he has been completely invisible this year and is totally off his career high in goals that he achieved last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuck nit Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 "You cannot ignore the fact that they developed under Gillis and not Nonis. Sedins did not look like they were ever going to be more than 80pt players and Kesler did not look like he was going to be anything more than a 3rd line checking center. Their developments into star players in this league occurred under Gillis....."highvision The twins have been with the Canucks since 1999. Hank recorded four consecutive 75-82 point years before Gillis arrived. The Flyers offered Kes a contract in 2006.I guess Philadelphia should give Gillis the credit for developing Kes to that point in time,except Gillis was still years away from GM Place/Rogers Arena.After all,they knew Kes would never be more than a third liner without Gillis guiding him through puberty into a man. Hank,Dan and Kes all became men in the last few years. The Canucks organisation were developing Kes and the twins years before Gillis and the Acquilini's had their first conversation. In the twins case,it was near a decade.Give us some more Gillis revisionism Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostsof1915 Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Maybe he's named after Claude Lemieux? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bongo4420 Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Luongo is a good regular season goalie but doesn't have the mental makeup to win when the pressure is at it's highest. Gillis destroyed Luongo by naming him the captain. You can't name a goalie captain especially one with the mental makeup of Luongo. Especially is a city like Vancouver. That move alone probably cost the Canuck's the Cup. All these Gillis hacks giving him credit for the core of team is astoundingly absurd. How do you circle that square? That’s not my favourite MG propaganda though. My favourite is the effusive praise he receives for the intangibles he’s brought to the organization because the hacks can’t find anything tangible he’s done well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bongo4420 Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Gillis' drafting unit has done well so far too You mean the organization who's prospects rank in the bottom five of every major independent scouting service. Keep drinking the kool aid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 some of you people deserve a second dose of Mike Keenan... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BedBeats™2.0 Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Luongo is a good regular season goalie but doesn't have the mental makeup to win when the pressure is at it's highest. Gillis destroyed Luongo by naming him the captain. You can't name a goalie captain especially one with the mental makeup of Luongo. Especially is a city like Vancouver. That move alone probably cost the Canuck's the Cup. All these Gillis hacks giving him credit for the core of team is astoundingly absurd. How do you circle that square? That’s not my favourite MG propaganda though. My favourite is the effusive praise he receives for the intangibles he’s brought to the organization because the hacks can’t find anything tangible he’s done well. `Tom1040` has a CDC account!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canacks1970 Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 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. So your going to take a chance and pay Mitchell the money back then even though at the time NOBODY, even Mitchell himself didn't know at the time if he'll play again. I seem to recall that at the same time Willie blasted Colin Campbell . But hey had Willie did resigned with Vancouver and couldn't play another game you would have found another reason to complain about Gillis anyways. Funny other GM'S and Owners thought otherwise when they gave him GM of the year last year.He must be doing something right in their eyes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canacks1970 Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 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...
NucksPatsFan Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 People. We just made it to game 7 of the Stanley Cup Finals. We're second in the NHL right now and are running away with our division. Why can't we just be happy with how the team is performing and look forward to yet another year of playoff hockey? What good is criticizing Gillis going to do? Do you know how many teams would kill to have Gillis run their club and get them as far as he's gotten the Canucks? Sheesh. This is why I stick to only talking football in the sports section. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lemieux Posted February 8, 2012 Author Share Posted February 8, 2012 People. We just made it to game 7 of the Stanley Cup Finals. We're second in the NHL right now and are running away with our division. Why can't we just be happy with how the team is performing and look forward to yet another year of playoff hockey? What good is criticizing Gillis going to do? Do you know how many teams would kill to have Gillis run their club and get them as far as he's gotten the Canucks? Sheesh. This is why I stick to only talking football in the sports section. Going to Game 7 of the Stanley Cup Finals is a euphemism for "you are the last loser standing." Not winning is not winning. At least we had a two-goal effort from Linden. Last time I checked, they got shutout. The first thing that they need to do is to get Henrik Sedin to shoot the puck more. He has the ability to do that, but he disappears. He can't get his game going without the PP. People blame the Bruins, but I think the Canucks should blame themselves. Simply put, the offense was anemic. I am not saying Gillis is bad, but he's not as good as he's been marketed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuck nit Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 It's a hockey blog,Pat. It is what we do best as the world goes by. I thought football season was over? Back to sleep......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.