Dogbyte 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. You are mental. When he took over we were projected to finish last in the Western Conference. We made the playoffs and won a round. He then shortly changed us into President's trophy winners and SCF finalists. You're nuts.Ballard and Booth already had contracts, he didn't sign them. He just traded to make the team better. Sundin and Demitra while pricey did not really matter because we were not even close to the salary cap. Many credit Sundin for Kesler's emergence in the last couple years.I do agree the Luongo contract isn't that good but locking up a top notch goaltender for a reasonable cap hit isn't all that bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Singh Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DW23 Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 I remember the day the Canucks announced they hired MG as the new GM. he had no experience and was acting as a player agent before. he came in and made a couple of unpopular moves (not signing Naslund ie). at that time(!) the Canucks were not really in the run for any big name free agents so he made a bold move with offering Sundin big money. he showed everyone how we could attract top players and treat them exceptionally well. I think this was one of the better moves of the franchise. Sundin was at the end of his career. we didn't really need a guy who could put up 52828592 points. we were looking for leadership. moreover, MG attracted big names for future trade windows. I see you didn't like the Mitchell trade. I give you that. but again, at that time Mitchell hadn't played because of the concussion. he didn't want to gamble. hindsight is 20/20, Mitchell looks alright, but as one poster before said, IF Mitchell were toast and he'd have signed him for 2 more years @ 3.5 years I'd guarantee you that you'd be the first poster to bitch. additionally, MG brought in a sleep doctor which in my opinion was very smart and out-of-the box. another reason other players might love to play here. he retained Burrows he re-signed the Sedin's (flew to Sweden for them) signed Hamhuis even though two (if I remember correctly) teams bought the rights for him first. he wanted to come here!! won an award for best GM took rookie Hodgson in the draft (yes it's a good move. he could have taken a bust! we've seen that happen many times. Patrick White anyone?!?) so after all these points. you gonna bitch about a bad contract for Ballard (he plays well IMO, just his price tag is a little expensive), Mitchell and about Schneider where he hasn't even made a move yet?!? are you still going to complain if Schneider landed us a 1st round pick and a top6 forward? sorry, long post. but I don't understand your logic Lemieux Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 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. ... Gillis is really sacrifing the future of the team for immediate gains. It's really sad to see. Ok, you want to complain about Gillis but then you say he overpaid a list of players like that. He didn't give Ballard or Booth their current contracts. Sundin could have been bad but it can also be argued that was just a dangling carrot to get Sundin in the door. If Demitra could have played even half the season at the level he played in the Olympics it would have been a good deal, but he was ok while he was here. And that leaves Luongo. There's a pretty important point to make there in that what Luongo actually earns (paid $10M first year, $6+M the next, etc) means nothing in comparison to his cap hit. Considering the list of goalies with higher cap hits than him and comparing their level of play with what Luongo is capable of, his cap hit is really quite reasonable. His contract term isn't as much of an issue, since there are outs at the 5 and 7 year mark, and Luongo could choose to waive his NTC at any time, so we're hardly 'stuck with him' as people so often comment on. That and your last line are really just not correct. Sacrifing [sic] the future of the team for immediate gains usually means trading draft picks and top prospects in order to get top players now, often even rentals, which is completely the opposite of what Gillis is about. He gave up older players that weren't contributing much for Booth, who's playing quite well for us. He did give up a first rounder for Ballard, but Grabner was likely to be gone on waivers without a trade and Bernier really didn't fit - and he even waited to ok the deal only once he felt there wasn't a player he was truly interested in left. So, you're analysis of Gillis' worth really doesn't mean a hell of a lot. It sure didn't when he built a team that made it to game 7 of the SCF, and it definitely didn't when he was voted the top GM in the NHL last year. The judgements I have made on how this team performs seems to match what a lot of others are thinking, so I'll stick with what I'm seeing versus what you want to tell me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 Hamhuis, Higgins, Hodgson, Ballard, Samuelson/Booth,Ehrhoff, Malhotra - these acquisitions add up to...? Our top four d are all signed to very team friendly contracts - our entire top line are great contracts for the Canucks - if you search the entire team, there are perhaps one or two players making more than his cap hit ideally would be - Ballard is improving and has the potential to be worth his contract, Booth could turn out to be a steal in the long run... good prospects on the Wolves (Jensen, Connauton, Tanev, Lack - at every position) - GM of the Year - I guess the voters - mainly the 30 GMs don't know much about GMs in the NHL... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ilya Mikheyev Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 Hahahaha. Lappy, Higgins, Malhotra, Hamhuis, Tanev, Booth, Ehrhoff, Oreskovich, drafting Hodgson, signing the Sedins to reasonable contracts, signing Kesler to a reasonable contract, getting Hansen on a reasonable contract, letting Naslund go despite the personal attachment, bringing in Sundin to help the Sedins & Kesler break the plateau they had reached + making Vancouver a significant place for FAs to think about (how many good FAs did Nonis sign again? Jan Bulis? Chouinard?). Should we mention how much better the farm team is? Unless you wish for the days where Isbister was signed in hopes that he would finally break out at the ripe age of.. 30. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ilya Mikheyev Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 p.s. who the hell calls him Michael? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostsof1915 Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 The only bad trade you could argue was us trading for Alberts, and we grossly overpaid for Ballard, but he's actually getting better so maybe the jury is still out. (I didn't want to see us trading away our first rounder, Quinton Howden is going to be a solid NHL forward in my opinion.) But that being said, I understand why Gillis did it, there was no guarantee we were going to sign Hamhuis so we needed a D-man. LA outbid us on Mitchell, it's as simple as that. We have a salary cap so we have a budget the team needs to live with that and so should the fans. We got Ehrhoff for pretty much nothing in a salary dump deal with the Sharks. Once again Gillis has a budget and he wasn't going to cripple the team when Buffalo overpaid for him. Now look at the standings. Hoff is on a team now that's 10 points out of a playoff spot. We have Schroeder, Tanev, Connauton, Sauve, Rodin, Longpre, Stefan Schneider, and Polasek in the AHL. Connauton is an AHL all star. And we have Jensen and Grenier (Grenier is currently over a point a game as is Jensen) in the minors. We don't have a window that's closing. Our future is so bright you gotta wear shades. That's what a good organisation and a good GM does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lemieux Posted February 5, 2012 Author Share Posted February 5, 2012 Ok, you want to complain about Gillis but then you say he overpaid a list of players like that. He didn't give Ballard or Booth their current contracts. Sundin could have been bad but it can also be argued that was just a dangling carrot to get Sundin in the door. If Demitra could have played even half the season at the level he played in the Olympics it would have been a good deal, but he was ok while he was here. And that leaves Luongo. There's a pretty important point to make there in that what Luongo actually earns (paid $10M first year, $6+M the next, etc) means nothing in comparison to his cap hit. Considering the list of goalies with higher cap hits than him and comparing their level of play with what Luongo is capable of, his cap hit is really quite reasonable. His contract term isn't as much of an issue, since there are outs at the 5 and 7 year mark, and Luongo could choose to waive his NTC at any time, so we're hardly 'stuck with him' as people so often comment on. That and your last line are really just not correct. Sacrifing [sic] the future of the team for immediate gains usually means trading draft picks and top prospects in order to get top players now, often even rentals, which is completely the opposite of what Gillis is about. He gave up older players that weren't contributing much for Booth, who's playing quite well for us. He did give up a first rounder for Ballard, but Grabner was likely to be gone on waivers without a trade and Bernier really didn't fit - and he even waited to ok the deal only once he felt there wasn't a player he was truly interested in left. So, you're analysis of Gillis' worth really doesn't mean a hell of a lot. It sure didn't when he built a team that made it to game 7 of the SCF, and it definitely didn't when he was voted the top GM in the NHL last year. The judgements I have made on how this team performs seems to match what a lot of others are thinking, so I'll stick with what I'm seeing versus what you want to tell me. You're [sic] English isn't as good as you think, so you can stop pretending now. Getting bad contracts from a bad team is the same as signing the contracts in the first place. Columbus did not sign Carter to that ludicrous deal. Now they are stuck with it. Don't they have to be responsible? Same for Gillis. No one in the world had been sticking a gun to his head and say "trade for Ballard". Of course Luongo can waive his NTC. Have you ever heard of an NTC where the player cannot waive his NTC? If the player couldn't, who would be able to???!!! The fact is, by giving him the NTC, Luongo dictates what he wants to do. And you give him that contract after a stellar regular season, but miserable playoff performances. Should have waited till he reached free agency. He would've taken a hometown-discount like the Sedins. If he walked, it would've been fine cause the Canucks still had a solid second option in Schneider. Nowadays, you don't win with the goalie, you win with a system. Chicago, Detroit, Pittsburgh are good examples. The so-called big-money goalies, Bryzgalov, Vokoun, Lundqvist, Luongo... what have they really won? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lemieux Posted February 5, 2012 Author Share Posted February 5, 2012 So, you're analysis of Gillis' worth really doesn't mean a hell of a lot. It sure didn't when he built a team that made it to game 7 of the SCF, and it definitely didn't when he was voted the top GM in the NHL last year. The judgements I have made on how this team performs seems to match what a lot of others are thinking, so I'll stick with what I'm seeing versus what you want to tell me. you're [sic] analysis here in the first line doesn't mean a lot either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SimplyHockey 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. You my friend are so far behind you think you're in first place. Are you trying to be stupid on purpose? You haven't a clue about how to manage a hockey team nor what the hell you are talking about. Please tell us "what immediate gains" Gillis hopes to acquire or did you throw that out there because it was the first brain-fart that came to you first from your vacant mind? Please don't hold us in limbo on that one; impart us with your knowledge. What makes you an authority to be critical of Gillis. Are or have you been a GM - I bet not. If you believe the past regime of Brian Burke or Dave Nonis was so much better than go cheer for the Leafs. Your post has no merit and you cannot substantiate anything you have claimed so give us all a break and if you get a chance to bugger off take it. Leaving will be the biggest accomplishment of your ineffectual, meagre little life. Truthfully, you are nothing but a whinning, snivelling little troll who has nothing credible to say to anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niloc009 Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 You're [sic] English isn't as good as you think, so you can stop pretending now. Getting bad contracts from a bad team is the same as signing the contracts in the first place. Columbus did not sign Carter to that ludicrous deal. Now they are stuck with it. Don't they have to be responsible? Same for Gillis. No one in the world had been sticking a gun to his head and say "trade for Ballard". Of course Luongo can waive his NTC. Have you ever heard of an NTC where the player cannot waive his NTC? If the player couldn't, who would be able to???!!! The fact is, by giving him the NTC, Luongo dictates what he wants to do. And you give him that contract after a stellar regular season, but miserable playoff performances. Should have waited till he reached free agency. He would've taken a hometown-discount like the Sedins. If he walked, it would've been fine cause the Canucks still had a solid second option in Schneider. Nowadays, you don't win with the goalie, you win with a system. Chicago, Detroit, Pittsburgh are good examples. The so-called big-money goalies, Bryzgalov, Vokoun, Lundqvist, Luongo... what have they really won? See: Thomas, Tim Re: Stanley Cup Finals, 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TotesMagotes 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. Oh wait so we have one of the best goalies in the league for 12 years(he will most likely not play those last few years) for an extremely good cap hit, mea while the cap continues to go up making the contract even more of a steal. Im not seeing the bad in this contract... Besides both parties have an outclause halfway through the contract of one or the other isn't happy. So please enlighten me on how this is a bad contract. May i remind you if the term was 5 years we would probably have a goalie with an 8+ M a year cap hit, resulting in having less money to sign other depth players that make this team so good. People need to shut up and stop complaining about luongos contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bodee Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 "The only guy that Gillis could truly claim to be a valuable asset was Ehrhoff." Don't forget Ballard. He could be the best of them all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeafsHater Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 Hamhuis > Mitchell. Mitchell is more one dimensional compared to Hamhuis. Both are defensive defensemens but hamhuis has an edge offensively. Also, Mitchell had his thing in the dressing room with certain players like Raymond and Kesler I believe... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Brown Burrows Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 I believe that everyone on the 1st page (didn't bother reading more) has some good points and some bad points. Gillis: Pros: - filled up remaining roster spots with quality players (NO Green, Carney, Goren, Santala, etc.) - keeps the core together while adding ("stars") on for the ride , takes a risk (Sundin, Booth, Demitra) - signs quality UFA's and makes good trade deadline moves (Higgins, Lapierre, Hamhuis) - year after year , he keeps our team a contender - brings in players that can help improve a players game (Sundin, Ehrhoff) - trys to convince players to stay for cheap (Sedins, Burrows, Kesler, Hamhuis, Salo) - ^ sometimes isn't pushy enough, or isn't willing to add in clauses (Bieksa) - hires quality staff (coaches, personnel , Gilman) - improves our prospect pool (Hodgson, Rodin, Schroeder, Sauve, etc) Cons: - overpays for core players (Luongo, Bieksa, Demitra) - trades for overpaid players that will help NOW, but possibly hurt us in the future (Booth, Ballard) - slow to address needs (top 6 forward, finally Booth came along; size, not much other than Alberts, Bitz, and Bieksa) - not very involved with the media (makes us all guess, and sometimes make stupid proposals) - is sometimes too low key (Boston comments towards us, refs going against us, etc.) - is slowly ruining our team for the future, unless he has a plan (long-term contracts, big money deals, too many prospects to choose from) - seems afraid of admitting he is wrong I feel that this list, is what Gillis is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostdivision Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 I think overall gillis has to be applauded since when in 18 years have we done so well. I dont always agree with everything like the loungo contract. The booth deal they just talked about on sportsnet, they felt gillis did the trade so he would not have to scramble and overpay at the deadline or feel like he needed to desperately make a move at the deadline, he wanted to get someone now, and it was a very smart move giving up talent that was also under performing. I feel he has done well overall. He knows things needs addressing and he goes out and tries to fix it. Are all his choices perfect? No but whose are? I dont know any gm thats flawless. I can say his deals typically always make us better, not worse. He is also constantly improving over the years since he now has some experience and knows better what will work and what the team needs. Didnt he win gm of the year to? Results speak for himself and while he continues to learn and will learn from the ballard and lou deals, he will constantly improve, and in 3 years he took us from nobodies to 1 win away from the cup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dorrcoq Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 Yeah, let's not try to won now...way better to try to win sometime down the road. Your opinion is grossly stupid. How's that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostdivision Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 I believe that everyone on the 1st page (didn't bother reading more) has some good points and some bad points. Gillis: Pros: - filled up remaining roster spots with quality players (NO Green, Carney, Goren, Santala, etc.) - keeps the core together while adding ("stars") on for the ride , takes a risk (Sundin, Booth, Demitra) - signs quality UFA's and makes good trade deadline moves (Higgins, Lapierre, Hamhuis) - year after year , he keeps our team a contender - brings in players that can help improve a players game (Sundin, Ehrhoff) - trys to convince players to stay for cheap (Sedins, Burrows, Kesler, Hamhuis, Salo) - ^ sometimes isn't pushy enough, or isn't willing to add in clauses (Bieksa) - hires quality staff (coaches, personnel , Gilman) - improves our prospect pool (Hodgson, Rodin, Schroeder, Sauve, etc) Cons: - overpays for core players (Luongo, Bieksa, Demitra) - trades for overpaid players that will help NOW, but possibly hurt us in the future (Booth, Ballard) - slow to address needs (top 6 forward, finally Booth came along; size, not much other than Alberts, Bitz, and Bieksa) - not very involved with the media (makes us all guess, and sometimes make stupid proposals) - is sometimes too low key (Boston comments towards us, refs going against us, etc.) - is slowly ruining our team for the future, unless he has a plan (long-term contracts, big money deals, too many prospects to choose from) - seems afraid of admitting he is wrong I feel that this list, is what Gillis is. I think part of your list is very good. But overpaying beiksa? I mean at the time bieksa took a paycut. People want d men, look at erhoff, your wrong on that one. Ballard and Lou are about the only overpaid ones, i almost forgive him for the lou one because he was so new to being a gm, he probably would not do the deal quite the way he did then if he could go back in time. I also dont think he is always low key he took a big fine in the chicago series. Not many gm's would do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spectacular Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 Signing and Trades: Ballard: No gaurantee that the Nucks were going to get Hamhuis and Ballard was a pucking moving offensive defensemen. The Canucks play a system where the defensemen are required to be very involving in the rushes up the ice. On paper, this acquisation did make since, though there was a slight overpayment. Ehrhoff: Robbery. Enough said. Hamhuis: Our best defensive defensemen that also has an underrated offensive flare Higgins and Lapierre: Gillis gets trade deadline players and turns these proclaimed rentals into integral parts of the team Booth: Robbery. Samuelsson wasn't performing to well and Sturm... well he's Sturm and the worst MG signing. Ever since joining the Canucks, Booth's been playing at a pace that would give him 57ish points throughout a whole 82 game season. He is a little expensive (and MG didn't even sign him to the contract) but he brings a lot to the team. A perfect second line powerforward. Demitra (RIP) : Naslund was leaving and the team needed some form of offense. Believe it or not, but Demo played quite well during his first year and both he and Sundin were extremly important for Kesler's development Sundin: Yes the 2 year 10 million was a huge offer, but Sundin took the 1 year and like I said before, he helped Kesler take his game to new heights. Malholtra: A little overpaid now that he had that terrible eye injury but hindsight is 20/20 and there's no way anyone could have seen that one coming. Before that injury, he made the 3rd line with Torres and Hansen one of the most tenacious 3rd lines in the NHL. Torres: 1 million for a previous 20 goal scorer that can hit and fight. Extensions: Burrows: 4 years 2 million for Mr. Fackin Clutch? Hansen: 1.35 for this tenacious man? Yes. Kesler: 5 million for a 1b Selke center? Mother of God Henrik and Daniel: 6.1 million each for 2 Art rosses, 1 Hart and 1 Lindsay award? Edler: Not sure if MG was the one that extended Edler. But 3.25 for a defensemen that was clearly morphing into a number 1 dman Luongo: Length is only there for cap reduction and the caphit is amazing fro what he brings. Only flaw again is the length. I could ramble on and on and on, but I'm sure you get the point. Gillis' positives FAR outweigh his negatives. (Didn't even mention his draft picks) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.