Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

gradin123

What Has Gillis Really Done For This Franchise?

235 posts in this topic

Signing Mats Sundin was actually good. Yea, maybe the contract was bad but at least he showed up in the playoffs

I'll always remember the time when Canucks were facing elimination against Chicago, Sundin went beast mode and scored 2 goals.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say I like what Gillis has done while here. My biggest issue and the reason I don't like him is that he walked in and held a press conference on all the things Nonis did wrong. What I like about him is that he didn't change anything... he kept the franchise on the same course Nonis set out.

I think our franchise is still in great shape and our core is still a great core. A new coach next year and everything looks different.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say I like what Gillis has done while here. My biggest issue and the reason I don't like him is that he walked in and held a press conference on all the things Nonis did wrong. What I like about him is that he didn't change anything... he kept the franchise on the same course Nonis set out.

I think our franchise is still in great shape and our core is still a great core. A new coach next year and everything looks different.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's bring back Nonis or Burke. Burke has done an exceptional job in Toronto.

It's unfortunate that the Canucks were ousted in the first round if, for nothing else, the boards are bombarded with these stupid threads.

Gillis signed Bernier and Sturm hoping they would pan out and they didn't. They didn't really cost us anything.

Sundin was a great influence, and as a previous poster had said, the Canucks really didn't have much else to do with the money anyways. You've got to appreciate a GM willing to take risks and spend big in order to win. That being said, Gillis has also re-signed players for a bargain.

Luongo and his long term contract: Luongo is a proven winner and has played well for the Canucks every year after signing his contract, unlike say Ovechkin who essentially disappeared this year. He won a gold medal for team Canada and in several games carried the Canucks to within one win from the Stanley Cup.

Booth played well this year. It was a shame that he was injured. Samuelsson was not playing the way he had last year. I think Booth will turn out to be a gamble that pays off.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Biggest mistake he made was to let our PP QB walk and not replace him.

That will need to be fixed this offseason. Ryan Suter would be the perfect replacement.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

- I still see Booth as a steal.

- Signing Hamhuis was good.

- Higgins and Lapierre were both excellent acquisitions.

- Hodgson for Kassian, as of now, turned out terrible, but since he is only 21! He can still develop.

He's done good, but right now I'm still choked about that deadline deal.

Obviously he is going to bring in a difference maker in the summer, whether it be on D or F.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bad, bad post. This is why there used to be a minus button.

Every signing has risk, you can't call him bad for risks that didn't turn out. Sure he signed Sturm, then he traded him when it didn't work out.

Ballard proved to be one of our better defensemen by the end of the year. Still overpaid, but not the unmitigated disaster people called him after last season (yes he struggled immensely last year, but this year quietly turned it around). He crawled out of the doghouse, and AV said that he now is happy to play him and is glad.

Booth was a previously 82 point scorer, played with Kesler, and showed flashes of brilliance this season. He didn't live up to his potential this season. But it's not like MG signed DiPietro. Everything is a risk, and not everything pays off.

The Luongo contract, may not be the best move, but it isn't the disaster you think it is. It tags on a little bit at the end, but a lot of bottom feeders love these types of contracts because they need to hit the cap floor, and need a veteran to balance their young, inexperienced goalies. Roloson is one goalie in that position now. Also the NTC is more of a formality, he can waive it anytime he wants. He's not going to stay if he is asked to waive it, he has too much self respect, and respect for the team.

Mitchell, risky at the time. It's exaggerated right now, because he was key to the team who beat us. But at the time, we needed security, and MG wasn't taking the risk with our D (without mitchell our top 4 was Bieksa, Edler, Erhoff, and an injured Salo, and this was before Bieksa was playing to his current level, and Edler was extremely young.) He decided not to roll the dice and what happened happened.

The Grabner deal was not a bad deal. He was not going to fit in the system, especially when Raymond was doing his job better (53 points). Grabner admitted he wasn't playing well in Vancouver, and that being put on waivers by Florida is what changed his game to have that explosive season last season. Followed by a lackluster season, where he was described as the biggest disappointment. Imagine 2 Raymonds on our team right now. CDC would explode. (I like Raymond BTW)

Mats Sundin was a brilliant move, as the core really say he helped their game to the level it is now. You could argue without Sundin, we don't win the president trophy or exit the second round.

Also Hamhuis, Higgins, Pahlsson, Malhotra (especially last season, but even this), Lapeirre are core members that have proven to make a difference. It's silly you only point out this seasons playoffs, even though it was only 5 games agaisnt a goalie who let only 1 goal or less 27 (?correct my numbers if wrong)times this season. Going to be stingy. Go back to last playoffs, and you'll see what happened.

You can also argue the best deals he made, were not getting rid of his core impatiently trying to build to fast. He could have just been a frantic buyer and seller, and we'd be a team of overpaid players.

I understand your argument, I just don't think it's good.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrong. It was MG's first of many failed experiments.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not necessarily the players brought in that shows what kind of impact he's had. The man has demanded that winning is a lifestyle in this organisation and we've done nothing but win since his arrival. Its pretty unfair to expect a finals run every year

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is just full of idiot fans out for blood. Super short term memory here.

Gillis is doing a fine job. Moving on.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He bumbled and stumbled around when he got here, the courtship of Mats Sundin, the Backes offer sheet, the Demitra contract, the Luongo mega contract and the goalie-captain fiasco, He has become a more seasoned performer, his recent blunders like the Marco Sturm deal are much less damaging.

The real shame is that he inherited a championship caliber core group, and decided to fill in the support roles with finesse instead of the more conventional muscle and character that a more seasoned and pragmatic GM would have filled in with. And it likely cost us the Stanley Cup in 2011.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didnt even see this thread I posted this in the coaching thread:

As much as I thought I liked Mike Gillis the more I am worried that he has really hamstrung the Canucks. Samuelsson and Sturm for Booth...you may say Sturm needed to go and I agree but who got Sturm in the first place...MG. Luongo and his lifetime contract. Trading CoHo..I still think CoHo's camp requested a trade so it might not be his fault, but if there was no trade requested terrible move. Letting Ehrhoff go, although I guess the money wasn't there I still think it was a mistake. Pahlsson definitely wasn't the bigtime shutdown guy he was touted to be...I dunno I just see a ton of great moves there.

I don't want to be super negative but the future in Vancouver is murky at best in my opinion.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark Spector has a bash at Gillis today on Sportsnet.ca for anyone interested.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

- I still see Booth as a steal.

- Signing Hamhuis was good.

- Higgins and Lapierre were both excellent acquisitions.

- Hodgson for Kassian, as of now, turned out terrible, but since he is only 21! He can still develop.

He's done good, but right now I'm still choked about that deadline deal.

Obviously he is going to bring in a difference maker in the summer, whether it be on D or F.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didnt even see this thread I posted this in the coaching thread:

As much as I thought I liked Mike Gillis the more I am worried that he has really hamstrung the Canucks. Samuelsson and Sturm for Booth...you may say Sturm needed to go and I agree but who got Sturm in the first place...MG. Luongo and his lifetime contract. Trading CoHo..I still think CoHo's camp requested a trade so it might not be his fault, but if there was no trade requested terrible move. Letting Ehrhoff go, although I guess the money wasn't there I still think it was a mistake. Pahlsson definitely wasn't the bigtime shutdown guy he was touted to be...I dunno I just see a ton of great moves there.

I don't want to be super negative but the future in Vancouver is murky at best in my opinion.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gillis is overrated, but too young in his career to judge him too harshly. I think he would make a great GM, but I really don't believe the make up of this team is what Gillis wants. I think Gillis wanted three scoring lines but AV was against it and wanted it his way two scoring lines, shut down line and a checking line. Gillis biggest problem is he wants to follow a older method , the Detroit method. It was a great method but the times have been changing, he also said he makes moves at deadline that past stanley cup winners have made and I disagree with that thinking you build and trade for want your team has shown it needs, ours was depth scoring and he traded away a guy on pace for over 20 goals.

Gillis has made some bad moves like trading for Ballard when he wanted to get Hamhuis and we had Edler why did we need Ballard? our top 4 on the left side was set... this made no sense. Torres should've been re-signed, if your moving Hodgson Schroeder should've been called up before hand and see how close to NHL ready he is and make it seem Schroeder bumped Hodgson and bypass the gong show of Hodgson wanting out, a team fighting for the stanley cup doesn't need that drama around. I don't mind Kassian as a return but we should've been able to get more out of the deal, Gillis should of went after a puck moving D man in the Hodgson trade maybe he tried? we don't know but Kassian and Pahlsson were huge gambles to make mid season when the window is only open for so long.

The Booth trade... yeah we got Booth "cheap" wait... is he really better than Samuelsson who had chemistry with the twins and Kesler? and was a proven playoff performer, no he sure wasn't and not at the bad contract that comes with Booth. He also was the one who signed Luongo to the set for life contract and Gillis traded for two other bad contracts in Booth and Ballard :sick: I'll give Ballard credit for his playoffs this year as he was great and he had a good season this year but I'm not sold, BMac said Ballard was the most overrated D man when we traded for him and I agree. It's pretty messed up that the three bad contracts and the ones most Canuck fans want off our team is Luongo, Ballard and Booth how our that for GMing.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.