Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
* * * * * 2 votes

[Confirmed] Mike Gillis Agrees To Contract Extension


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
231 replies to this topic

#211 ccc44

ccc44

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,423 posts
  • Joined: 29-April 09

Posted 08 May 2012 - 09:46 AM

Everything he's done has been with good intentions, I like where his mind is:

Acquiring Hamhuis - we needed someone to replace Mitchell's shutdown prowess
Acquiring Ballard - we needed more defensive quality and Ballard was a 30-point player playing 20+ minutes

Both were reliable defencemen who were rarely injured in their careers, which is something we needed more of. Bad luck bit us there, and clearly the scouting report on Ballard wasn't well done but it's difficult to predict how defencemen change in different markets (see Bouwmeester, Phaneuf, Kaberle etc.)

Acquiring Malhotra - shutdown center to let Kesler play more offensively and boost our PK, worked perfectly last season
Signing the Sedins - best move in franchise history, kept the face of our franchise together
Signing Luongo - a great cap hit of just 5ish million for one of the best in the league, that's a steal. Not many have outplayed him over the last few years consistently.

Acquiring Higgins and Lapierre - two great depth players and solid playoff peformers who play the right way.
Acquiring Booth - learned from his mistakes last season, got bigger up front
Acquiring Kassian - had his hand forced with the selfish little brat Hodgson and did the best he could, also getting bigger in the process
Acquiring Bitz - tried to get bigger hitters on our 4th line and it worked well for us
Acquiring Weise - a much better improvement on Oreskovich and I have a feeling this guy will break-out in the next few seasons, watch this space. He's got some serious offensive talent, plays hard and is still very young.
Acquiring Duco, Pinizzotto and Mancari - got much bigger and tougher on the farm but lost a bit of skill, which is how teams are winning Cups nowadays (see Boston, LA/Phoenix/NYR)

So are you saying the intentions of the previous GM's have not been good either ?
Posted Image
SHOTS ! SHOTS ! SHOTS !

#212 nuck nit

nuck nit

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,843 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 10

Posted 08 May 2012 - 09:50 AM

Ehrhoff didn't accept the contract that was offered to him. Should MG have taken his family for ransom?

Who hired Gagner again? Oh, right, Gillis.

We could win the cup and people would complain that Gillis didn't score the game-winning goal, so he shouldn't get credit.


This is what,year five with Gillis and year 42 or 43 with no cup?

Gillis offered Ehrhoff Bieksa's contract.

Who brought Tanev to the Canucks?

The Canucks lost in Round one in a near sweep.Let's give credit where it is due.

#213 kloubek

kloubek

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,509 posts
  • Joined: 10-July 06

Posted 08 May 2012 - 09:50 AM

I'm glad Gillis is back on board. While he has made mistakes (what GM hasn't), I think he is a pretty saavy businessman and has a pretty good understanding of what we need to be a success.

As for AV:

He'll be around for the entire upcoming year. Take it to the bank.

What happens after that is anyone's guess. If we have another 1st round loss I'm pretty sure pressure from ownership and the end of his contract would keep him from being behind our bench another season.
Biggest Canucks Fan this Side of the Rockies.

#214 Vansicle

Vansicle

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,594 posts
  • Joined: 24-August 09

Posted 08 May 2012 - 09:58 AM

Well I would say the addition of Sundin and Demitra helped turn Kesler into an offensive star.

I would argue that the addition of Ehrhoff helped the Sedins raise their game from point a game players to Art Ross winners.

And I would also argue that Rollie Melanson and the additions of Hamhuis and Ballard helped Luongo get his game back on track.

Like I said, he turned what was already good into something great. He saw the potential in the players we already had, and he implemented measures to help them reach their highest potential. That's what Gillis is good at.

Again, I'm not saying your points aren't valid, but do we really know Kesler wouldn't have blossomed under almost any circumstances? Do we know the addition of any high quality d-men by any GM wouldn't have had the same positive effect?
I'm not of the mind that MG isn't a good/great GM. I'm just trying to point out that any NHL caliber GM might have made excellent moves that improved the quality of product that the Canucks bring to the ice, and that the developement of certain players into all-stars might have been inevitable with the passing of time.
Please don't take any of this as MG hate/bashing. I actually think he's been, even at his worst, a good GM. I'm just trying to maybe point out that correlation ≠ causation . . . necessarily . . . in this case. Devil's advocate.

Snake Doctor, on 23 May 2014 - 10:41 AM, said:snapback.png

Miller is not on our list. It's Lack as our #1. There is no reason we would have traded both Schnieder and Luongo if we never intended to give Lack the #1 starting job.  Furthermore, the salary and term Miller is looking for is not in our favor.

 


#215 n00bxQb

n00bxQb

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,950 posts
  • Joined: 05-July 09

Posted 08 May 2012 - 10:40 AM

This is what,year five with Gillis and year 42 or 43 with no cup?

Gillis offered Ehrhoff Bieksa's contract.

Who brought Tanev to the Canucks?

The Canucks lost in Round one in a near sweep.Let's give credit where it is due.

You make it seem as if winning a Stanley Cup is a task any competent person could do. It's not ...

That's right, Gillis offered Ehrhoff the same deal he offered Bieksa. Ehrhoff wanted a longer, more lucrative deal. There are a few problems with doing this:

1) It potentially causes conflict between Bieksa and Ehrhoff. It's like having 2 kids and giving each half a cookie, but one starts whining, so you give him more.
2) Ehrhoff isn't Lidstrom or Chelios. He doesn't have elite talent and an elite work ethic and the perseverance to play at the same level into his late-30s. If Ehrhoff got the 10-year, $40M deal from MG, we'd have $9.333M in cap hits for 2 past-their-prime players in 7 years.
3) MG just did a long-term, front-loaded contract that was investigated by the NHL for circumvention. Do you really think he wants to go barking up that tree again after watching NJD get slapped with a $5M fine and being forced to forfeit a 1st round pick?

Who brought Gagner to the Canucks? Who signed Tanev?

Yeah, we lost in the first round to a very good hockey team. It happens ... This isn't NHL 12 where you win the cup every year, this is real life where there has only been one team that has won back-to-back cups in the last 20 years. It's an extremely difficult trophy to win.

#216 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,032 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 08 May 2012 - 11:32 AM

Again, I'm not saying your points aren't valid, but do we really know Kesler wouldn't have blossomed under almost any circumstances? Do we know the addition of any high quality d-men by any GM wouldn't have had the same positive effect?
I'm not of the mind that MG isn't a good/great GM. I'm just trying to point out that any NHL caliber GM might have made excellent moves that improved the quality of product that the Canucks bring to the ice, and that the developement of certain players into all-stars might have been inevitable with the passing of time.
Please don't take any of this as MG hate/bashing. I actually think he's been, even at his worst, a good GM. I'm just trying to maybe point out that correlation ≠ causation . . . necessarily . . . in this case. Devil's advocate.


I get what you're saying, it just seems to me like some fans are trying so hard to not give Gillis or AV any credit for our success.

If any GM can do what Gillis is doing, then you would think that we would have had higher success than a 1st round victory in the previous 10 years before Gillis got here, wouldn't we?

I'm not saying give all the credit to him, but he does deserve a big portion of it. It's not just lucky timing on his part that we won the president's trophy twice in the first 4 years he's been here. Fans are naive if they think that.

Give credit to our players for elevating their games, and give credit to him for setting the standard, that's all I'm saying.

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#217 nuck nit

nuck nit

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,843 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 10

Posted 08 May 2012 - 12:07 PM

You make it seem as if winning a Stanley Cup is a task any competent person could do. It's not ...

That's right, Gillis offered Ehrhoff the same deal he offered Bieksa. Ehrhoff wanted a longer, more lucrative deal. There are a few problems with doing this:



Yeah, we lost in the first round to a very good hockey team. It happens ... This isn't NHL 12 where you win the cup every year, this is real life where there has only been one team that has won back-to-back cups in the last 20 years. It's an extremely difficult trophy to win.


Ehrhoff is not Bieksa.

You and I have no idea what Ehrhoff asked for to stay here.

.Buffalo's contract is not what Ehrhoff was offered here so we have an excellent idea why he rejected Bieksa's offer.

The cookie analogy don't cut it in the real world.

The fact is Gillis never found or brought Tanev to the Nucks.

The fact is this francise has never won a cup with or without Gillis.

Gillis spins the 98% quote but first round exits are more in the 65% category,aren't they?

#218 canuckbeliever

canuckbeliever

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,909 posts
  • Joined: 05-February 07

Posted 08 May 2012 - 01:03 PM

Here is my two cents to the debate about whether Gillis is a good GM

Firstly, you have to look at the predecessor of Gillis and why he was fired. Dave Nnois was fired for missing the playoffs in 2 of the 3 seasons he was here. He was also hired by John McCaw and NOT the Aqualini family so he was not there guy.


The biggest complaint most of us had with Nonis was he never made real bold moves (with the exception of the Luongo deal). Instead he always did make shift changes. The summer ebfore he was fired, he went looking for Peter Foresberg and convincing him to play in Vancouver when he had an oppurtunity to sign Scott Gomez (thank god, he went to Sweden in hindsight).

He also was indicating that he would only make make shift changes after the collapse in 08. IE:Signing Fabbian Brunstrom


Insert Gillis. The hiring at the time was EXTREMELY QUESTIONABLE. Player agents never made good GM's for the most part with a few exceptions (Ken Holland being the prime example). There was rampant speculation and reports that indicated that the Aqualinis used the advice of Province Sports Writer Tony Gallagher in the hiring of Gillis as Tony and him are great friends. It is also widely known that the Aqualini family is close with Gallagher in a hockey advising role.

Now Gillis was able to do several things his predecessor didnt. One, he liked to make big bold moves. That offer he made to Mats was very bold. He also changed the culture of the team by not re-signing former client and Canuck captain Markus Naslund and instead opting for Pavol Demitra. He also threw an offer sheet towards Blues forward David Backes.

Gillis was also called upon improve the Canucks drafting record as many perceived that the Nonis picks would never pan out (oh boy were they wrong). With his first pick as Canuck GM he decided to draft Cody Hodgson who was supposed to be the next Trevor Linden for the team and potentially future captain.

Now, the problem with Gillis is this. Yes he has done all the things Nonis did not do such as make bold moves, and try to revamp the system in terms of drafting and try to change the culture when needed.
However the issue that critics/fact finders will point out is he has not been successful when he has made bold moves, changed the culture or drafted.

Here are a couple of facts.

There are exactly 0 players drafted by Gillis on the Canucks roster last season. By all accounts there will be 1 next year in Eddie Lack (unless Jordan Schroder or Kevin Connauton have a training camp of their lives).

The bold moves that Gillis has made have for the most part not panned out. As I mentioned before, the Sundin risk (2 year 10 mill per deal that would have resulted in Vancouver being unable to resign Twins). Picking the wrong pony between Raymond and Grabner and consequently taking the KEITH Ballard contract when he had a garbage year the season before. The Cody Hodgson trade is too early to tell but as of right now it aint looking too good. The David Booth contract will probably also haunt the team for years to come. Also, the Marco Sturm experiment that ended less than 10 games in to the season. The captaincy of Roberto Luongo along with the monstrous contract Gillis gave to him.

The fact that the bold move list is that long does not say much good about Gillis.

Now there are good things he has done. Namely, his work at every single trade deadline has been spectacular, especially the last two years. He has also made some good off season moves such as signing Hamhuis and stealing Ehrhoff.

He has also revamped the scouting and player personal department and has used a somewhat unconventional approach to maximize the players energy by having sleep doctors and what have you. That has helped in making Vancouver one of the most attractive destinations for players to play.

He also has kept the Nonis core intact which has developed really well. He could have easily destroyed the core in 09 during the monstrous losing streak but he didnt and good on him.

Now did he deserve a new contract? In my opinion, you could argue either way but I would say a 2 year contract at best. Give him another three years (including the upcoming one) and see where it goes.

Edited by canuckbeliever, 08 May 2012 - 01:06 PM.


#219 Tragoedia

Tragoedia

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 994 posts
  • Joined: 10-February 11

Posted 08 May 2012 - 01:14 PM

Good move!

61c1f524-b05e-4da1-b54d-e7ac1d87c904.jpg


#220 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,032 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 08 May 2012 - 01:31 PM

I can't believe how many people on the Team1040 are calling for change already. As if change automatically equals success.

This team needs to stick with the plan and it's core players until the team starts to decline. Until then we gotta go for it while we have the window. There will be plenty of time for rebuilding after the Sedins retire.

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#221 realnucksfan2010

realnucksfan2010

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 238 posts
  • Joined: 22-November 10

Posted 08 May 2012 - 01:32 PM

Smart move by the owner, MG is becoming one of the best GM's in the league. I hope he is able to keep AV, there are no other coaches out there right now of AV's caliber!

#222 playboi19

playboi19

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,414 posts
  • Joined: 15-August 08

Posted 08 May 2012 - 01:38 PM

Don Maloney got the Coyotes to the Conf. Finals with a similar money ball approach.

We'll be fine if Gillis doesn't go to the major free agents and over pay.

Subbancopy.jpg


#223 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,217 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 08 May 2012 - 03:36 PM

Since we're basing this discussion on your opinion, rather than actual stats which of course, don't support your argument, I'm going to opine that out of almost 50 shots, at least 60% were good shots which would still have the Canucks outshooting the Kings. (That would also assume that every one of the LA shots were quality shots)


Well then, I give you some support.

Look at game 4, we got a ton of good chances and what was the score? 3-1?

And the other games we didn't have nearly as good of chances, and we scored 6 goals in the other 4 games?

I doubt that we had that many, most of them were shots from the point, shots from the outside, or shots with no traffic that we easily taken up, Quick wasn't stressed at all in game 1 and 2, it was all easy saves, in this case it's quality over quantity and we had no quality, Quick was good but beatable, we showed that in game 4 so you can't make an argument that he stole the series, and I don't think u could even argue that he stole any of the games.

We were brutal, no excuses, they were better all around.

zackass.png


#224 JamesTW

JamesTW

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,619 posts
  • Joined: 13-March 10

Posted 08 May 2012 - 05:04 PM

No, he is the best, I like him but a new voice is needed, a better motivating voice. And a ton of coaches could have won the pres trophy's with our team, and maybe could also get our team to play at there best so we didn't choke in the playoffs every year.

I don't think you know what choking is.

#225 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,217 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 08 May 2012 - 05:08 PM

I don't think you know what choking is.


Well what do you call these?

-surrendering a late 3rd peirod lead and also two 2 goal leads (I believe), in game 6 against chicago (2009), 2010 hawks would have beat us anyways so I wont count that.

-being up 2 games in the finals and losing 4 of 5 games, and getting dominated in those losses.

-coming up completely flat against LA, no motivation, when we should have won and been taken out in game easy games. LA was way better than us, not even close.

Idk what you call those but to me there obvious chokes, and if you don't think so then maybe you should define your idea of a choke.

Edited by Smashian Kassian, 08 May 2012 - 05:09 PM.

zackass.png


#226 Merci

Merci

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,320 posts
  • Joined: 25-May 09

Posted 08 May 2012 - 05:26 PM

Well what do you call these?

-surrendering a late 3rd peirod lead and also two 2 goal leads (I believe), in game 6 against chicago (2009), 2010 hawks would have beat us anyways so I wont count that.

-being up 2 games in the finals and losing 4 of 5 games, and getting dominated in those losses.

-coming up completely flat against LA, no motivation, when we should have won and been taken out in game easy games. LA was way better than us, not even close.

Idk what you call those but to me there obvious chokes, and if you don't think so then maybe you should define your idea of a choke.


I think AV gets one more year with a healed roster, and experienced core, and whatever upgrades Luongo gives us.

Keslerific, on 25 May 2014 - 4:47 PM, said:

Gaunce is wayy cooler though, Gaunce is the kind of guy you want to bring with you to Costco

 

vPTJpcO.jpg


#227 shadowgoon

shadowgoon

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 706 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 10

Posted 08 May 2012 - 06:59 PM

The blame for the fubar performances in seasons past is not solely anyone's fault. It's a collective fault.

1st and foremost it's the fault of the players not showing up.

2nd it's the fault of AV and the associate coaching staff for not being able to utilize the players we had at these particular times effectively enough to get the style of play and subsequent victories that were needed.

3rd, it's the fault of MG for not acquiring enough pieces to make the coaching staff's job a little less stressful.

It all rolls downhill, if MG gets all the right pieces to form the most cohesive lineup, the coaching staff can adequately do their jobs more effectively and the players respond and we get our results. You can't blame it all on MG for not getting the all the parts because hindsight is 20/20, you can't just blame the coaches for not getting the most out of their lineups if they don't have the necessary complimentary pieces.

The one constant that you can blame, is the players for not showing up and I don't just mean on the ice. We don't know what happens behind closed doors with this team, but all indications lead to AV being a rather hands off coach and letting the leadership core of this team hold the reins. If that's true, then it's up to the leadership core to chime in with suggestions on how certain things might or might not work, AV can only do so much observationally.

I don't know if AV is receptive to that, or if he's a hard ass "my way or the highway" kind of guy, but perhaps that will be one of MG's mandates for allowing AV to continue through the remaining year of his contract.

MG has stated numerous times that this team from a managerial and coaching standpoint do things by committee, if that also is true AV will have to become more of a "team player" if he wants to earn a contract extension. Hell, if I sign a contract with my employer, they won't say "Hey, you've done a great job up until now, we know you only have a year left so here's another 5 year extension, just to put your mind at ease". I fully expect MG to allow AV back with some specific mandates, but I don't expect a contract extension.

I wouldn't be shocked to see MacT come on as an associate coach to help develop rookie talent at the NHL level, instead of allowing them to toil in 4th line and non-impact minutes in games. With Kesler out for 6 months with shoulder surgery, I expect Shroeder to get a good look, and even Jensen through camp and pre-season.

We saw how being so near the cap handcuffed us when it came to the trade deadline, and I don't think MG is going to make that same mistake twice. Trading Luongo will give us marginal cap relief after you factor a Schneider re-signing, and with the possibility of the cap ceiling being reduced by 2 million. I can see MG maybe bring on a free agent in the 2-2.5M range on a 1 year deal (Whitney?), a backup goaltender for Schneider in the 1.5M range (Vokoun?) and some grit and toughness that can move up and down the line.

Edited by Shadowgoon, 08 May 2012 - 07:04 PM.


#228 nuck nit

nuck nit

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,843 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 10

Posted 09 May 2012 - 09:36 PM

Squire Barnes and Dan Russell are going over the Gillis record now on CKNW 98.

9:15 pm PST.

Sundin contract fail.

Luongo term fail.

Hodgson handling and trade fail.

#229 ice orca

ice orca

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,355 posts
  • Joined: 07-October 10

Posted 09 May 2012 - 10:29 PM

Squire Barnes and Dan Russell are going over the Gillis record now on CKNW 98.

9:15 pm PST.

Sundin contract fail.

Luongo term fail.

Hodgson handling and trade fail.


i thought you were on suicide watch.

#230 nucklehead53

nucklehead53

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 687 posts
  • Joined: 24-February 12

Posted 09 May 2012 - 10:35 PM

When will we find out about AV


From what I heard on the TEAM1040, MG's word's seems to hint that he is all aboard for bringing AV back. The only thing that may be preventing it would be AV's himself
It only takes one hard fought series to make a rivalry

#231 Honky Cat

Honky Cat

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,586 posts
  • Joined: 16-May 10

Posted 10 May 2012 - 12:18 AM

Even though we went out quickly in the first round,it still seems a bit crazy to fire a coach after he coached a squad to winning a Presidents Trophy..??

After watching us play catchup to LA (maybe AV's fault he didnt properly motivate his team in the first two games)..it did seem apparent that our team was physically not strong enough (maybe MG's fault for our lack of toughness and spotty defence core) to overcome the physicality of the Kings(their 4th line was outstanding)

#232 MoneypuckOverlord

MoneypuckOverlord

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,437 posts
  • Joined: 24-September 09

Posted 15 May 2012 - 09:43 PM

Squire Barnes and Dan Russell are going over the Gillis record now on CKNW 98.

9:15 pm PST.

Sundin contract fail.

Luongo term fail.

Hodgson handling and trade fail.


Dan Russel can F1244k himself. NO matter what we do, Gillis, A.V anyone, he will critizize them like no tommorow. Sundin Contract. AKA Dan Russel, "We should have drafted Pavl Brendl and one Sedin twin" "I would have kept the the pick and drafted Emerson Etem" He thinks he's a scout, now, LOL, no one cares what Dan Russel says.

Players Nikolaj Ehlers have been compared too by the fan base of the Vancouver Canucks.

 

1 Pavel Bure

2 Markus Naslund

3 Nathan Mackkinon

4 Jonathan Drouin.

5 Jonathan Tavares

 

http://bleacherrepor...d-top-prospects

combine results.  Ehlers 5'11 162 lbs of solid rock.  





Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.