Canuck or Die Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 The really funny thing in all this is that Mike Gillis actively went out and acquired Steve Bernier, at a cost of a 2nd and a 3rd pick. Then he gave him a 2-year deal. Then, Mike Gillis chose to part ways with a Willie Mitchell who was one of the most active and proud leaders of this team. Must be nice to be rewarded with things like "GM of the Year", and cushy contract extensions, after showing a high susceptibility to making errors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walkin'2929 Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 Steve Bernier was an okay player. But, if he were on the roster in place of say Higgins or Lapierre, there is no way he would have been that essential play maker who would have significantly improved the Canucks chances of making it past the LA Kings this year, or past the Bruins in the SCF last year. IMO, many of the forwards on the Canucks current roster are an upgrade on Bernier. Willie Mitchell was a good D-Man before he joined the Canucks, and looks like he has finally returned to form after a crushing concussion injury. But, in those all important playoff games against the Blackhawks a few seasons back, he looked out of his depth on our team. Sometimes, no matter how good a player is, they are just not the best fit for a particular team, and they have to move on. Pleased to see that he is back to his old self though, and good luck in the SCF Willie! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoKnows53 Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 Dave Nonis traded the pick that turned out to be WAYNE SIMMONDS for Brent freaking Sopel. Who then threw out his back reaching for a damn cracker!!!! We could have packaged up cohoverrated and SIMMONDS for Mike Richards!!! Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!! Why god whyyyyyyyy....Noooooooooo!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkstar Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 Mitchell didn't re-sign because the Canucks were already loaded on high-priced d-men. Bieksa, Edler, Ehrhoff, Salo and Ballard were already on the team and Hamhuis was guaranteed to sign with the Canucks. Hamhuis>Mitchell so Willie was the odd man out. Bernier sucked on the Canucks. Only reason he found his game is because he was on the brink of being in the minors for the rest of his career. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burnsey Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 Hamhuis>Mitchell at this point I love big Willie, but that contract he got was too rich and too long of term for a guy his age coming off concussions. It was the same with Ohlund, would have loved to keep him, but he got overpaid. I wish people would get over it... it seems like every time we don't sign a player they want to fire the management. Just because these guys are on teams in the SCF, doesn't mean they are the ones who got them there. Bernier is the bottom guy on the 4th line... the other two guys are carrying him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riffraff Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 Tuco: I like big fat men like you. When they fall they make more noise. And sometimes they don't get up. regards, G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riffraff Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 We definitely missed out on Mitchell but I think MG wanted to find a defensman that had around the same price tag as Mitchell but provided offense as well. Bernier wasn't worth 2.5 million struggling, and moving down to a 3rd/4th line role getting only 30ish points or less with mediocre defensive play and lack of offensive production. Wouldn't mind Bernier on our team now for 1 million or less though. He struggled with us but he did work very hard and on a smaller salary and going into a role with not so high expectations would benefit him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 Every GM makes mistakes. The difference is that Gillis has proven he can correct those mistakes and still make us a contender. So yes, hindsight really is crap, just like your garbage excuses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CowtownCanuck Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 I'll agree on Mitchell, as for Bernier, he looks the same as he did for the Canucks, 2 goals for a numerous amount of chances. He definately comes up in the play-by-play regularily, but overall he's a 3rd/4th liner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 You're right - and are you now willing to admit Mike Gillis' error? "Hindsighting is a bunch of crap" is what's really a bunch of crap. Management needs to be evaluated on the outcomes of their decisions. Should Mike Milbury have gotten a free pass for the Jason Spezza + Zdeno Chara for Alexei Yashin debacle? Think it's a coincidence that he hasn't landed a real job since? Hindsight matters. Mistakes that Mike Gillis has made (Hodgson, Ballard, amongst others) should not ever be forgotten by this fanbase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mucktuck Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 I also am a huge Willie Mitchell fan and was sad to see him go. I am very happy for his success in LA. I think Gillis let him walk because Willie was still not healthy at the time of resigning, and that it was his 3rd career concussion! It was the right decision at the time, and it's still the right decision. I wouldn't offer 3.5 million to a guy that just spent 6 months recovering from his 3rd concussion. As for Bernier, the Devils picked him up off waivers, he had 1 goal, 6 points total in 32 regular season games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand17 Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 Bernier LOL typical canucks fan. you probably thought raymond was a future all star until this season Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
{nhl} Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 haven't changed my sign yet.... Its too bad management turned our BC boy away. Mitchell should have stayed. Mitchell Hamhuis would have been one of the best shutdown lines in the league. Good luck Willie, you deserve a cup. I will be routing for you, not the Kings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanuckCupFever Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 Once upon a time, we had them. Both are fulfilling important roles in their respective SCF teams. However, the Canucks office wasn't able to recognize their role when they were here and wasn't used to their fullest ability. In the case of Willie, the Canucks opted to not take the risk and replace him with Ballard. The Canucks need more personnel that can recognize this and avoid letting role players like this get away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BenSurgeon Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 If you recall Michell was coming off of a concusion and his staus was up in the air. The Canucks did offer him a contract but he opted to go for the security of a long term agreement with LA. Ballard was a mistake but I think it was more the signing of Hamhuis that made Michell expendable. As far as Bernier was concerned, as another poster said, Bernier was a plug when he played for the Canucks, end of story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thehamburglar Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 Yes, but Mitchell was a huge risk. Bernier didn't do anything here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Provost Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 Hmmm.... anyone want to change their opinion on whether it would have been good to keep Bernier after tonight? 3 goals on his major penalty.... ouch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jägermeister Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 Hmmm.... anyone want to change their opinion on whether it would have been good to keep Bernier after tonight? 3 goals on his major penalty.... ouch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stark Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 Once upon a time, we had them. Both are fulfilling important roles in their respective SCF teams. However, the Canucks office wasn't able to recognize their role when they were here and wasn't used to their fullest ability. In the case of Willie, the Canucks opted to not take the risk and replace him with Ballard. The Canucks need more personnel that can recognize this and avoid letting role players like this get away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DooBie604 Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 Seemed like only yesterday that Willie had an awesome season but most of CDC decided to judge his ability to play based on one bad play that lost a playoff series to Chicago. Everyone started calling him useless and a turnover machine (kind of like what is happening to Edler now) and wanted him traded for a bag of pucks. Seemed like only yesterday when first round draft pick Steve Bernier was brought in to play as a power forward and most on CDC wanted him out after the first season because he didn't have the 30 goal season people thought he would. Everyone started calling him soft and can't play his size and couldn't hit a wide open net if his life depended on it. Now with the magic of hindsight we should not have let them go? Brilliant! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.