Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
- - - - -

"Bold Moves" - Is Gillis actually capable of making them?


This topic has been archived.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

#1 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,050 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 15 June 2012 - 05:16 PM

It's interesting that Gillis's position as GM was sold to the Aquilini's based on the promise of "bold moves", yet in his time here, he hasn't really made any bold moves. Unless you count the Sundin contract as bold, but that's been debated enough.

My question is, are you okay with the fact that Gillis is likely never going to make any wild moves that make you go "wow"?

You could argue that Detroit's GM has never really made many bold moves, and they're the most sucessful team in the NHL in the last 20 years. But there is more evidence that points to bold moves leading to teams winning cups. Just look at thr last 6 teams that have won:

LA - traded for Richards, Carter, hired Darryl Sutter

Boston - traded Kessel for what ended up being Seguin, traded for Horton and Seidenberg

Chicago - Traded for Campbell, Signed Hossa long term

Pittsburgh - Firing Therrien and replacing him with Bylsma, trading Whitney for Kunitz, and in the previous season acquiring Gill and Hossa which helped them big time in their first run.

Detroit - Signing Brian Rafalski to 6 year, 36 million dollar contract, signing Hossa helped in their 2nd run

Anaheim - Traded for Neidermeyer and Pronger, fired Babcock and hired Carlyle, signed a bunch of great role players.


In your opinion, is Gillis being to patient and not going for it enough now? Or are you happy with the patient approach that will allow us to keep being competitive in the future?

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#2 The Kassassin Train

The Kassassin Train

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,109 posts
  • Joined: 03-August 05

Posted 15 June 2012 - 05:20 PM

He did trade one of our most prized Prospects that everyone was raving about at the time he was drafted for what many on these boards consider a plug.

Signed Luongo to a 12 year contract...(most likely will be traded for a decent return at the least)

Sundin offer like you mentioned...

Signed a bunch of role players, but I believe that's up to AV to make that work and we all know how he has a pet chihuahua in Raymond who is somehow a top 6 forward...

Sign and Trade was pretty bold as it might deter some free agents from signing here in Sturm?

That's pretty bold no?

Edited by The Kassassin Train, 15 June 2012 - 05:24 PM.

The key difference is that Sopel can fill in for Seabrook and Campbell just fine. Bieksa, he is garbage so in that sense he is like the worst defenseman in the league.


When Cody (Hodgson) gets older, he might be better than Datsyuk.


Let's not push this guy (Kassian). He's still immature, and if he fails on the 2nd line it's because he isn't ready. Some guys really need years to develop, it's how well and how fast players adapt to the game. In my opinion, I'd rather have Horvat getting 2nd line minutes. He will start off on the 3rd line next season but I see him making the transition, being a great compliment to whoever plays his wings.

At this point, I don't see Kassian fitting in to any role other than a 3rd. If players like Kassian start getting 2nd line minutes then we just stay inconsistent as a team.


The idiocy on CDC....

#3 cs2016

cs2016

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,358 posts
  • Joined: 31-December 11

Posted 15 June 2012 - 05:22 PM

And what about the Ballard trade? We lost Quinton Howden for a player that hasn't exactly worked here.

#4 RyanKeslord17

RyanKeslord17

    Canucks First-Line

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,895 posts
  • Joined: 22-January 11

Posted 15 June 2012 - 05:22 PM

The moves he has made are pretty much obvious ones that tubrned out bad. Like, everybody would have traded Sammy and Sturm for Booth, but that didn't work so well, maybe next year it will. He re-signs guys that should be back next year. Hopefully he actually makes good moves this summer.
Posted Image

#5 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,706 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 15 June 2012 - 05:22 PM

The Hodgson trade made a lot of people say 'wow.'

The Booth trade at the time made a lot of people say 'wow.'

The Sundin offer was definitely a 'wow.'

Hamhuis coming here instead of Philly and Pittsburgh might qualify as a 'wow.'

Short answer is yes, by the looks of it.


TOML
Posted Image

#6 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,050 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 15 June 2012 - 05:24 PM

He did trade one of our most prized Prospects that everyone was raving about at the time he was drafted for what many on these boards consider a plug.


That's pretty bold no?


That was out of neccesity though. Hodgson and his camp wanted out. If he was happy here, he wouldn't have been traded.

And as far as Kassian being considered a plug, people who say that know nothing about him.

I wouldn't consider a rookie for rookie trade really that bold. I'm talking about landing the big name free agent at all costs, or packaging half of the farm for that legit gamebreaker. That type of thing.

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#7 Zach Parise

Zach Parise

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,390 posts
  • Joined: 20-March 09

Posted 15 June 2012 - 05:24 PM

He did trade one of our most prized Prospects that everyone was raving about at the time he was drafted for what many on these boards consider a plug.

Signed Luongo to a 12 year contract...(most likely will be traded for a decent return at the least)

Sundin offer like you mentioned...

That's pretty bold no?


I think it will be next year , quote me on it :)

#8 Tortorella's Rant

Tortorella's Rant

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,668 posts
  • Joined: 11-April 12

Posted 15 June 2012 - 05:26 PM

I wouldn't call the Hodgson move bold at the time. I know people will though. It was more stupid than anything. Could they honestly not work out a solution until seasons end and then he and the Canucks could part ways? Here, you've got a contender and neither side could bite the bullet for another two months? Taking your third line center on pace for 40 points on a Cup contender and replacing him with an AHL player isn't bold -- that's dumb.
Posted Image

#9 NuxFan09

NuxFan09

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,179 posts
  • Joined: 20-December 11

Posted 15 June 2012 - 05:28 PM

The Sundin signing was very bold. I think some of his other trades would be considered bold if he didn't completely fleece the other team. For instance, he was bold in acquiring Christian Ehrhoff but he only had to give Daniel Rahimi and Patrick White so the trade itself wasn't really bold or gutsy. The Booth acquisition would generally be considered a bold move as Booth is a 31 goal scorer and a power forward but again, he only had to give up Samuelsson and Sturm to get him so you wouldn't treat it as a "bold move" per se.

#10 The Kassassin Train

The Kassassin Train

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,109 posts
  • Joined: 03-August 05

Posted 15 June 2012 - 05:28 PM

That was out of neccesity though. Hodgson and his camp wanted out. If he was happy here, he wouldn't have been traded.

And as far as Kassian being considered a plug, people who say that know nothing about him.

I wouldn't consider a rookie for rookie trade really that bold. I'm talking about landing the big name free agent at all costs, or packaging half of the farm for that legit gamebreaker. That type of thing.


IMO it really depends if it makes sense or not. If you look when he re-signed the players we have now, it was the right move. Question is if they peaked already? Players like Kesler, Burrows (wasn't really bold), Sedins (if we let them walk) could have changed the face of this franchise.

He's taken more gamble "bold" rather than extreme "bold".

The key difference is that Sopel can fill in for Seabrook and Campbell just fine. Bieksa, he is garbage so in that sense he is like the worst defenseman in the league.


When Cody (Hodgson) gets older, he might be better than Datsyuk.


Let's not push this guy (Kassian). He's still immature, and if he fails on the 2nd line it's because he isn't ready. Some guys really need years to develop, it's how well and how fast players adapt to the game. In my opinion, I'd rather have Horvat getting 2nd line minutes. He will start off on the 3rd line next season but I see him making the transition, being a great compliment to whoever plays his wings.

At this point, I don't see Kassian fitting in to any role other than a 3rd. If players like Kassian start getting 2nd line minutes then we just stay inconsistent as a team.


The idiocy on CDC....

#11 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,050 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 15 June 2012 - 05:28 PM

I'm not talking about just any signing, trade, or re-signing, I'm talking about the BIG move. The one that says that we're going for it all this year no matter what? Every move he's made so far has been pretty safe.

Think on the same lines as trading for Pronger, Richards, Horton, or signing Hossa. He hasn't made a move on that level yet. The blockbuster type deal.

Edited by DeNiro, 15 June 2012 - 05:29 PM.

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#12 Trebreh

Trebreh

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,252 posts
  • Joined: 02-April 07

Posted 15 June 2012 - 05:30 PM

Yeah, im still waiting for him to make an acquisition that really puts his stamp on the team.

Dan Hamhuis was gonna sign here no matter who the GM was, the Sundin offer was a bold move but it was also stupid had Sundin accepted the 2 years. Trading our 1st and Grabner at the Draft for Ballard whose been a complete bust count as a bold move but all his 'bold' moves so far hasnt done us anything.

#13 Samuel Påhlsson

Samuel Påhlsson

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 690 posts
  • Joined: 29-February 12

Posted 15 June 2012 - 05:39 PM

Ballard and Hodgson trades were definitely bold. I think once most of the Burke/Nonis core is gone then we'll see Mike Gillis' team emerge. Gillis needs to be careful aswell because if one of his bold moves knocks the Canucks out of the top 8 then we have a problem. So I think he has been bold but not EA NHL bold.

SYvE9NH.gif


#14 GradinToSmyl

GradinToSmyl

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 982 posts
  • Joined: 02-April 12

Posted 15 June 2012 - 05:41 PM

And what about the Ballard trade? We lost Quinton Howden for a player that hasn't exactly worked here.


Could have had Howden if we wanted. You do understand that, right?
After a few days here, I am surprised half of you got the anti-bot question correct to register for this site.

#15 Samuel Påhlsson

Samuel Påhlsson

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 690 posts
  • Joined: 29-February 12

Posted 15 June 2012 - 05:43 PM

I'm not talking about just any signing, trade, or re-signing, I'm talking about the BIG move. The one that says that we're going for it all this year no matter what? Every move he's made so far has been pretty safe.

Think on the same lines as trading for Pronger, Richards, Horton, or signing Hossa. He hasn't made a move on that level yet. The blockbuster type deal.


I do agree with this though. But I'll be patient since the Canucks prospect pool is being rebuilt so the Canucks don't have the assets the Kings, Flyers etc... had to acquire those players. For example to get Richards last season Canucks would have likely had to give up Jensen/Hodgson. Roster Player and 2nd. That's way too many assets for a team that is still stocking up their prospect pool.

SYvE9NH.gif


#16 The Kassassin Train

The Kassassin Train

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,109 posts
  • Joined: 03-August 05

Posted 15 June 2012 - 05:45 PM

I wouldn't call the Hodgson move bold at the time. I know people will though. It was more stupid than anything. Could they honestly not work out a solution until seasons end and then he and the Canucks could part ways? Here, you've got a contender and neither side could bite the bullet for another two months? Taking your third line center on pace for 40 points on a Cup contender and replacing him with an AHL player isn't bold -- that's dumb.


You know for a guy who claims to be Tort'z rant...you're terrible at it.

It wasn't dumb it was trading him at the peak of his worth. What if AV sheltered him during the year and Buffalo decides to let it play out to see if they can get someone in the FA market? Too many factors that could have caused Hodgson to depreciate in value. We wouldn't have been able to turn it into something we have been needing in this organization in years.

Wouldn't call it dumb and can we stop beating a dead horse but saying it was dumb? Clearly you're still bitter and think Hodgson was a saviour.

The key difference is that Sopel can fill in for Seabrook and Campbell just fine. Bieksa, he is garbage so in that sense he is like the worst defenseman in the league.


When Cody (Hodgson) gets older, he might be better than Datsyuk.


Let's not push this guy (Kassian). He's still immature, and if he fails on the 2nd line it's because he isn't ready. Some guys really need years to develop, it's how well and how fast players adapt to the game. In my opinion, I'd rather have Horvat getting 2nd line minutes. He will start off on the 3rd line next season but I see him making the transition, being a great compliment to whoever plays his wings.

At this point, I don't see Kassian fitting in to any role other than a 3rd. If players like Kassian start getting 2nd line minutes then we just stay inconsistent as a team.


The idiocy on CDC....

#17 GradinToSmyl

GradinToSmyl

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 982 posts
  • Joined: 02-April 12

Posted 15 June 2012 - 05:46 PM

Yeah, im still waiting for him to make an acquisition that really puts his stamp on the team.

Dan Hamhuis was gonna sign here no matter who the GM was, the Sundin offer was a bold move but it was also stupid had Sundin accepted the 2 years. Trading our 1st and Grabner at the Draft for Ballard whose been a complete bust count as a bold move but all his 'bold' moves so far hasnt done us anything.


My tiny little brain that knows a little about gambling tells me that Gillis and most of the planet knew Sundin was only playing for 1 year, or maybe NONE. The second year was fluff and it worked. He made a statement, like it or not. That aside, if you are going to "what if" that deal then you simply need to "what if" Grabner sucked again at camp (and he really sucked in FLA). He wouldn't have stuck here and would have been lost on waivers anyway.
After a few days here, I am surprised half of you got the anti-bot question correct to register for this site.

#18 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,050 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 15 June 2012 - 05:55 PM

I do agree with this though. But I'll be patient since the Canucks prospect pool is being rebuilt so the Canucks don't have the assets the Kings, Flyers etc... had to acquire those players. For example to get Richards last season Canucks would have likely had to give up Jensen/Hodgson. Roster Player and 2nd. That's way too many assets for a team that is still stocking up their prospect pool.


Well that's the type of bold move I'm talking about. Would you rather have Kassian or trade Hodgson, Raymond, and a 2nd for Richards?

It shouldn't matter that our prospect pool is shallow right now if we're going all out for the cup. We're likely going to need a few years of tanking in the future anyways to get on the same level as LA and Philly in terms of prospects.

Plus if our scouts can keep getting us guys like Jensen, a couple drafts will get us some more good young players anyways.

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#19 Samuel Påhlsson

Samuel Påhlsson

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 690 posts
  • Joined: 29-February 12

Posted 15 June 2012 - 06:01 PM

Well that's the type of bold move I'm talking about. Would you rather have Kassian or trade Hodgson, Raymond, and a 2nd for Richards?

It shouldn't matter that our prospect pool is shallow right now if we're going all out for the cup. We're likely going to need a few years of tanking in the future anyways to get on the same level as LA and Philly in terms of prospects.

Plus if our scouts can keep getting us guys like Jensen, a couple drafts will get us some more good young players anyways.


But if GIllis is sticking to the Detroit model he needs a great prospect pool to consistently make the playoffs and having players ready to come up from Chicago each season. I don't run the team but I rather see Gillis stick to his plan and win us a Cup at some point and allow us to be a playoff team each season. Really the only asset we have right now we can afford to part with are Salary Dumps and one of our goalies. So if he can find a good deal for either Luongo or Schneider and possibly Ballard/Raymond then I'm sure he'll pull the trigger. Either way Gillis has some tough decisions ahead of him, I'm glad I don't run the team.

Edited by Samuel Pahlsson, 15 June 2012 - 06:01 PM.

SYvE9NH.gif


#20 komodo1970

komodo1970

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 717 posts
  • Joined: 23-August 11

Posted 15 June 2012 - 06:05 PM

Trading Schneider instead of Luongo would be bold.

#21 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,050 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 15 June 2012 - 06:08 PM

But if GIllis is sticking to the Detroit model he needs a great prospect pool to consistently make the playoffs and having players ready to come up from Chicago each season. I don't run the team but I rather see Gillis stick to his plan and win us a Cup at some point and allow us to be a playoff team each season. Really the only asset we have right now we can afford to part with are Salary Dumps and one of our goalies. So if he can find a good deal for either Luongo or Schneider and possibly Ballard/Raymond then I'm sure he'll pull the trigger. Either way Gillis has some tough decisions ahead of him, I'm glad I don't run the team.


Well I would argue that Detroit has historically found most of it's good players in later rounds, so if we wanna follow that model, our first and second round prospects would be expendable.

Don't get me wrong, I love most of the stuff Gillis is doing. I just worry that at some point he's going to have an opportunity to make a big trade, but he will be too patient and let it slip by. At some point, we just have to go big to put us back over the top like we were in 2010-2011. I just hope he can make that move so that we're not looking back in a few years and wondering "what if?"

Edited by DeNiro, 15 June 2012 - 06:08 PM.

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#22 DownUndaCanuck

DownUndaCanuck

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,469 posts
  • Joined: 28-July 07

Posted 15 June 2012 - 06:12 PM

Ballard for Grabner and Booth for Samuelsson are both pretty big moves.

He's not trading the guys with NTCs so don't expect much bigger.
Posted Image

#23 Tortorella's Rant

Tortorella's Rant

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,668 posts
  • Joined: 11-April 12

Posted 15 June 2012 - 06:17 PM

You know for a guy who claims to be Tort'z rant...you're terrible at it.

It wasn't dumb it was trading him at the peak of his worth. What if AV sheltered him during the year and Buffalo decides to let it play out to see if they can get someone in the FA market? Too many factors that could have caused Hodgson to depreciate in value. We wouldn't have been able to turn it into something we have been needing in this organization in years.

Wouldn't call it dumb and can we stop beating a dead horse but saying it was dumb? Clearly you're still bitter and think Hodgson was a saviour.


It wasn't supposed to be a rant. But given your name, I bet you'll kiss his ass to the end of time. Biased post is biased. I don't much for what you have to say.

'What if'. Yeah, it was stupid. Lets take our best offensive bottom six player, on a Cup team, and a ship him out for a non factor. If you don't think you couldn't have got Kassian in return after the season then you're insane. A potential Calder candidate at the time for an AHL'er. Cody's worth was far greater than Kassian's at the time and would have been after the season. And no, I don't think he was our 'saviour' so stop making assumptions. But Cody sure as hell would have had a greater impact than Kassian has so far.
Posted Image

#24 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,050 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 15 June 2012 - 06:17 PM

Ballard for Grabner and Booth for Samuelsson are both pretty big moves.

He's not trading the guys with NTCs so don't expect much bigger.


Neither of those are bold moves based on my examples. They're safe moves where we gave up underperforming players.

Edler doesn't have a NTC. A bold move would be to trade Edler, Booth, and two 1st round picks to Nashville for Weber. That's a bold move.

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#25 pwnstar

pwnstar

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,311 posts
  • Joined: 20-January 10

Posted 15 June 2012 - 06:26 PM

was i the only one jumpin up and down when we got manny?

Posted Image


#26 tas

tas

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,736 posts
  • Joined: 16-July 06

Posted 15 June 2012 - 06:29 PM

gillis is modeling himself after ken holland's "shrewd" style as opposed to brian burke's "bold" one.

Edited by tas, 15 June 2012 - 06:30 PM.


#27 Wheels22

Wheels22

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,122 posts
  • Joined: 19-January 12

Posted 15 June 2012 - 06:32 PM

Higgins and Lappy are a good start, good gritty, heart and role players..

Keeping veteran Sami Salo around gives every player on the team someone to look up to.. He is literally 5 years older than everyone else, and is the type of defenseman that knows every trick in the book... Reminds me of a less physical Dave Babych..

And Malhotra was an excellent signing, just wish his eye injury never happened.. ruined a good player

Edited by Wheels22, 15 June 2012 - 06:43 PM.


#28 cs2016

cs2016

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,358 posts
  • Joined: 31-December 11

Posted 15 June 2012 - 06:33 PM

Could have had Howden if we wanted. You do understand that, right?

I guess.

#29 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,050 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 15 June 2012 - 06:38 PM

gillis is modeling himself after ken holland's "shrewd" style as opposed to brian burke's "bold" one.


You mean the guy who made the bold move of trading Federov for Beachamin, signing Niedermeyer to a 4 year 27 million dollar contract, trading some spare parts for Pronger, and firing Babcock and hiring Carlyle?

Seems like that worked out pretty good for him.

Gillis has the opporunity to make moves like that with Weber or Suter. Time will tell if he can make those bold moves or not.

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#30 aliboy

aliboy

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,847 posts
  • Joined: 31-January 07

Posted 15 June 2012 - 06:39 PM

MG is a Walmart shopper.  He's all about the bargains. I say no.

Edited by aliboy, 15 June 2012 - 06:40 PM.





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.