Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
- - - - -

Ed Willes' Tweets on Gillis/Weber


  • Please log in to reply
548 replies to this topic

#1 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 21 July 2012 - 08:43 AM

*
POPULAR

Ed Willes has recently tweeted out some pretty direct messages about Mike Gillis regarding the whole Shea Weber ordeal. I apologize if this has been posted already, but these tweets are pretty strong and worthy of discussion. For the record, I think it's great when a local reporter has a strong opinion like this, and ISN'T AFRAID to share it.

Here are the 3 tweets:

The Canucks have already lost out on Justin Schultz. If they lose Shea Weber it's a massive body blow to the Gillis regime.

Weber is a BC boy. There have been multiple reports that he wanted to play for the Canucks. This is a player Gillis had to sign.

Sorry, Jason Garrison doesn't cut it. Ownership wanted Weber badly. This is a major story in the Canucks' world. Believe it.

With emphasis on the 3rd tweet, this is pretty powerful, direct stuff from a local guy who's been around forever. Note, though, that I don't think Willes has EVER been a fan of Gillis, nor even this ownership, to be frank. He was always a STRONG Dave Nonis supporter, and I do recall a few articles written by him when Nonis was fired, digging into the Aquilini's' business, questioning their character even, and similarly doing the same to Gillis.

Anyway, very interesting to see a direct calling-out by a media member. And for the record, I'm in full agreement with Mr. Willes.
  • 7

#2 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,929 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 21 July 2012 - 08:46 AM

*
POPULAR

Willes is barely a media member. I mean technically you should have a decent foundation of readers for that title shouldn't you?

Or is it like an non practicing catholic...

He's right though Garrison might not be enough. But the deal Shultz got would have been too much and Weber decided to sign an offer sheet. Gillis didn't lose him somebody else simply did something stupid to get him.

Edited by EmployeeoftheMonth, 21 July 2012 - 08:48 AM.

  • 32
Posted Image
Posted Image

#3 smithers joe

smithers joe

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,804 posts
  • Joined: 02-September 09

Posted 21 July 2012 - 08:47 AM

*
POPULAR

Hmmm, what teams has wiles been the GM of?...lots of teams lost out on schultz and weber....why single out vancouver?
  • 18

#4 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 21 July 2012 - 08:49 AM

Willes is barely a media member. I mean technically you should have a decent foundation of readers for that title shouldn't you?


He's been with the Province since 1998 and is regularly on the radio in this and other markets.

But thanks for your contribution to the thread, very insightful as always.
  • 3

#5 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,929 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 21 July 2012 - 08:49 AM

Hmmm, what teams has wiles been the GM of?...lots of teams lost out on schultz and weber....why single out vancouver?

Grasping at straws to get readers.
  • 4
Posted Image
Posted Image

#6 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,929 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 21 July 2012 - 08:51 AM

He's been with the Province since 1998 and is regularly on the radio in this and other markets.

But thanks for your contribution to the thread, very insightful as always.


You should check out the edit. Also he's still a bit of a hack. I mean that's great that he's done his job south of mediocre for over 10 years. Whoopie do captain predictable.
  • 2
Posted Image
Posted Image

#7 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 21 July 2012 - 08:53 AM

*
POPULAR

Hmmm, what teams has wiles been the GM of?...lots of teams lost out on schultz and weber....why single out vancouver?


Because Columbus wasn't in the running for Justin Schultz. Nor was Dallas. Etc. Most people thought that Schultz wanted to end up in Vancouver, so he was probably Gillis' to lose (which happened).

As for Weber, the tweets said that HE wanted to play in Vancouver, and that OWNERSHIP wanted him here. Again, this is a different situation than, say, the Washington Capitals missing out on him. HE wanted to play here, OWNERSHIP wanted him here, GILLIS didn't get it done, HOLMGREN did. See the difference?
  • 6

#8 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,929 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 21 July 2012 - 08:56 AM

*
POPULAR

Because Columbus wasn't in the running for Justin Schultz. Nor was Dallas. Etc. Most people thought that Schultz wanted to end up in Vancouver, so he was probably Gillis' to lose (which happened).

As for Weber, the tweets said that HE wanted to play in Vancouver, and that OWNERSHIP wanted him here. Again, this is a different situation than, say, the Washington Capitals missing out on him. HE wanted to play here, OWNERSHIP wanted him here, GILLIS didn't get it done, HOLMGREN did. See the difference?

I think you've chosen to miss his point and justify this garbage article by naming 3 teams out of 30.

It doesn't matter where a player wants to play and it certainly doesn't matter what reports say about where a player wants to play it all comes down to $$$$$. If Gillis signed shultz to the money he got you'd have me on your anti-gillis agenda of rage tour.
  • 10
Posted Image
Posted Image

#9 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 21 July 2012 - 09:02 AM

It doesn't matter where a player wants to play and it certainly doesn't matter what reports say about where a player wants to play it all comes down to $$$$$. If Gillis signed shultz to the money he got you'd have me on your anti-gillis agenda of rage tour.


If that's the case, what do you think of the Jason Garrison contract? Smart? 6 years, $4.6M per for a guy who's had 1 productive season?

And the money is ALWAYS a factor, I agree. But that doesn't take away from the fact that MG chose to not sign Weber to an offer sheet. Knowing the cost, he CHOSE to pass. Don't tell me that the Canucks couldn't afford him. It was a CHOICE.
  • 2

#10 The-Impersonator

The-Impersonator

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,698 posts
  • Joined: 05-July 03

Posted 21 July 2012 - 09:05 AM

He's been with the Province since 1998 and is regularly on the radio in this and other markets.

But thanks for your contribution to the thread, very insightful as always.


Willis is one of the biggest idiots and least respected members of the media. No credibility.
  • 3

#11 StevenStamkos

StevenStamkos

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 542 posts
  • Joined: 18-June 12

Posted 21 July 2012 - 09:06 AM

*
POPULAR

Because Columbus wasn't in the running for Justin Schultz. Nor was Dallas. Etc. Most people thought that Schultz wanted to end up in Vancouver, so he was probably Gillis' to lose (which happened).

As for Weber, the tweets said that HE wanted to play in Vancouver, and that OWNERSHIP wanted him here. Again, this is a different situation than, say, the Washington Capitals missing out on him. HE wanted to play here, OWNERSHIP wanted him here, GILLIS didn't get it done, HOLMGREN did. See the difference?


Do we really want weber for a ~7.5 cap hit for the next 14 years? Ever think about that? People already rip on Luongo's contract enough, the same thing is bound to happen to Weber after a few years. Especially when he starts declining.
  • 20
Follow me on twitter @RealStamkos91

#12 DownUndaCanuck

DownUndaCanuck

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,866 posts
  • Joined: 28-July 07

Posted 21 July 2012 - 09:08 AM

*
POPULAR

We were never going to get Weber. There are too many other teams with more cap room to sign him to a giant offer sheet, and Nashville has room to match any offer we could have made. It was unlikely he was going to sign a 1 year deal this offseason.

Signing Garrison was the smart move by Gillis. It's the safe move instead of going for Weber, and a massive upgrade on Salo. Our defence is stronger now than it was at the end of last season.
  • 16
Posted Image

#13 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 21 July 2012 - 09:11 AM

Do we really want weber for a ~7.5 cap hit for the next 14 years? Ever think about that?


Reasonable question to ask, for sure.

A scary contract, no doubt, but I'd sure be more comfortable with it than I am with Jason Garrison's new deal.

Edited by King of the ES, 21 July 2012 - 09:12 AM.

  • 2

#14 MoneypuckOverlord

MoneypuckOverlord

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,904 posts
  • Joined: 24-September 09

Posted 21 July 2012 - 09:11 AM

Ed Willes has been losing his reputation since 2008. I wouldn't care too much about Schultz. Weber, that was gutsy move. Who cares about Willes.
  • 0
November 20th 2013, Canucks just lost their 5th straight game. Last time this happened the Canucks, they missed the playoffs.

#15 Ray Canuck

Ray Canuck

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 549 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 21 July 2012 - 09:13 AM

Sure Weber wanted to play here, sure Owners & Mgmt wanted Weber but Philly wanted him more and proved it by the contract they signed him to.
In the end it's not about what you want it's all about cold hard cash!!!
  • 0
Posted Image
"Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."
Mark Twain

#16 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 21 July 2012 - 09:14 AM

Signing Garrison was the smart move by Gillis. It's the safe move instead of going for Weber, and a massive upgrade on Salo. Our defence is stronger now than it was at the end of last season.


WHAT?

How much have you seen Garrison play? To call him a "massive upgrade" on Salo is downright stupid. Salo is going to be missed, very much. He's one of those guys that does practically everything right. Unheralded. He'll be missed, and Garrison will falter. I have high confidence in this. Time will dictate.
  • 3

#17 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,929 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 21 July 2012 - 09:15 AM

If that's the case, what do you think of the Jason Garrison contract? Smart? 6 years, $4.6M per for a guy who's had 1 productive season?

And the money is ALWAYS a factor, I agree. But that doesn't take away from the fact that MG chose to not sign Weber to an offer sheet. Knowing the cost, he CHOSE to pass. Don't tell me that the Canucks couldn't afford him. It was a CHOICE.

Garrisons contract is market value.

Gillis also for sure could have sent on offer sheet to Weber but I wouldn't fracking want that contract even if it is Weber.

I never said anything about being able to afford anything. Stop making so many assumption...they make you come off even worse than just an agenda driven guy. MG chose not to send an offer sheet to Weber and Holms did...if in your eyes that makes Holms a better GM that's fine...your logic would be incorrect but it's your prerogative.
  • 3
Posted Image
Posted Image

#18 coastal1

coastal1

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 528 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 12

Posted 21 July 2012 - 09:16 AM

*
POPULAR

Do we really want weber for a ~7.5 cap hit for the next 14 years? Ever think about that? People already rip on Luongo's contract enough, the same thing is bound to happen to Weber after a few years. Especially when he starts declining.

Can people here honestly say that they would not have been thrilled if MG had done the bold move that Holmgren did. He offered $10 million a year to Sundin- I know it was 2 years but Sundin was WAYYYYY beyond his prime. Anyways, I see lots of people here say, it was a smart move by MG to take a pass on Weber- are you being honest here?? Listen MG is having a hard time trading Luongo because of his long long contract people say, well Holmgren flipped Richards and Carter for very good returns. the bottom line is, it takes bold moves to make changes- look at Minny, bold. Not all bold moves pay off of course but to say that a 'bold move' could bite you in the ass for years is not true. If Weber doesn't work out in Philly he will be moved. If you want to take the safe way out then the upside is limited. look at LA. The safe move for MG was to let Willie walk. LA took a chance- how did that work out for them? You still prefer Ballard?
  • 6

#19 The Sedin's 6th Sense

The Sedin's 6th Sense

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,431 posts
  • Joined: 07-December 11

Posted 21 July 2012 - 09:17 AM

Never heard of him..
  • 0

Posted Image




"You know what my favourite Super Bowl is? The next one."

- Tom Brady


#20 DefCon1

DefCon1

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,814 posts
  • Joined: 13-June 08

Posted 21 July 2012 - 09:17 AM

Because Columbus wasn't in the running for Justin Schultz. Nor was Dallas. Etc. Most people thought that Schultz wanted to end up in Vancouver, so he was probably Gillis' to lose (which happened).

As for Weber, the tweets said that HE wanted to play in Vancouver, and that OWNERSHIP wanted him here. Again, this is a different situation than, say, the Washington Capitals missing out on him. HE wanted to play here, OWNERSHIP wanted him here, GILLIS didn't get it done, HOLMGREN did. See the difference?


Most people thought?...What most people think and what other players think can be totally different. Just because most people thought that Shultz would go to Vancouver doesn't actually mean that is what Schultz is thinking too. Schultz wanted to be a #1 D on a crap team like the Oilers and didn't like to compete against Hamhuis, Bieksa, Edler and others for ice time. So what you guys think is different than what other players think.

Also, if Weber really wanted to play in Vancouver, he wouldn't have signed the life time contract that Philly offered. Yeah, he probably liked playing for Vancouver but he liked the $110 million/ 14 year contract that pays him $80million in his first six years a little more. He went for the money not the hometown team.
  • 4

Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image

Posted Image

QUOTE (Rye and Kesler @ Jun 29 2009, 10:24 PM) Where is Celebrities? I am tryin to find it on Club vibes but i can't find it. Is it relatively new? Sounds good though we will have to check it out.

I think Germany is the exception because they should know how to use their own balls.

QUOTE (pacecar @ Aug 2 2009, 11:53 AM) Sheep are ok but horses, ewww.


Posted Image


#21 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,929 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 21 July 2012 - 09:18 AM

WHAT?

How much have you seen Garrison play? To call him a "massive upgrade" on Salo is downright stupid. Salo is going to be missed, very much. He's one of those guys that does practically everything right. Unheralded. He'll be missed, and Garrison will falter. I have high confidence in this. Time will dictate.

Anybody who says they've seen him play a bunch you completely disregard so why bother asking the question.

Salo will be missed but we lost a bottom 4 guy and gained a top 4 guy. Again...your opinions are your own...even if they are baseless because you haven't seen Garrison play enough to make an educated assessment.
  • 2
Posted Image
Posted Image

#22 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,929 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 21 July 2012 - 09:18 AM

Can people here honestly say that they would not have been thrilled if MG had done the bold move that Holmgren did. He offered $10 million a year to Sundin- I know it was 2 years but Sundin was WAYYYYY beyond his prime. Anyways, I see lots of people here say, it was a smart move by MG to take a pass on Weber- are you being honest here?? Listen MG is having a hard time trading Luongo because of his long long contract people say, well Holmgren flipped Richards and Carter for very good returns. the bottom line is, it takes bold moves to make changes- look at Minny, bold. Not all bold moves pay off of course but to say that a 'bold move' could bite you in the ass for years is not true. If Weber doesn't work out in Philly he will be moved. If you want to take the safe way out then the upside is limited. look at LA. The safe move for MG was to let Willie walk. LA took a chance- how did that work out for them? You still prefer Ballard?

I can honestly say I wouldn't have been thrilled if Gillis did what Holms did.
  • 3
Posted Image
Posted Image

#23 billabong

billabong

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,949 posts
  • Joined: 20-June 09

Posted 21 July 2012 - 09:18 AM

*
POPULAR

it doesnt matter if this guy is legit source or not, the canucks as an organization really screwed the pooch on this one....

GROW A PAIR AND MAKE A BOLD MOVE FOR GOD SAKES!!! 4 late first rounders for an all-world defenseman!??!!?!?!? WHERE DO I SIGN!?!?!?!?

gillis's patience really screwed him, the franchise and the fans big time on this one
  • 6
Posted Image

#24 Super_Canuck

Super_Canuck

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,366 posts
  • Joined: 20-July 09

Posted 21 July 2012 - 09:21 AM

*
POPULAR

I think you've chosen to miss his point and justify this garbage article by naming 3 teams out of 30.

It doesn't matter where a player wants to play and it certainly doesn't matter what reports say about where a player wants to play it all comes down to $$$$$. If Gillis signed shultz to the money he got you'd have me on your anti-gillis agenda of rage tour.


You do know that the money Schultz got was the same that any team could offer him right? Money was not an issue, his deal is an entry level deal, so everybody was offering the same contract. No one was offering any more or less, it came down to a personal decision n Schultz chose Edmonton due to the playing time he would get there.

And as for Gillis, I think he is over-rated by CDC and is incompetent to make any "bold" moves. The guy is so full of himself. If CDC takes its blinders off, they will realize that MG was a scumbag agent who no current GM wants to deal with except maybe Dale Tallon. Gillis is not a very good talent evaluater, just look at his draft history. Not one single gillis' pick playing for the Canucks. The one guy who was good enough, (hodgdon) he traded him away for a lesser player
  • 8

#25 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 21 July 2012 - 09:22 AM

Garrisons contract is market value.


That's a copout; answer the question.

By definition, "market value" is the price that ONE party will pay. So, then, it follows that Weber was signed at market value from Philly's perspective.

I never said anything about being able to afford anything. Stop making so many assumption...they make you come off even worse than just an agenda driven guy. MG chose not to send an offer sheet to Weber and Holms did...if in your eyes that makes Holms a better GM that's fine...your logic would be incorrect but it's your prerogative.


Who's making assumptions? Where did I say that this lone decision leads to Holmgren being the better GM?

And fine, you're saying that you're GLAD Gillis didn't send an offer sheet to Weber. OK, fine. According to Ed Willes, though, the Aquilini's sure aren't glad. And maybe Mike Gillis simply didn't see Philly's offer sheet coming, and he took too long. Who knows. Either way, missed opportunity from ownership's eyes. Very interesting.
  • 0

#26 DefCon1

DefCon1

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,814 posts
  • Joined: 13-June 08

Posted 21 July 2012 - 09:24 AM

Reasonable question to ask, for sure.

A scary contract, no doubt, but I'd sure be more comfortable with it than I am with Jason Garrison's new deal.


Jason Garrison signed for 6 years and its for 4.6 million not 8 million. Also Webers term ends in the next century, so once he declines in 6-7 years, what will happen for the next 7 years? Would the team buyout his 7 years left on his contract? I don't think Aquilini likes to waste his money by buying multiple players contracts and pay them out every year. He is a businessman after all, and in business if you screw up and take huge risks that might not payout in future and harm the organization, you are fired.
  • 0

Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image

Posted Image

QUOTE (Rye and Kesler @ Jun 29 2009, 10:24 PM) Where is Celebrities? I am tryin to find it on Club vibes but i can't find it. Is it relatively new? Sounds good though we will have to check it out.

I think Germany is the exception because they should know how to use their own balls.

QUOTE (pacecar @ Aug 2 2009, 11:53 AM) Sheep are ok but horses, ewww.


Posted Image


#27 DefCon1

DefCon1

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,814 posts
  • Joined: 13-June 08

Posted 21 July 2012 - 09:29 AM

*
POPULAR

You do know that the money Schultz got was the same that any team could offer him right? Money was not an issue, his deal is an entry level deal, so everybody was offering the same contract. No one was offering any more or less, it came down to a personal decision n Schultz chose Edmonton due to the playing time he would get there.

And as for Gillis, I think he is over-rated by CDC and is incompetent to make any "bold" moves. The guy is so full of himself. If CDC takes its blinders off, they will realize that MG was a scumbag agent who no current GM wants to deal with except maybe Dale Tallon. Gillis is not a very good talent evaluater, just look at his draft history. Not one single gillis' pick playing for the Canucks. The one guy who was good enough, (hodgdon) he traded him away for a lesser player


That is because he started as a GM in 2008 and Hodgson was his first pick who is now playing in the NHL (although for a different team). You think that all the players that we draft at 29th position will make our team in their first year? We have low picks because we keep winning the presidents trophy and the players we pick obviously need some time to develop in the lower league. Maybe Gillis should trade all of our team and rebuild, so we can pick high in the first rounds like the Oilers and get players that will play in their first year. I bet then you would be really happy about Gillis drafting.
  • 5

Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image

Posted Image

QUOTE (Rye and Kesler @ Jun 29 2009, 10:24 PM) Where is Celebrities? I am tryin to find it on Club vibes but i can't find it. Is it relatively new? Sounds good though we will have to check it out.

I think Germany is the exception because they should know how to use their own balls.

QUOTE (pacecar @ Aug 2 2009, 11:53 AM) Sheep are ok but horses, ewww.


Posted Image


#28 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 21 July 2012 - 09:30 AM

If you want to take the safe way out then the upside is limited. look at LA. The safe move for MG was to let Willie walk. LA took a chance- how did that work out for them? You still prefer Ballard?


Absolutely.

And this is the thing that I hate the most about the Salo/Garrison swap; Salo is FAR more proven, and he would've cost FAR less! Where's the logic in the Garrison deal? I don't see it anywhere. Even in his "breakout" season (a whole 33 points), 37 year-old, "bottom six" Sami Salo still almost had as much PPG!
  • 0

#29 Cody9

Cody9

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 924 posts
  • Joined: 20-May 08

Posted 21 July 2012 - 09:31 AM

When a Player dictates how much time he needs/wants to be played it wouldn't be worth it to have him on this team. Schultz is where he can play because the Oilers have no D. We have D and Schultz would never have been a number 1 or 2 and probably not even a 3 or 4 defenseman. He wants to play and at least he and his agent made that critical for teams to know just that.

WE fortunately or not (depends on how you look at it) are not PHILLY. We made one big splash to get a goalie signed for long term and look how that turned out. Never any GM here would have made that kind of an offer for WEBER no matter how much he would have wanted to play here. Nashville has a very good goalie and last year they had both Weber and Suter and they still didn't get anywhere too deep. It would have been nice to get him but we all know that we are never going to be PHILLY. End of subject. SEEMS like PHILLY can sign long term contracts and has no problem getting rid of players they don't want. That raises one question - what is wrong with us? Louongo should have been "long gone".
  • 0

#30 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,929 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 21 July 2012 - 09:32 AM

That's a copout; answer the question.

By definition, "market value" is the price that ONE party will pay. So, then, it follows that Weber was signed at market value from Philly's perspective.

No it's not a cop out answer. His contract is market value and no that's not the definition of market value. Shultz signed a contract that was well above his market value. Garrison got market value and as someone who's seen him play a fair amount (I catch most canucks games and as many Devils, Panthers and Stars games that I can.) I like his contract.

Who's making assumptions? Where did I say that this lone decision leads to Holmgren being the better GM?

And fine, you're saying that you're GLAD Gillis didn't send an offer sheet to Weber. OK, fine. According to Ed Willes, though, the Aquilini's sure aren't glad. And maybe Mike Gillis simply didn't see Philly's offer sheet coming, and he took too long. Who knows. Either way, missed opportunity from ownership's eyes. Very interesting.

According to Ed WIllis...enough said.

or maybe (since we're playing that game) the Aquilinis are really happy with Mike GIllis for all the work he's done. Everything ...by definition...is a missed opportunity. That doesn't mean it's a bad thing to be missed. You're jumping to conclusions without any water in the pool. By all means...go head first.
  • 2
Posted Image
Posted Image




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

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.