King of the ES Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmployeeoftheMonth Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smithers joe Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 Hmmm, what teams has wiles been the GM of?...lots of teams lost out on schultz and weber....why single out vancouver? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted July 21, 2012 Author Share Posted July 21, 2012 Willes is barely a media member. I mean technically you should have a decent foundation of readers for that title shouldn't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmployeeoftheMonth Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 Hmmm, what teams has wiles been the GM of?...lots of teams lost out on schultz and weber....why single out vancouver? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmployeeoftheMonth Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted July 21, 2012 Author Share Posted July 21, 2012 Hmmm, what teams has wiles been the GM of?...lots of teams lost out on schultz and weber....why single out vancouver? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmployeeoftheMonth Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted July 21, 2012 Author Share Posted July 21, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The-Impersonator Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnLocke Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DownUndaCanuck Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted July 21, 2012 Author Share Posted July 21, 2012 Do we really want weber for a ~7.5 cap hit for the next 14 years? Ever think about that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoneypuckOverlord Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Canuck Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 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!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted July 21, 2012 Author Share Posted July 21, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmployeeoftheMonth Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coastal1 Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sedin's 6th Sense Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 Never heard of him.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DefCon1 Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.