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

#361 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,670 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 22 July 2012 - 01:10 PM

So is Ed Willes hosting the pity party? Or one of you crybabies?
  • 1
Posted Image

#362 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,483 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 22 July 2012 - 01:12 PM

I'm not going to take the time to address every point you brought up, but here's a couple:

You say we don't know for sure that Gillis didn't present Weber with an offer sheet that he subsequently turned down. But if you were to read more than just the surface of what Gilman said, you would be able to surmise that it's pretty obvious they in fact made no such offer. Gilman said that they, the Canucks management, came to the conclusion that any offer they made to Weber would've been matched by Nashville. That is about as blatant as he could get without actually stating outright that they did not present Weber with any such offer sheet. Also, what Gilman did say was that they were prepared to make nearly any offer required to get him on their team. Well, the Flyers have almost achieved that feat, but it didn't take any offer, it only took one--as well as the moxy to make it.

Edit: and now I see that King of the ES kindly pointed out that Gilman in fact did say that the Canucks made no such offer. Evidently, you didn't have to read beyond the surface of what Gilman said to see that you were wrong, you just had to read. :rolleyes:

Regarding the cost of ticket prices being affected by the supposedly exorbitant sum of money that it would cost to sign Weber, do you really believe that's what dictates the moves made by Gillis and the Aquilinis? Ticket prices for Canucks games have been outrageous for years, and yet revenues continue to increase. Why is that? Well, part of it has to do with the fact that there is virtually no competitive sports programming in Vancouver, but a bigger part is that people have believed for the past few years that the team will succeed when they go to watch games, during both the reular season and the playoffs. I very HIGHLY doubt that sentiment would diminish, and ticket sales would fall off, if Weber was signed and ticket prices rose to a certain degree. This is all assuming that ticket prices would necessarily have to increase due to the signing bonuses that it might have taken to sign Weber to a contract. We will never know if that would've ever been the case, because Gillis failed to pursue that option.

Finally, regarding Weber's cap-hit possibly affectig the team's ability to feasibly sign players in the future, I will say to you what everyone needs to understand by now about this team. It sucks you say, and even to think it, but this team has NO FUTURE. The Canucks have no future stars in the works, and nearly all of the team's current crop of star players are at the same point of near-dropoff of their talents, meaning that there will be no point in time when the young players the team does have in the system will be able to play with and learn from our most talented teammates (i.e., the Sedins and Kesler) while they are still not too far removed the high points of their careers. What makes you and everyone else believe that we're immune to what has happened to every other Canadian franchise? A faithful fanbase, high revenues, and millionaire owners are things every other organization has, and yet they are suffering terrible times. This team's only opportunity to win likely within the next couple decades is now. And yet, Gillis chose to pass up a key piece in possibly making that happen by sitting back and watching what others had the courage to do. And for some reason you and many others on here support him in these decisions. That's pretty unbelievable to me.

1. Gilman didn't say it, Botchford said it. It's quite possible - even likely - they didn't make a formal offer sheet, but does that mean they didn't do everything leading up to that? No, and that's the only way it'd be a failure, if they didn't at least investigate every option they had to see if it'd fit.

2. If you think Aquilini having to pay $26M in a calendar year in the event of a lockout without having any revenue coming back wouldn't factor into a decision to raise ticket prices or not, you're kidding yourself. I didn't say he wouldn't still sell tickets, although it'd make it less affordable for the regular fan as a result.

3. If you think we have no future, why would Weber even want to sign a deal with us similar to Philly's? Just because it's close to home? Clearly neither you or King believe that he's interested in that alone, so he'd be more likely to sign somewhere with young talent coming up in the roster - which you say isn't us.

Here's why it's a failure; Aquilini wanted him. He wanted to come here. And we never offered him a contract. That's why it's a failure. Simple.

In addition, most acknowledge that a #1 d-man (and no, nobody that we have qualifies) is exactly what we lack. We could've got perhaps the best d-man in the league, for nothing but money and draft picks. OR Gillis could've tried to work out a trade over the last, I dunno, 12 months.

So if you're saying that it's not a failure, by definition, then it needs to be a success. I'd like to hear how failing to land Shea Weber is a SUCCESS.

Again, black and white, failure or success. There's no area for you where they can just be a team that was in the running but couldn't get him.
  • 0

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

Tanev is going to EDM. I can put my life savings down on it

 


#363 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 22 July 2012 - 01:14 PM

All that says is they discussed offer sheets but couldn't come to an official offer. Does that mean they didn't say, "How about this?" and Weber didn't turn it down during the discussions. It's Botchford's statement anyways, versus anything Gilman or the Canucks have said they specifically didn't offer one.


I'm pretty sure that there's a little bit more of a formal process when discussing player contracts. Hell, you can't even discuss numbers when trying to purchase a property without putting something in writing.

You can say it'd be interesting to hear Gilman's comments, but how about yours if Nashville does match? You're so absolute in your assertions, particularly for something you weren't there to hear the details of, but what if he's right? In the least, there's a very good chance he is, and some of the negatives of offering that type of deal may not have made the small chance it'd work worthwile.


Philadelphia is not worse off if Nashville matches. Weber stays in Nashville, which he's clearly OK with, as evidenced by signing the deal and giving NAS an option to watch. That's fine.

Explain to me how Philadelphia is any worse off. They're not. In fact, don't be surprised to see Paul Holmgren go out and find someone else, pretty quickly.

People are already talking about how Nashville should return the favor to Philly, whether they match or not. What if we'd made the offer sheet and Nashville decided to replace Suter by offer sheeting any of our RFAs next year in retaliation? We don't have anyone of Weber's status (and still wouldn't if Nashville matched) but they could go after Tanev, Lack, Kassian, etc starting this summer and over the next few years. That'd put us further behind on trying to replace our aging players and we'd still be out of luck if they did get them. But hey, we'd have picks in return, right?


Oh, no! Not Chris Tanev! But if they wanted to sign him to an above-market value, fine, let them, and we'll take the picks. Who cares? It's not Shea Weber, it's Chris Tanev.

Mike Gillis SHOULD NOT CARE about hurting the feelings of other teams. This is a business. Sh!t, we need to send Mike Gillis to the Wally Buono School of Leadership, if this is at ALL a concern.
  • 1

#364 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 22 July 2012 - 01:18 PM

3. If you think we have no future, why would Weber even want to sign a deal with us similar to Philly's? Just because it's close to home? Clearly neither you or King believe that he's interested in that alone, so he'd be more likely to sign somewhere with young talent coming up in the roster - which you say isn't us.


Look at the other teams that Shea met with; DET, NYR, and SJ. None of those teams are currently loaded up with what anybody would call "a great young core".

He, clearly, thinks of himself as a guy who will alter the course of the franchise, and rightfully so.
  • 0

#365 PrimeMinisterBure

PrimeMinisterBure

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 122 posts
  • Joined: 26-June 12

Posted 22 July 2012 - 01:19 PM

Again, black and white, failure or success. There's no area for you where they can just be a team that was in the running but couldn't get him.


You're not in the running if you make virtually no effort!! To secure a player like Shea Weber in a situation like this one, you have to compete. If this was a track meet assembled by Weber, for which he only allowed five runners to compete, Gillis essentially showed up, gave Weber a cursory wave of the hand, and walked home. I can't say anything about what the other competitors (i.e., San Jose, Detroit, and New York) did or did not do, but all I know is that the Canucks essentially did f*** all, whereas Philadelphia ran as soon as they had the opportunity to do so.
  • 0

#366 gouda

gouda

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 108 posts
  • Joined: 06-August 09

Posted 22 July 2012 - 01:29 PM

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

Because he's not for the other teams! he's for Vancoouver
  • 0

#367 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,682 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 22 July 2012 - 01:32 PM

No. But then again, it wouldn't be anything out of the ordinary for tweets like that, and therefore not thread-worthy. These were STRONG, direct tweets.


Those tweets meet your definition of "STRONG" and direct? We have vastly differing views of what qualifies as such.

What makes a tweet strong and direct, in your opinion? Is it that the other person merely has to say something with which you agree (as you twice suggested you were in agreement with the content of those tweets), or is it because he used "believe it" at the end of the third tweet? I'm sure that won over thousands.

These are, as I have previously stated, the lame opinions by a guy who has an axe to grind, something which you suggested was the case in your previous post.


Stop regurgitating what you hear from our management team and try and think for yourself for a change.


I don't agree with you, so therefore I am not thinking for myself? Well, that might be better than not thinking at all I suppose, not that I'm suggesting that you aren't capable of thinking of course. :) One can think for oneself, and still get if all wrong.


No. But then again, it wouldn't be anything out of the ordinary for tweets like that, and therefore not thread-worthy. These were STRONG, direct tweets.


Those tweets meet your definition of "STRONG" and direct? We have vastly differing views of what qualifies as such.

What makes a tweet strong and direct, in your opinion? Is it that the other person merely has to say something with which you agree (as you twice suggested you were in agreement with the content of those tweets), or is it because he used "believe it" at the end of the third tweet? I'm sure that won over thousands.

These are, as I have previously stated, the lame opinions by a guy who has an axe to grind, something which you suggested was the case in your previous post.


Stop regurgitating what you hear from our management team and try and think for yourself for a change.


I don't agree with you, so therefore I am not thinking for myself? Well, that might be better than not thinking at all I suppose, not that I'm suggesting that you aren't capable of thinking of course. :) One can think for oneself, and still get if all wrong.


2.) Schultz signed where he was going to get the kind of playing time he wanted, not the playing time he has earned. He went where he felt he was getting what was best for Justin Schultz. Perhaps he will do well in Edmonton, assuming they shield him from playing against any large, grinding forwards...


Like I said before, Schultz can "want" whatever he wants, but if he stinks, he's not going to play. He'll be given a chance - just like he would've here - but if he's not any good, HE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO HIDE IT. And do you honestly think that if he's not any good, Edmonton will feel obligated to continue playing him on the top four and give him PP time, because of a verbal commitment/suggestion in contract negotiations? Fat freakin' chance. If he sucks, he WILL NOT PLAY.


Schultz went to Edmonton because he felt that that was what was best for Justin Schultz. He did it to give himself a chance at more playing time and in a top-4 position, something which he wasn't going to get here. I suppose he also went there because it is a younger team which is on the rise.

From my previous post I do not see how you got to where you are in your response. I did not suggest that Schultz would get a free hand at playing top-4 minutes regardless of how he performs. I did suggest that Schultz would get more of an opportunity to play top-4 minutes there, obviously due to the lack of quality d-men in Edmonton. These are two different things.

And you may want to check your "Caps Lock" key, it keeps getting stuck.


Well, I'll put more weight into a local, decade-and-a-half, well-connected sports journalist's information than "Gollumpus"' assumptions on CDC, thank you..


More "weight" in what? All that these tweets say is:
1.) Schultz signed in Edmonton and that it would be (in Willes' opinion) bad for Gillis' reputation if Weber didn't sign here;
2.) Weber is from BC, and that there were reports that he wanted to play with the Canucks, and that (in Willes' opinion) it would be bad for Gillis' reputation if Weber did not sign here.
3.) Willis is not impressed with the Garrison signing, suggests that ownership wanted Weber and that (in Willes' opinion) Gillis failed by not signing Weber.

The content of these tweets are opinion, not fact. The guy expressed three negative opinions about Gillis, all of which have been expressed on these very forums by other posters. You agreed with these opinions. Very weighty.

regards,
G.
  • 2
Following the Canucks since before Don Cherry played here.

#368 Mastaj

Mastaj

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 929 posts
  • Joined: 08-April 04

Posted 22 July 2012 - 01:35 PM

*
POPULAR

I can summarize this whole thread for everyone:

King of ES:
"Gillis sucks because he didn't offer Weber an offer sheet. Even though Acquilini wanted him here. Everyone knows that Weber would have signed an offer sheet with Vancouver, had it been offered. Gillis is terrible - couldn't even get Schultz to come here either. Gillis has no balls, and can't make the bold moves to put this team over the top".

Every other intelligent poster:
"To offer Weber what Philly did would CLEARLY require the permission of ownership. Since that didn't happen, and the interviews state that the 'Canucks management team' (read: including the team owner) said they couldn't afford it, this is hardly just Gillis' fault. Yes, we agree that the Canucks would be better off with Weber, but we can't get everyone, and that's not always the fault of the GM."

"Just because the Canucks want a player, doesn't mean he is automatically the Canucks to lose. We offered the exact same money to Schultz, and he chose Edmonton. What can you do? It's the players choice."

"An RFA can and does meet with other teams. He's a free agent. It's been reported by multiple other team sources that RFA's have met with them. It's NOT tampering, and does NOT violate bylaw #15, because he's a free agent - just with a restriction that his former team can match offers"

"How do you know Gillis didn't try to make a trade with Nashville? Most likely he did, but Nasvhille's asking price was ridiculous. Would you be willing to part with: Kesler, Edler, Raymond, Kassian, and 2 first round draft picks for Weber? That's likely the minimum package it would have taken, based on reports out of Philly as to what Nashville is asking of them."


This thread is funny. Because Gillis "sucks" no matter what he does.

a) He didn't submit an offer sheet - he sucks
b )He submits an offer sheet, and Nashville matches - he sucks, because he didn't offer enough money
c) Jason Garrison? He sucks, and Gillis sucks
d) We'll never win a cup with Gillis, and I wish we had Holmgren. Even though Holmgren has never won a cup either, he's better because he's willing to throw around his owners money like a maniac.

Edited by Mastaj, 22 July 2012 - 01:37 PM.

  • 5
Go Banana!!
-Ralph Wiggum

#369 PrimeMinisterBure

PrimeMinisterBure

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 122 posts
  • Joined: 26-June 12

Posted 22 July 2012 - 01:42 PM

I can summarize this whole thread for everyone:

King of ES:
"Gillis sucks because he didn't offer Weber an offer sheet. Even though Acquilini wanted him here. Everyone knows that Weber would have signed an offer sheet with Vancouver, had it been offered. Gillis is terrible - couldn't even get Schultz to come here either. Gillis has no balls, and can't make the bold moves to put this team over the top".

Every other intelligent poster:
"To offer Weber what Philly did would CLEARLY require the permission of ownership. Since that didn't happen, and the interviews state that the 'Canucks management team' (read: including the team owner) said they couldn't afford it, this is hardly just Gillis' fault. Yes, we agree that the Canucks would be better off with Weber, but we can't get everyone, and that's not always the fault of the GM."

"Just because the Canucks want a player, doesn't mean he is automatically the Canucks to lose. We offered the exact same money to Schultz, and he chose Edmonton. What can you do? It's the players choice."

"An RFA can and does meet with other teams. He's a free agent. It's been reported by multiple other team sources that RFA's have met with them. It's NOT tampering, and does NOT violate bylaw #15, because he's a free agent - just with a restriction that his former team can match offers"

"How do you know Gillis didn't try to make a trade with Nashville? Most likely he did, but Nasvhille's asking price was ridiculous. Would you be willing to part with: Kesler, Edler, Raymond, Kassian, and 2 first round draft picks for Weber? That's likely the minimum package it would have taken, based on reports out of Philly as to what Nashville is asking of them."


This thread is funny. Because Gillis "sucks" no matter what he does.

a) He didn't submit an offer sheet - he sucks
b )He submits an offer sheet, and Nashville matches - he sucks, because he didn't offer enough money
c) Jason Garrison? He sucks, and Gillis sucks
d) We'll never win a cup with Gillis, and I wish we had Holmgren. Even though Holmgren has never won a cup either, he's better because he's willing to throw around his owners money like a maniac.


- Canucks' management team never said they couldn't affors Weber--in fact they said almost the oppositie, which is that they were willing to give Weber almost anything to get him here, but ASSumed that Nashville would match the offer. Wtf is the harm in making it anyways? You can never succeed at something if you don't even try.

- Neither King of the ES nor I ever said we wanted Holmgren as a GM. However, he has shown that he is somehow able to able "throw around money like a maniac" by making huge offers to incredibly important players, inject talented youth into his team, and maintain a competitive franchise all at the same time.

- You're not funny.

Edited by PrimeMinisterBure, 22 July 2012 - 01:44 PM.

  • 1

#370 guesswhere

guesswhere

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,223 posts
  • Joined: 02-June 04

Posted 22 July 2012 - 01:48 PM

I can summarize this whole thread for everyone:

King of ES:
"Gillis sucks because he didn't offer Weber an offer sheet. Even though Acquilini wanted him here. Everyone knows that Weber would have signed an offer sheet with Vancouver, had it been offered. Gillis is terrible - couldn't even get Schultz to come here either. Gillis has no balls, and can't make the bold moves to put this team over the top".

Every other intelligent poster:
"To offer Weber what Philly did would CLEARLY require the permission of ownership. Since that didn't happen, and the interviews state that the 'Canucks management team' (read: including the team owner) said they couldn't afford it, this is hardly just Gillis' fault. Yes, we agree that the Canucks would be better off with Weber, but we can't get everyone, and that's not always the fault of the GM."

"Just because the Canucks want a player, doesn't mean he is automatically the Canucks to lose. We offered the exact same money to Schultz, and he chose Edmonton. What can you do? It's the players choice."

"An RFA can and does meet with other teams. He's a free agent. It's been reported by multiple other team sources that RFA's have met with them. It's NOT tampering, and does NOT violate bylaw #15, because he's a free agent - just with a restriction that his former team can match offers"

"How do you know Gillis didn't try to make a trade with Nashville? Most likely he did, but Nasvhille's asking price was ridiculous. Would you be willing to part with: Kesler, Edler, Raymond, Kassian, and 2 first round draft picks for Weber? That's likely the minimum package it would have taken, based on reports out of Philly as to what Nashville is asking of them."


This thread is funny. Because Gillis "sucks" no matter what he does.

a) He didn't submit an offer sheet - he sucks
b )He submits an offer sheet, and Nashville matches - he sucks, because he didn't offer enough money
c) Jason Garrison? He sucks, and Gillis sucks
d) We'll never win a cup with Gillis, and I wish we had Holmgren. Even though Holmgren has never won a cup either, he's better because he's willing to throw around his owners money like a maniac.


I wish this could be stickied somehow, like to the top of the thread, but somehow I wouldn't count on the op's coop on that.

One small quibble:

Every other intelligent poster:


That line could still use a little work imo.
  • 1

#371 guesswhere

guesswhere

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,223 posts
  • Joined: 02-June 04

Posted 22 July 2012 - 01:54 PM

- Neither King of the ES nor I ever said we wanted Holmgren as a GM. However, he has shown that he is somehow able to able "throw around money like a maniac" by making huge offers to incredibly important players, inject talented youth into his team, and maintain a competitive franchise all at the same time.

- You're not funny.


Hmmm... looks like SOMEBODY needs a hug.

Edited by guesswhere, 22 July 2012 - 01:58 PM.

  • 0

#372 OrrFour

OrrFour

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 383 posts
  • Joined: 09-July 06

Posted 22 July 2012 - 01:59 PM

Sadly, that says more about you than me.

You're right. I regretted my response as soon as I posted it.
I was pissed off after I read your post.
I apologize for picking on you.
  • 0

#373 guesswhere

guesswhere

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,223 posts
  • Joined: 02-June 04

Posted 22 July 2012 - 02:29 PM

You're right. I regretted my response as soon as I posted it.
I was pissed off after I read your post.
I apologize for picking on you.


Good choice on the retraction though imo...

Not sure I agreed with everything in that post but it was way more well thought out than the chicken little fare on display in so much of this thread...which I think was the more likely source of your frustration.

Ok... I shut up now.

Edited by guesswhere, 22 July 2012 - 02:31 PM.

  • 0

#374 OrrFour

OrrFour

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 383 posts
  • Joined: 09-July 06

Posted 22 July 2012 - 02:34 PM

I think one apect of this debate that MG supporters are missing is that the canucks stated in Botch's article that the sole reason for not submitting an offer sheet to weber is that they feel that Nashville will match it.
If nashville does match then MG is off the hook.
I think all this criticism of MG is premature.

However, if Weber ends up in philly then MG screwed up big time since:
- canucks had no problems with the long term contract, the cap hit and its heavy front load
- Weber was interested in coming here since he met with us and only four other teams
- it would only cost us four late first rounders
- we need a franchise D man while our Sedins and Kesler window is open
- cap concerns could be alleviated with some salary dumping like ballard, Lu.
- we could acquire a power forward thu free agency (doan) or trade (move booth, another D, if necessary)
  • 1

#375 OrrFour

OrrFour

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 383 posts
  • Joined: 09-July 06

Posted 22 July 2012 - 02:36 PM

Good choice on the retraction though imo...

Not sure I agreed with everything in that post but it was way more well thought out than the chicken little fare on display in so much of this thread...which I think was the more likely source of your frustration.

Ok... I shut up now.

Ah no.
That post was a meandering senseless mess. It was my source of frustration.
I think people should proofread their posts to see if they make sense.
  • 0

#376 guesswhere

guesswhere

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,223 posts
  • Joined: 02-June 04

Posted 22 July 2012 - 03:01 PM

Ah no.
That post was a meandering senseless mess. It was my source of frustration.
I think people should proofread their posts to see if they make sense.


Well, my apoligies then for the misattribution. I do still think the frustration is better directed elsewhere though. A shining example of prose it was not, but I did find it at least decipherable...with some effort.
  • 0

#377 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,917 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 22 July 2012 - 03:31 PM

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.


Those tweets look more like the typical 14 year olds posts here at cdc. :lol:
  • 0
Posted Image

#378 Cup2013?

Cup2013?

    K-Wing Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 87 posts
  • Joined: 06-April 09

Posted 22 July 2012 - 03:33 PM

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.


'lost out' on Schultz because he wanted top 2-4 minutes. Not going to get that on Vancouver. Plus he seems like a diva.

Gillis met with Weber and his agent. Present a strong offer and Weber decided that Flyers offer made more sense. Translate that into moneyhound.
  • 0

#379 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,483 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 22 July 2012 - 03:33 PM

...
Philadelphia is not worse off if Nashville matches. Weber stays in Nashville, which he's clearly OK with, as evidenced by signing the deal and giving NAS an option to watch. That's fine.

Explain to me how Philadelphia is any worse off. They're not. In fact, don't be surprised to see Paul Holmgren go out and find someone else, pretty quickly.
...
Mike Gillis SHOULD NOT CARE about hurting the feelings of other teams. This is a business. Sh!t, we need to send Mike Gillis to the Wally Buono School of Leadership, if this is at ALL a concern.

My example of Tanev is just to make a point. How many RFAs does Philly have coming up in the next few years? What if Nashville offer sheets them in retaliation? Oh, they could just try and sign them all, but what if they don't have the cap space after the Weber deal?

Part of it being a business is to keep healthy business relationships with your peers. It's not like you can do a corporate takeover of every other team or put them out of business. You still have to be able to make deals to be successful rather than rely on drafting alone.

Look at the other teams that Shea met with; DET, NYR, and SJ. None of those teams are currently loaded up with what anybody would call "a great young core".

He, clearly, thinks of himself as a guy who will alter the course of the franchise, and rightfully so.

PMB certainly seemed to think our future was pretty dire. You've said youself how you think we'll be lucky yo get a couple more good years out of the Sedins, our only other elite players, and the next level players are all aging or just not good enough to take over when the Sedins do decline or leave.


With that outlook, versus Philly's apparently positive one (being able to make "huge offers to incredibly important players, inject talented youth into his team, and maintain a competitive franchise all at the same time" was what was said I believe), you can definitely argue how even an equal deal wouldn't have convinced Weber to sign here.

I was specifically speaking to that point, and it easily shows how the idea that our time to win is only now and since there are no guarantees it would happen with Weber, why he'd choose to sign long term here and risk toiling on a team devoid of future prospects.

You're not in the running if you make virtually no effort!! To secure a player like Shea Weber in a situation like this one, you have to compete. If this was a track meet assembled by Weber, for which he only allowed five runners to compete, Gillis essentially showed up, gave Weber a cursory wave of the hand, and walked home. I can't say anything about what the other competitors (i.e., San Jose, Detroit, and New York) did or did not do, but all I know is that the Canucks essentially did f*** all, whereas Philadelphia ran as soon as they had the opportunity to do so.

"Virtually no effort" eh? Again, neither of you have any idea what went on in those discussions with Weber and his agent. I don't either, but to assume they just met for a coffee, or made no effort certainly seems implausible. Why bother meeting at all if that was the case? It only makes sense for them to go and meet if they had something serious to discuss, that had at least some possibility of occurring.

Both you and King are clearly understating what it takes to get a player of Weber's caliber and trying to portray Gillis as a bumbling fool, when a GM of the year award and taking a team to the SCF clearly suggests much more to the positive.

People have long held Ken Holland and David Poile in high regard as GMs, but where are they sitting this summer? They've both regressed and done little to improve the elite players they've lost, where Gillis has lost only depth and replaced an aging yet capable defenceman with a younger version who plays a more physical and defensive game as well as having a similar booming shot and offensive possibilities.

Is everything positive in this thread a given? No, but neither is all the negatives you both are spouting like gospel. There's much more happening in Vancouver to be happy about than angry, but I'm not going to change either of your minds on that apparently.
  • 2

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

Tanev is going to EDM. I can put my life savings down on it

 


#380 Kesler_smash

Kesler_smash

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 346 posts
  • Joined: 28-April 11

Posted 22 July 2012 - 03:59 PM

Shea Weber is overrated, same point totals as Edler last season with the only difference being plus minus numbers. Considering Nashville plays an extremely defensively oriented style of game this is no big surprise. Also consider Weber is paired with Suter who is also a Norris caliber D-man and I believe the difference between Edler and Weber is very marginal. I'm not saying Weber is not a great player...he clearly is but the idea that bringing him in would bring the cup is nothing but speculation. Anyways I'm just waiting a couple days for the Preds to match the offer sheet and this BS thread becomes obsolete.
  • 0

#381 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,394 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 22 July 2012 - 04:04 PM

I think one apect of this debate that MG supporters are missing is that the canucks stated in Botch's article that the sole reason for not submitting an offer sheet to weber is that they feel that Nashville will match it.
If nashville does match then MG is off the hook.
I think all this criticism of MG is premature.

However, if Weber ends up in philly then MG screwed up big time since:
- canucks had no problems with the long term contract, the cap hit and its heavy front load
- Weber was interested in coming here since he met with us and only four other teams
- it would only cost us four late first rounders
- we need a franchise D man while our Sedins and Kesler window is open
- cap concerns could be alleviated with some salary dumping like ballard, Lu.
- we could acquire a power forward thu free agency (doan) or trade (move booth, another D, if necessary)


Yes absolutely if Nashville doesn't match or doesn't make some sort of other deal than Mike Gillis and co missed out on an opportunity.
If Nashville does make a trade with his right or matches this offer though will the anti-Gillis gladiators admit that he made a good decision? Perhaps some but my guess is that most will not...certainly the loudest ones will not.

I am a Gillis supporter and I absolutely know that he and his crew have made mistakes...I absolutely know that there have been things done and not done that have hurt this team. I also know enough that I can with eyes wide open say that more good has been done for this team than bad. I don't hold any player or manager or sanitation supervisor above the team.

Gillis has and will make mistakes...going off this article however neither Shultz or Garrison are mistakes. People who probably haven't seen much of him may think that Garrison is a mistake but smart people know that you can't make those calls until you see what he does. I've watched a fair amount of Garrison so I'm hopeful and with good reason. This Weber situation is yet to be seen if it's a mistake yet. If Nashville matches Philly though do you think there is a chance in hell Nashville even considers trading to them anytime soon...let alone trade them Weber? I don't think so.

Edited by EmployeeoftheMonth, 22 July 2012 - 05:17 PM.

  • 0
Posted Image
Posted Image

#382 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,917 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 22 July 2012 - 04:09 PM

Oh, please. Just stop, and leave, if you're not going to make any relevant points.

Columbus missing out on Shea Weber doesn't mean as much as Vancouver missing out on him. Shea Weber wanted to come here, the Aquilini's wanted to bring him in, Mike Gillis did not act. That's how this story goes, if you're inclined to agree with guys like Ed Willes and Jason Botchford, who I have no problem doing. Heck, LAWRENCE GILMAN is quoted as saying that they were prepared to do whatever it took to get him! Check out Botchford's recent article on the offer sheet.

Weber was EXACTLY what we needed; the missing piece. And all it would've cost was cash and picks, but Holmgren beat Gillis to the punch. I really do think that it was basically that simple. In the meeting, Weber probably stated the type of deal that he was looking for, and Gillis either didn't agree with the value, or just thought to wait. Either way, he LOST.

This "29 other teams" rhetoric is a real loser's attitude. 29 other teams aren't under a tight deadline to win a Cup, 29 other teams aren't 1 horse defenseman away from perhaps being the favourite again, 24 other teams weren't the 5 that Weber had expressed interest in, etc. NOT A RELEVANT POINT.


That bold part is overstating the truth. If he "wanted" to play here why did he meet with anybody else? He simply would have come to terms with the team he "wanted" to play for. The truth is he was "willing" to sign here just as he was "willing" to sign with the four other teams he met with. He went to the team that backed up the money truck.
  • 0
Posted Image

#383 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 22 July 2012 - 04:16 PM

My example of Tanev is just to make a point. How many RFAs does Philly have coming up in the next few years? What if Nashville offer sheets them in retaliation? Oh, they could just try and sign them all, but what if they don't have the cap space after the Weber deal?

Part of it being a business is to keep healthy business relationships with your peers. It's not like you can do a corporate takeover of every other team or put them out of business. You still have to be able to make deals to be successful rather than rely on drafting alone.


Please, you've got to be kidding.

Number one, who the hell cares if Nashville goes and offer sheets Philadelphia's RFAs. If they're doing it out of spite, rather than out of team-building logic, than that's an error, for one. For two, they're perfectly within their right to do so! Jesus, if the NHL GMs weren't such a network of old golfing buddies, we'd probably see things like this far more regularly. Ever notice that Mike Gillis has dealt with only TWO teams since being our GM? He's made trades with Buffalo, and he's made trades with Florida. Not a coincidence. There's no reason that stuff like this shouldn't be going on, and I applaud Holmgren in doing what he can to acquire a blue-chip NHL defenseman.

"Healthy business relationship with your peers"....please, this has to be a joke.

PMB certainly seemed to think our future was pretty dire. You've said youself how you think we'll be lucky yo get a couple more good years out of the Sedins, our only other elite players, and the next level players are all aging or just not good enough to take over when the Sedins do decline or leave.


Right, but Shea Weber changes all of that. He's a franchise player. Look at Nashville's payroll over the last few years. They've been composed of a few EXTREMELY good players who have carried the load, and Weber's at the top of that list.

That's why Weber interviewed with who he did, 5 of the most well-respected franchises in the league.

People have long held Ken Holland and David Poile in high regard as GMs, but where are they sitting this summer? They've both regressed and done little to improve the elite players they've lost, where Gillis has lost only depth and replaced an aging yet capable defenceman with a younger version who plays a more physical and defensive game as well as having a similar booming shot and offensive possibilities.


David Poile is a victim of his MARKET, nothing else. There was a reason that no NBA players wanted to come to Vancouver, and it's similar to the reason why most NHL players aren't thrilled at the idea of playing in Nashville.

Ken Holland is a victim of RETIREMENT, nothing else. Neither of these are comparable to Mike Gillis. He met with Shea Weber in Kelowna. He didn't offer him a contract. That's about all that we need to know.
  • 0

#384 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 22 July 2012 - 04:18 PM

I believe the difference between Edler and Weber is very marginal.


Wow.
  • 1

#385 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 22 July 2012 - 04:21 PM

If Nashville does make a trade with his right or matches this offer though will the anti-Gillis gladiators admit that he made a good decision?


Sorry, but do you even understand how this process works?

Gillis & co. didn't make an offer because they assumed that Nashville would just match. There was/is NO DOWNSIDE for the Philadelphia Flyers.

You certainly won't hear from me that Gillis made a good decision, if Nashville chooses to match. I'd rather expose myself to the POSSIBILITY of landing Shea Weber, at a cost of 4 1st round picks.
  • 0

#386 Kesler_smash

Kesler_smash

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 346 posts
  • Joined: 28-April 11

Posted 22 July 2012 - 04:21 PM

Wow.


Love how you remove the context of that statement and your only counter argument is the word wow. Congrats bud. You are only one small step above a troll based on what I've read in this thread.

Edited by Kesler_smash, 22 July 2012 - 04:22 PM.

  • 0

#387 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 22 July 2012 - 04:28 PM

Love how you remove the context of that statement and your only counter argument is the word wow. Congrats bud. You are only one small step above a troll based on what I've read in this thread.


I'm not sure how much context is needed what a statement is as black-and-white as that.

If you want, I could've included the "Shea Weber is overrated" opening statement (?)
  • 0

#388 Kesler_smash

Kesler_smash

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 346 posts
  • Joined: 28-April 11

Posted 22 July 2012 - 04:29 PM

I'm not sure how much context is needed what a statement is as black-and-white as that.

If you want, I could've included the "Shea Weber is overrated" opening statement (?)


Once again leaving out the reasons I wrote that sentence, and still with no counter arguments to speak of. Explain to me how you are not a troll?
  • 0

#389 PrimeMinisterBure

PrimeMinisterBure

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 122 posts
  • Joined: 26-June 12

Posted 22 July 2012 - 04:40 PM

Once again leaving out the reasons I wrote that sentence, and still with no counter arguments to speak of. Explain to me how you are not a troll?


That thought doesn't deserve more than a one-word response from King of the ES, as NO ONE ELSE IN THE WORLD WOULD SAY THE SAME THING. That is insanity. If the Canucks already have a Weber on the team, then why in the world would Gillis show any interest in him in the first place? And if you truly believe that the difference in skill level between Edler and Weber is so minimal--which, again, is about the most ludicrous thing I've heard since before I can remember--shouldn't you be pissed at Gillis (rather than supporting him, as you and every other follower is doing on here) for even considering tendering Weber an offer sheet?

Edited by PrimeMinisterBure, 22 July 2012 - 04:41 PM.

  • 0

#390 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,394 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 22 July 2012 - 04:49 PM

Sorry, but do you even understand how this process works?

Gillis & co. didn't make an offer because they assumed that Nashville would just match. There was/is NO DOWNSIDE for the Philadelphia Flyers.

You certainly won't hear from me that Gillis made a good decision, if Nashville chooses to match. I'd rather expose myself to the POSSIBILITY of landing Shea Weber, at a cost of 4 1st round picks.


Year I already covered that you wouldn't admit that it wasn't a mistake...I mean not specifically but anyone with half a brain knows I was speaking about you.

I didn't need you to prove my guess right but I do appreciate it.

There also absolutely is a downside as I have already stated.

Edited by EmployeeoftheMonth, 22 July 2012 - 04:50 PM.

  • 0
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.