Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
- - - - -

Ed Willes' Tweets on Gillis/Weber


This topic has been archived.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

#451 D-Money

D-Money

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,376 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 06

Posted 24 July 2012 - 08:17 AM

So what Willes is saying, is that out of the half-dozen-or-so coveted D-men available this offseason (Suter, Garrison, Schultz...Weber...Wideman?...???), we only got one of them, but should have got two.

Rational, intelligent people would say that getting one of these in a 30-team league is a job well done. But this is Ed Willes.

Bonus stupid points for attacking Gillis based not getting a player who may not really be available (even if offering 4 first-rounders and a mammoth contract...Nashville still may match).

PBF020-Skub.gif


#452 D-Money

D-Money

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,376 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 06

Posted 24 July 2012 - 08:35 AM

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!


Here's the logic:

Only a fool would say that Salo's game will improve next year. In fact, at 37, he's very likely to decline. I saw a fair bit of decline last season. Perhaps the rigors of playing 69 regular season games (the most he's played since 2003-04...think about that for a second) wore on him?

Whereas Garrison may have been a one-hit wonder (and what a hit it was - outscored Salo's career high of goals in 06-07)...but there is also a chance that with only 194 games under his belt, he's only going to get better.

It doesn't have to be just goals. Maybe Garrison doesn't break 10 again - other 06-07, Salo never did either. As long as he's solid in both ends like Sami was, but with youthful endurance and without the injuries, it's a great deal for the Nucks.

PBF020-Skub.gif


#453 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 24 July 2012 - 08:55 AM

So what Willes is saying, is that out of the half-dozen-or-so coveted D-men available this offseason (Suter, Garrison, Schultz...Weber...Wideman?...???), we only got one of them, but should have got two.

Rational, intelligent people would say that getting one of these in a 30-team league is a job well done. But this is Ed Willes.

Bonus stupid points for attacking Gillis based not getting a player who may not really be available (even if offering 4 first-rounders and a mammoth contract...Nashville still may match).


I'm reminded of the restaurant manager in Office Space after reading the above, lecturing Jennifer Aniston about only doing the bare minimum. Jason Garrison, for this team, is the BARE MINIMUM, and a lateral move (at best), to the loss of Sami Salo. He's younger, and he's local, so that'll add some excitement to the swathe of naive fans of this team, but I think that most "smart" fans would agree with me that this is NOT an upgrade, nor is it really a step in the direction, as it relates to winning a Cup. We've gotten smaller and less experienced. And we've paid more money to do that.

#454 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 24 July 2012 - 08:59 AM

Only a fool would say that Salo's game will improve next year. In fact, at 37, he's very likely to decline. I saw a fair bit of decline last season. Perhaps the rigors of playing 69 regular season games (the most he's played since 2003-04...think about that for a second) wore on him?

Whereas Garrison may have been a one-hit wonder (and what a hit it was - outscored Salo's career high of goals in 06-07)...but there is also a chance that with only 194 games under his belt, he's only going to get better.


I never said that Salo was going to improve next year. But he really hasn't shown many signs of decline. The shot is still there, the brain is still there. He's just a rock-solid defenseman, one of the few guys on our team that I feel actually is respected by the opposition, due to his professionalism. Mike Gillis admitted as much on radio yesterday, that the loss of Sami is a serious loss. It is. And over 1 freaking year? Very, very disappointing.

Sure, there's a chance that Garrison will only get better, but there's also a pretty good chance that he'll be a total flop, and we'll be whining about his contract for a long time. TBH, I'm thinking that odds are the latter.

#455 cs2016

cs2016

    Canucks Prospect

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

Posted 24 July 2012 - 09:12 AM

I never said that Salo was going to improve next year. But he really hasn't shown many signs of decline. The shot is still there, the brain is still there. He's just a rock-solid defenseman, one of the few guys on our team that I feel actually is respected by the opposition, due to his professionalism. Mike Gillis admitted as much on radio yesterday, that the loss of Sami is a serious loss. It is. And over 1 freaking year? Very, very disappointing.

Sure, there's a chance that Garrison will only get better, but there's also a pretty good chance that he'll be a total flop, and we'll be whining about his contract for a long time. TBH, I'm thinking that odds are the latter.

Salo's play declined after he suffered his concussion.

#456 D-Money

D-Money

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,376 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 06

Posted 24 July 2012 - 09:20 AM

<p>

I never said that Salo was going to improve next year. But he really hasn't shown many signs of decline. The shot is still there, the brain is still there. He's just a rock-solid defenseman, one of the few guys on our team that I feel actually is respected by the opposition, due to his professionalism. Mike Gillis admitted as much on radio yesterday, that the loss of Sami is a serious loss. It is. And over 1 freaking year? Very, very disappointing.

Sure, there's a chance that Garrison will only get better, but there's also a pretty good chance that he'll be a total flop, and we'll be whining about his contract for a long time. TBH, I'm thinking that odds are the latter.


First off, let me say that I love Salo. Solid player, one of my fave Canucks for a long time.

That said, this past year was the first time I noticed a steep decline in Salo's game as the year progressed. He definitely lost a step through the course of the season, and his stats bear that as well:

First 30 games - 6G, 9A, 15Pts, +6
Last 39 games - 3G, 7A, 10Pts, even
Playoffs (5GP) - 0G, 0A, 0Pts, -3

Based on average playing careers, it stands to reason that next year he will be worse, and the year after worse again. At this point, even if he stays healthy (unlikely), I don't think he's good enough to be a top-4 on a contending team anymore. As such, I wouldn't want Gillis to pay him over 3, and not for multiple years.

Tampa gave him 3.75, for two years. As much as I have loved Sami, at that price, they can have him.

PBF020-Skub.gif


#457 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 24 July 2012 - 09:22 AM

That said, this past year was the first time I noticed a steep decline in Salo's game as the year progressed. He definitely lost a step through the course of the season, and his stats bear that as well:

First 30 games - 6G, 9A, 15Pts, +6
Last 39 games - 3G, 7A, 10Pts, even
Playoffs (5GP) - 0G, 0A, 0Pts, -3


Do me a favour; share with us the same breakdown of Garrison's season/productivity.

#458 Bodee

Bodee

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,257 posts
  • Joined: 26-May 11

Posted 24 July 2012 - 09:35 AM

So what Willes is saying, is that out of the half-dozen-or-so coveted D-men available this offseason (Suter, Garrison, Schultz...Weber...Wideman?...???), we only got one of them, but should have got two.

Rational, intelligent people would say that getting one of these in a 30-team league is a job well done. But this is Ed Willes.

Bonus stupid points for attacking Gillis based not getting a player who may not really be available (even if offering 4 first-rounders and a mammoth contract...Nashville still may match).


Can we even put Garrison in that list?
Kevin.jpg

#459 D-Money

D-Money

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,376 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 06

Posted 24 July 2012 - 09:42 AM

Do me a favour; share with us the same breakdown of Garrison's season/productivity.


First 30 games: 9G, 5A, 14Pts
Next 47 games: 7G, 12A, 19Pts
Playoffs (4GP): 1G, 2A

Pretty darn consistent.

PBF020-Skub.gif


#460 Bodee

Bodee

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,257 posts
  • Joined: 26-May 11

Posted 24 July 2012 - 09:42 AM

I wouldn't even bother. Canucks fans are really starting to gain a reputation as a fanbase who doesn't realize what they already have and constantly cries for something else.


Well as for myself I DO appreciate this team and that is why I am annoyed that we have not given it the 2 or 3 pieces that are missing and have been missing for 3 years.

Just because you like/love/whatever a team it doesn't mean you don't want to see it helped/improved. If there was another SC series tomorrow we wouldn't imo get much further against last years contenders than we did last year. That is not acceptable.
Kevin.jpg

#461 D-Money

D-Money

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,376 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 06

Posted 24 July 2012 - 09:45 AM

Can we even put Garrison in that list?


Everyone hyped up Schultz because he was a free prospect. But there's no guarantee that he'll ever be a solid top-4 defenseman.

If Garrison continues to play like he did last year, I'd rather have him than Wideman.

PBF020-Skub.gif


#462 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,105 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 24 July 2012 - 10:12 AM

Well, Gillis has had since 2008 to land him through trade, so that's really not an excuse, either.


Nashville wouldn't trade Shea Weber "since 2008". The only reason they looked at it this off-season is because they realized they probably couldn't re-sign him long-term.Besides which, we didn't have the assets with which to acquire Weber in a trade and neither did Holmgren until he unloaded Carter and Richards. Weber would have looked great in a Canucks uni, but not at the cost of Daniel and Kesler.
Orland Kurtenbach and Dennis Kearns had just been torched 8-1 by the Habs, but they still took time to come out to meet us, some fellow BC boys who were playing hockey in Montreal. THAT"S what being a Canuck is!

#463 D-Money

D-Money

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,376 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 06

Posted 24 July 2012 - 10:48 AM

After years of Taylor Pyatts and Brad Isbisters, Gillis has upped the ante by bringing in some QUALITY free agents and trade returns in his offseasons.

2008 - Needed top-6 forwards badly. Landed the most sought after forward (Sundin), and another top-10 free agent forward (Demitra). Signed a top RFA to an offersheet (Backes), but was matched, so traded for another highly-regarded young powerforward (Bernier).

2009 - Sundin retired, and Bernier didn't work out...but Kesler and Burrows took huge steps. Still could use another top-6 forward with size, and an offensive D-man to replace Ohlund. Signed Samuelsson to a reasonable amount, and pretty much stole Erhoff from the Sharks. Eye for talent proven, as both went on to have their 2 career years with the Nucks.

2010 - Top-6 forwards working well, but needed a better bottom-6. Also, D-corps continues to be ravaged by injuries and exposed. Signed the top free-agent D-man available (Hamhuis), and traded for another highly regarded D (Ballard) - both with histories of avoiding injury (Ballard hadn't missed a game due to injury in nearly 4 years, Hamhuis had only missed 9 in 6 seasons). Signed Malhotra and Torres, giving us arguably the best 3rd line in the league (until Manny's freak injury). Best season in team history, and really could have been far better if not for all of the injury troubles (still think we beat Boston if Hamhuis wasn't hurt).

2011 - Two of the best free agents available for the team's needs were the ones they picked up at the deadline - Lapierre and Higgins. So Gillis got them re-signed to very reasonable deals. There were some questions about Samuelsson's health, so MG got a similar player in similar questionable health in Sturm. By the time the year started, neither were ready to contribute. So before the season was even a few weeks old, he flipped both the question marks for Booth.

2012 - Biggest team weakness seems to be D, particularly defensively. Also, powerplay fizzled in 2nd half of the year. So MG signs last year's 2nd leading PP goalscoring defenseman, who is also known for his shutdown abilities. Offseason not over, Luongo trade expected at some point.


Pretty dam good, IMO. Despite limited quality players to go around all 30 teams, Gillis has managed to reel in quite a few of the big fish in his limited tenure.

His reward? Whiny fans with now sky-high expectations?

PBF020-Skub.gif


#464 Tearloch7

Tearloch7

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,219 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 24 July 2012 - 11:10 AM

Matti Ohlund and Sami Salo are my favorite defensive pair of all time, bar none, on any team .. but anyone who claims Sami did not digress last year is fooling themselves .. he lost another half step and appeared too tentative at times to engage physically .. Garrison is his heir, so get used to it .. we STILL need a physical, mean and nasty crease clearing D-man, tho Garrison will play his part, as he is very strong defensively ..

"To Thine Own Self Be True"

 

"Always tell the Truth. That way, you don’t have to remember what you said"  ~ Mark Twain ~
 


#465 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,214 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 24 July 2012 - 11:35 AM

I don't really agree with that.

By presenting Weber with the kind of offer sheet that Philly did, you're basically going all or nothing. We'll forget about the huge Cap implications and the blow to what is already a weak prospect pool, if Weber actually becomes a Canuck, mission accomplished.

However, if the Preds decide to match your offer, (as Gillis and Gilman determined would happen) then you've essentially locked up the object of your desire for the rest of his career in Nashville. While it's true that he can be traded after one year, you would be in a situation where Poile holds all the cards this time around. Considering he wanted Schenn and Coutourier from Philly and (reportedly) Kesler from Vancouver, it would take a king's ransom to pry him out of Nashville next year, if it were even possible.

My feeling is that the only way the Canucks were ever going to land Shea Weber, is if he really wanted to come here. From what I have seen and read, that turns out not to be the case, despite what Ed Willes has speculated.

That's the point of this and all the other things he's stating, he has one view, and no other can be correct. Feel free to hold an opinion, but to ignore other people's - or even to ignore factual evidence in some cases - is just asinine.

But, apparently Gillis is a failure for not submitting an offer sheet like Philly's considering there is no downside (or, as he added later, no downside if Nashville matches).


Do me a favour; share with us the same breakdown of Garrison's season/productivity.

D-Money already broke it down once, but I figured I'd do an even split:

How about we start with playoffs?
1g 2a 3pts -2 (.75ppg)

His last 39 games of the regular season?
5g 11a 16pts 0 (.41ppg)

His first 38 games of the regular season?
11g 6 a 17pts +6 (.45ppg)

source

So what did you want us to see exactly? That his goals went down? Well, his assists went up. When teams started playing Florida harder after they had begun winning games and focused on Garrison as a goal scorer, he adjusted and helped his team with assists.

He at least had enough left as a 28 year old come playoffs to elevate his ppg numbers that were consistent throughout season, where Salo's numbers (goals, assists, points, +/-, ppg) went down at every stage.

Is that definitive? No, but it certainly does suggest an issue when combined with Salo's age and injury history.

I would have liked to keep Salo and get Garrison, but with Salo earning the highest cap hit of his career on a 2 year 35+ deal, it clearly doesn't equate to him also being able to perform at or around the best of his career. It was the right move to let him go, just like it was when Ohlund signed with Tampa, and when Mitchell signed with LA. They all took more money when injuries or age - or both - were factors in their careers.

It's better to upgrade now even if they're similar at this point (I would think you'd agree since you think our window is so short - but you don't think it's an upgrade, your opinion) rather than not act on one of the top free agent defencemen that wanted to come play here this summer, and try and do it when Salo retires.

Nashville wouldn't trade Shea Weber "since 2008". The only reason they looked at it this off-season is because they realized they probably couldn't re-sign him long-term.Besides which, we didn't have the assets with which to acquire Weber in a trade and neither did Holmgren until he unloaded Carter and Richards. Weber would have looked great in a Canucks uni, but not at the cost of Daniel and Kesler.

Clearly, the Nashville situation changed dramatically this summer losing Suter, and with it Nashville's ability to keep Weber decreased.

I give up, he'll see what he wants to - whether it has merit or not. He can go buy Willes a beer and claim victory.

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

If this team lets go of Sang he will burn this team next year. 

 


#466 Canada Hockey Place

Canada Hockey Place

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,845 posts
  • Joined: 03-February 08

Posted 24 July 2012 - 11:45 AM

Seriously shut up about Salo.

If you're excited for a new player say you're excited about a new player. Salo received a better offer from TB. That's it. Deal with it.

General manager Steve Yzerman envisions Salo as a top-four contributor who plays 20 minutes a game and whose right-hand shot will be a formidable weapon on the power play.
"He is a good, solid player, a real pro, a high-character person," Yzerman said. "He'll be a good leader for our team.


"I'm feeling great," said Salo, who in 69 games last season with Vancouver (he missed six for a concussion and four for a groin) had nine goals, seven power-play goals, 25 points and was plus-7 with an average 20:26 of ice time.
"Last year was probably my healthiest in a long time. I hate when everybody talks about the injuries. A lot of things have gone with bad luck."

Salo said he has "two or three or four years left in me. I feel really good."


http://www.tampabay....icle1238284.ece

Quando omni flunkus moritati

#467 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 24 July 2012 - 11:51 AM

2008 - Needed top-6 forwards badly. Landed the most sought after forward (Sundin), and another top-10 free agent forward (Demitra). Signed a top RFA to an offersheet (Backes), but was matched, so traded for another highly-regarded young powerforward (Bernier).


LOVED the Sundin signing, even though it didn't really work out. That was maybe Gillis' biggest coup since being here. The intent was great, he was just what we needed.

Demitra, no. He did not work out, and I don't think many people expected him to. That was probably Gillis rewarding a guy who had employed him for so many years. Call a spade a spade.

You're forgetting another '08 pickup that I actually LOVED; Wellwood off of waivers. I'm a BIG Wellwood supporter. That was a great move, and it's too bad that it almost never happened after all of the waiver screw-ups that went down after training camp. Luckily for us, he was never claimed. Great move. He did good for us, even in his limited role.

2009 - Sundin retired, and Bernier didn't work out...but Kesler and Burrows took huge steps. Still could use another top-6 forward with size, and an offensive D-man to replace Ohlund. Signed Samuelsson to a reasonable amount, and pretty much stole Erhoff from the Sharks. Eye for talent proven, as both went on to have their 2 career years with the Nucks.


Must be pure coincidence that you forgot to mention the Mathieu Schneider signing, but, yes, that did actually happen. And it was a disaster.

Samuelsson was a surprise; I didn't like the signing, at the time. Turned out to be a good one. Trading him, though, was NOT.

2010 - Top-6 forwards working well, but needed a better bottom-6. Also, D-corps continues to be ravaged by injuries and exposed. Signed the top free-agent D-man available (Hamhuis), and traded for another highly regarded D (Ballard) - both with histories of avoiding injury (Ballard hadn't missed a game due to injury in nearly 4 years, Hamhuis had only missed 9 in 6 seasons). Signed Malhotra and Torres, giving us arguably the best 3rd line in the league (until Manny's freak injury). Best season in team history, and really could have been far better if not for all of the injury troubles (still think we beat Boston if Hamhuis wasn't hurt).


I didn't LOVE the Hamhuis signing. It was OK. Talented guy who's just too friendly on the ice. I hated the Malhotra signing, from day one. I also hated the Ballard trade, from day one.

2011 - Two of the best free agents available for the team's needs were the ones they picked up at the deadline - Lapierre and Higgins. So Gillis got them re-signed to very reasonable deals. There were some questions about Samuelsson's health, so MG got a similar player in similar questionable health in Sturm. By the time the year started, neither were ready to contribute. So before the season was even a few weeks old, he flipped both the question marks for Booth.


The Sturm signing was awful, made zero sense at the time. An obvious "move to make a move". I'm not a fan of either Higgins or Lapierre, even though their contracts are decent value.

2012 - Biggest team weakness seems to be D, particularly defensively. Also, powerplay fizzled in 2nd half of the year. So MG signs last year's 2nd leading PP goalscoring defenseman, who is also known for his shutdown abilities. Offseason not over, Luongo trade expected at some point.


Those "shutdown abilities" of Garrison's must be pretty spectacular, if he's "known" for them after less than 200 games played in the NHL. As I've said numerous times, I fully expect this signing to be a major flop.

#468 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 24 July 2012 - 12:00 PM

That's the point of this and all the other things he's stating, he has one view, and no other can be correct. Feel free to hold an opinion, but to ignore other people's - or even to ignore factual evidence in some cases - is just asinine.


Yes, that's how opinions work.

You think that everything Mike Gillis does is remarkable. You refuse to criticize anything that he or this organization has ever done. And that's your opinion; that's why these forums exist, to debate.

Posting a rah-rah story about how Jason Garrison coming home is going to turn him into the next Al MacInnis isn't "factual evidence", it's just the OPINION of someone else.


But, apparently Gillis is a failure for not submitting an offer sheet like Philly's considering there is no downside (or, as he added later, no downside if Nashville matches).


Do you understand what "downside" means?

There is downside risk INHERENT in EVERY contract that's signed. Injury, decline in play, whatever. There are INHERENT. Philadelphia is not exposed to any PUNISHMENT by signing Weber to that deal. Do you get it yet?!? Not a very difficult concept!

D-Money already broke it down once, but I figured I'd do an even split:

How about we start with playoffs?
1g 2a 3pts -2 (.75ppg)

His last 39 games of the regular season?
5g 11a 16pts 0 (.41ppg)

His first 38 games of the regular season?
11g 6 a 17pts +6 (.45ppg)


Nearly 70% of his goals were scored in the 1st half of the season...interesting...

Anyway, I really don't care, you think Garrison was a great signing, I don't, especially at the cost of Salo.

#469 ice orca

ice orca

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,635 posts
  • Joined: 07-October 10

Posted 24 July 2012 - 12:00 PM

LOVED the Sundin signing, even though it didn't really work out. That was maybe Gillis' biggest coup since being here. The intent was great, he was just what we needed.

Demitra, no. He did not work out, and I don't think many people expected him to. That was probably Gillis rewarding a guy who had employed him for so many years. Call a spade a spade.

You're forgetting another '08 pickup that I actually LOVED; Wellwood off of waivers. I'm a BIG Wellwood supporter. That was a great move, and it's too bad that it almost never happened after all of the waiver screw-ups that went down after training camp. Luckily for us, he was never claimed. Great move. He did good for us, even in his limited role.



Must be pure coincidence that you forgot to mention the Mathieu Schneider signing, but, yes, that did actually happen. And it was a disaster.

Samuelsson was a surprise; I didn't like the signing, at the time. Turned out to be a good one. Trading him, though, was NOT.



I didn't LOVE the Hamhuis signing. It was OK. Talented guy who's just too friendly on the ice. I hated the Malhotra signing, from day one. I also hated the Ballard trade, from day one.



The Sturm signing was awful, made zero sense at the time. An obvious "move to make a move". I'm not a fan of either Higgins or Lapierre, even though their contracts are decent value.



Those "shutdown abilities" of Garrison's must be pretty spectacular, if he's "known" for them after less than 200 games played in the NHL. As I've said numerous times, I fully expect this signing to be a major flop.


So if Garrison has a great year and i think he will i hope you dont get all pissy when i call you a major flop.

#470 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 24 July 2012 - 12:14 PM

So if Garrison has a great year and i think he will i hope you dont get all pissy when i call you a major flop.


Even if he has a great year, you should be aware of the fact that he's only completed 17% of his contract.

He'll have to have MULTIPLE great years for this deal to be considered a success.

#471 TheCammer

TheCammer

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,946 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 08

Posted 24 July 2012 - 12:20 PM

Nashville matches the offer. http://predators.nhl...s.htm?id=638547


Seems our GM was right.

258o0g4.jpg


#472 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 24 July 2012 - 12:24 PM

Nashville matches the offer. http://predators.nhl...s.htm?id=638547


Seems our GM was right.


:picard:

This does not make him "right". Poile probably told all GMs that he'd match any offer. Holmgren made him put his money where his mouth is, at a cost of NOTHING and with the potential upside of landing Weber for draft picks.

By no means can you call Gillis "right" for not signing Weber to an offer sheet. Paul Holmgren and the Philadelphia Flyers now proceed to MOVE ON as if nothing happened.

#473 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,105 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 24 July 2012 - 12:46 PM

:picard:

This does not make him "right". Poile probably told all GMs that he'd match any offer. Holmgren made him put his money where his mouth is, at a cost of NOTHING and with the potential upside of landing Weber for draft picks.

By no means can you call Gillis "right" for not signing Weber to an offer sheet. Paul Holmgren and the Philadelphia Flyers now proceed to MOVE ON as if nothing happened.

Unless you consider the possibility of Weber becoming a UFA next season. Instead of throwing big money at him, now you have to give up significant pieces of your roster and pay huge money to acquire him.

Since Gillis decided (and rightly so, despite what you say) that Poile would match any offer sheet, it would seem that the "patient" approach (ie. waiting for Weber to hit the open market) was better than the Holmgren approach of going "all-in", forcing Poile to match a multi-year deal, rather than signing Weber to a one-year deal which is likely all SW would have comitted to.

Of course that last sentence assumes that Ed Willes is correct in his statement that Weber "wanted to come to Vancouver"....

Edited by RUPERTKBD, 24 July 2012 - 12:48 PM.

Orland Kurtenbach and Dennis Kearns had just been torched 8-1 by the Habs, but they still took time to come out to meet us, some fellow BC boys who were playing hockey in Montreal. THAT"S what being a Canuck is!

#474 D-Money

D-Money

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,376 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 06

Posted 24 July 2012 - 01:01 PM

LOVED the Sundin signing, even though it didn't really work out. That was maybe Gillis' biggest coup since being here. The intent was great, he was just what we needed.

Demitra, no. He did not work out, and I don't think many people expected him to. That was probably Gillis rewarding a guy who had employed him for so many years. Call a spade a spade.


Demitra was excellent his first season here. Scored 20 goals and 53 points in only 69 games in a 2nd line role. Plus I think he provided some needed leadership. It's too bad he had all of the injury troubles, or he may have been more successful his second year. RIP.


You're forgetting another '08 pickup that I actually LOVED; Wellwood off of waivers. I'm a BIG Wellwood supporter. That was a great move, and it's too bad that it almost never happened after all of the waiver screw-ups that went down after training camp. Luckily for us, he was never claimed. Great move. He did good for us, even in his limited role.


Wellwood was a great pick-up for what he cost, but I was focusing more on how Gillis has been able to acquire "big fish" - or highly sought-after players. Not a waiver-wire pick-up.


Must be pure coincidence that you forgot to mention the Mathieu Schneider signing, but, yes, that did actually happen. And it was a disaster.


Again, "big fish". Plus, "disaster"? We got him for nothing, he didn't work out, and shipped him out in short order. No loss, no gain.


Samuelsson was a surprise; I didn't like the signing, at the time. Turned out to be a good one. Trading him, though, was NOT.


Samuelsson was a coup. Glad to hear your track record - hope you're just as right about Garrison.


I didn't LOVE the Hamhuis signing. It was OK. Talented guy who's just too friendly on the ice. I hated the Malhotra signing, from day one. I also hated the Ballard trade, from day one.


Hamhuis has been our best defenseman since arriving - bar none. In fact, I'd argue that he may go down as one of the best defensemen the Nucks have ever had (up with Lumme, Ohlund in his prime). Getting him for nothing, and for far less cash than what guys like Suter are raking in (I'd put Hamhuis and him at about the same level) was fantastic.

Manny was getting early consideration for the Selke - his freak injury is the only thing that has held him back.


The Sturm signing was awful, made zero sense at the time. An obvious "move to make a move". I'm not a fan of either Higgins or Lapierre, even though their contracts are decent value.



Sturm was a gamble that didn't pay off. However, he was acquired for nothing, and then shipped out immediately to get Booth. So overall, his acquisition was still a positive.

Not a fan of Higgins or Lapierre? At a combined cap hit of 2.9 million? Then what do you really know anyway?

PBF020-Skub.gif


#475 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,214 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 24 July 2012 - 01:10 PM

:picard:

This does not make him "right". Poile probably told all GMs that he'd match any offer. Holmgren made him put his money where his mouth is, at a cost of NOTHING and with the potential upside of landing Weber for draft picks.

By no means can you call Gillis "right" for not signing Weber to an offer sheet. Paul Holmgren and the Philadelphia Flyers now proceed to MOVE ON as if nothing happened.

And now you try and save face by ignoring facts.

I've been trying to tell you this whole thread that by no means can you call Gillis a failure because he felt Nashville would match anything (which was something Poile had told the whole league, publicly even), but when Gillis was proved correct you say by no means can you call Gillis right.

As far as Philly moving on, Vancouver does too - except by their plan they would have had a shot to get him for nothing but salary in free agency next year. Now he's a Pred for life unless a trade involving major assets is made a year or later from now.

I'm not hear to gloat, I'm not here to kick sand in your face (it's pretty clear you'd ignore either and say the sky is green if I was), I'm here as a sobering reminder that you can't have it all one way and can, in fact, be wrong.

I'll leave that up to you on how much you think you were wrong about anything, but Gillis was right about Nashville matching any attempts at a huge value, long term offer sheet and that his best option to get Weber was to sign him to a one year offer sheet and then go after him in free agency instead.

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

If this team lets go of Sang he will burn this team next year. 

 


#476 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 24 July 2012 - 01:11 PM

Since Gillis decided (and rightly so, despite what you say) that Poile would match any offer sheet, it would seem that the "patient" approach (ie. waiting for Weber to hit the open market) was better than the Holmgren approach of going "all-in", forcing Poile to match a multi-year deal, rather than signing Weber to a one-year deal which is likely all SW would have comitted to.


Look, we don't have the luxury of "being patient". Too old.

If Holmgren doesn't throw out the offer sheet, Weber either signs an extension in NAS, or indicates that he wants to be traded at some point during the season so that he can sign elsewhere. He probably wouldn't be traded here, because we really don't have much that would likely interest the Preds. Meaning that Vancouver's best chance to land Weber probably would've been signing him to an offer sheet a la Paul Holmgren. Don't think that this decision was automatic, either. If the Preds were THAT confident in this decision, they would've announced it being matched an hour after it happened, not 6 days.

Holmgren tried, Nashville matched. Applause to both. No different than when Gillis tried with Backes. That was a good attempt.

#477 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,214 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 24 July 2012 - 01:19 PM

...
Not a fan of Higgins or Lapierre? At a combined cap hit of 2.9 million? Then what do you really know anyway?

The rest of your post had some decent analysis as well, but the last line made me laugh. Perhaps they weren't bold enough since they're only 3rd/4th liners - but then he's a huge fan of the Wellwood pickup, so who knows.

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

If this team lets go of Sang he will burn this team next year. 

 


#478 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 24 July 2012 - 01:19 PM

Wellwood was a great pick-up for what he cost, but I was focusing more on how Gillis has been able to acquire "big fish" - or highly sought-after players. Not a waiver-wire pick-up.


OK, well, I wouldn't call Pavol Demitra or Mikael Samuelsson a "big fish". Samuelsson was on Detroit's 3rd line. Demitra was far past his prime.

Again, "big fish". Plus, "disaster"? We got him for nothing, he didn't work out, and shipped him out in short order. No loss, no gain.


Yeah, no loss except the cap hit and the roster spot out of training camp, I guess.

Hamhuis has been our best defenseman since arriving - bar none. In fact, I'd argue that he may go down as one of the best defensemen the Nucks have ever had (up with Lumme, Ohlund in his prime). Getting him for nothing, and for far less cash than what guys like Suter are raking in (I'd put Hamhuis and him at about the same level) was fantastic.


Hamhuis' contract looks excellent relative to Suter's but you can't compare a 2010 market to a 2012 one.

He's not one of the best defensemen the Canucks have ever had. He's OK. Skilled, reliable, not spectacular. A 2 - 3 defenceman.

Sturm was a gamble that didn't pay off. However, he was acquired for nothing, and then shipped out immediately to get Booth. So overall, his acquisition was still a positive.


Booth is not a good player. Short-sighted trade. Samuelsson could've helped us more, especially in the playoffs.

Not a fan of Higgins or Lapierre? At a combined cap hit of 2.9 million? Then what do you really know anyway?


I said that their contracts were fine. I don't like them as players, though. Lapierre gets the other team too angry (and thus, in a peak mental state to win), and I've never liked Higgins. I lived in Calgary when he was on their team. Pitiful. He's the kind of guy that shies away when the going gets tough.

#479 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,105 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 24 July 2012 - 01:20 PM

Look, we don't have the luxury of "being patient". Too old.  

If Holmgren doesn't throw out the offer sheet, Weber either signs an extension in NAS, or indicates that he wants to be traded at some point during the season so that he can sign elsewhere. He probably wouldn't be traded here, because we really don't have much that would likely interest the Preds. Meaning that Vancouver's best chance to land Weber probably would've been signing him to an offer sheet a la Paul Holmgren. Don't think that this decision was automatic, either. If the Preds were THAT confident in this decision, they would've announced it being matched an hour after it happened, not 6 days.

Holmgren tried, Nashville matched. Applause to both. No different than when Gillis tried with Backes. That was a good attempt.


I disagree. If Weber wanted to come to Vancouver as you stated in your OP, he would have signed a one-year deal with the Preds and then gone to free-agency next year.

That would have been the Canucks' best chance at acquiring Weber, IMO.
Orland Kurtenbach and Dennis Kearns had just been torched 8-1 by the Habs, but they still took time to come out to meet us, some fellow BC boys who were playing hockey in Montreal. THAT"S what being a Canuck is!

#480 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 24 July 2012 - 01:24 PM

I'll leave that up to you on how much you think you were wrong about anything, but Gillis was right about Nashville matching any attempts at a huge value, long term offer sheet and that his best option to get Weber was to sign him to a one year offer sheet and then go after him in free agency instead.


Oh wow, Gillis is such a sage, isn't he?

You're all missing the point, really except for PMB. I'm a trader, so I often think in terms of upside/downside. Here's the analysis from Philadelphia's perspective:

UPSIDE:
-NAS decides that they either can't afford or don't want to bring back a possibly disgruntled Weber, and choose instead to let it go.

DOWNSIDE:
-....

Mike Gillis would've lost nothing by trying. Without trying, he could've hoped and prayed that Weber made it to free agency in 2013 without either being extended or traded somewhere else and signed, but there are pretty clearly HUGE RISKS associated with that, as well.

All I can say is that him and Gilman are L-U-C-K-Y that Nashville matched, because the "Well, we just assumed that they'd match!" phrase would go down forever in Canuck history with the likes of "it is what it is", "we choked", "I'll drive him to the airport myself", etc.




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.