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

#481 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,028 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 24 July 2012 - 01:26 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.

Well, that or the option that was mentioned directly by Gillis and the Canucks to get him to sign a one year offer sheet and go after him without losing any picks in free agency next year. Weber wasn't convinced though, and regardless of the Philly option that didn't work or the Vancouver option he didn't like, Weber is stuck in Nashville for at least one more year.

Maybe that's not a bad thing for him, but if that was the case, why wouldn't he have avoided the circus and just signed a similar deal with Nashville to begin with? He did it for one of two reasons: because he wanted out, or he wanted to force Nashville to offer a contract that could potentially jeopardize the financial health of the franchise just so he could stay there.

What do you think is more likely?
  • 0
Posted ImagePosted Image

#482 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 24 July 2012 - 01:26 PM

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.


Yep, and except for that small part of Shea Weber risking tens of millions of dollars to do this, and thus having NO INTEREST AT ALL in it (justifiably), it would've been a great idea.
  • 0

#483 JLumme

JLumme

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,106 posts
  • Joined: 06-January 09

Posted 24 July 2012 - 01:26 PM

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?


I really like your post, but I have to point out that Gillis' reward is millions of dollars, an awesome job and literally winning the prize of being the best GM.
  • 0

#484 TheCammer

TheCammer

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,582 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 08

Posted 24 July 2012 - 01:27 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.

:picard:

He was absolutely right in his assessment of the situation. According to the discussion yesterday they sat with Shea for three hours and likely discussed the scenario of the one year offer to make Shea a UFA next year. This was not something Weber wanted and the Canucks determined that if the Predators matched a long term deal like the pone Holmgrem offered Weber would never be a Canuck.

I can't understand how you don't see that.
  • 3
Posted Image

#485 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,028 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 24 July 2012 - 01:32 PM

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.

Spelling words out in capital letters and putting dashes between them doesn't make it true. Maybe try bold, italics, funky fonts and colours and see if that works.

You've ignored any points about potential downside, and that's fine, believe what you want. You can also believe Gillis was hoping and praying by choosing the route of trying to convince Weber free agency was the best bet. You can't, however, believe that Nashville would be able to extend him or trade him after a one year offer sheet because if he'd signed it he would have obviously wanted out, and Nashville wouldn't have had the option to trade him before he became a UFA.

If Weber didn't want out, then what could Gillis have done anyways?

Yep, and except for that small part of Shea Weber risking tens of millions of dollars to do this, and thus having NO INTEREST AT ALL in it (justifiably), it would've been a great idea.

Millions of dollars is great, no question. It doesn't change the fact that Gillis pursued the most likely method that would make Weber a Canuck without costing assets they didn't have or didn't want to give up via trade.

Offering him millions of dollars clearly didn't work, no downside or not, so it's not Gillis' fault that Philly failed to buy Weber's way out of Nashville.

Edited by elvis15, 24 July 2012 - 01:37 PM.

  • 1
Posted ImagePosted Image

#486 Mastaj

Mastaj

    Comets Star

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

Posted 24 July 2012 - 01:33 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.


ES will never be convinced of anything, other than Gillis failed. He's dammed simply because another team submitted an offer sheet that wasn't the Canucks, and on that fact alone, Gillis is a terrible GM. Despite the facts clearly stating that Gillis explored several options, even a 1-year, $14million dollar one. Despite the fact that Nashville has matched, which is what Gillis predicted they would.

And was there a downside to signing Weber to an offer sheet? You're damn right there was - by doing so, Philly focused so intently on signing Weber, to the detriment of making any OTHER moves. Philly was interested in Rick Nash - but they couldn't involve themselves in any such trade, until they knew what would happen with Weber. Too much cap space was held up in a "potential" deal.

Anyhow, it's your opinion, and you are free to feel that Gillis has failed the Canucks. I am actually not a big fan of Gillis myself, but in no way do I think that not tendering on offer to Weber makes him a failure.
  • 0
Go Banana!!
-Ralph Wiggum

#487 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,082 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 24 July 2012 - 01:35 PM

Yep, and except for that small part of Shea Weber risking tens of millions of dollars to do this, and thus having NO INTEREST AT ALL in it (justifiably), it would've been a great idea.


Pure speculation. If Willes (and you) were correct in the assertion that Weber wanted to come to Vancouver, he certainly would have had some interest in it.

It seems apparent that he had more interest in getting paid.

Not that I have an issue with that, he has every right to think of himself first. However, it's unfair to say that Gillis somehow messed up on a deal that was his to make.
  • 0
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!

#488 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 24 July 2012 - 01:35 PM

Well, that or the option that was mentioned directly by Gillis and the Canucks to get him to sign a one year offer sheet and go after him without losing any picks in free agency next year. Weber wasn't convinced though, and regardless of the Philly option that didn't work or the Vancouver option he didn't like, Weber is stuck in Nashville for at least one more year.


Why would Weber do that? Seriously, think about it for a minute. The CBA could be adjusted next year to ban the "lifetime"-type contracts. And then, he's screwed. There's too much money at stake here to do a foolish move like that, which could kill your career. Just ask Matt Leinart.

And then there are other risks. What if the Canucks just bomb this year, and don't make the playoffs? What if the Sedin's suffer a steep decline? What if Gillis makes a few other boneheaded trades, mid-season? There are a lot of negatives around this organization that seem to be converging at the same (like, now). If there's a pullback this season (likely, IMO), and if Vancouver's future isn't looking too bright in the summer of 2013, and If Weber becomes a UFA, and if his interest is a Stanley Cup, why would he rather come to Vancouver than, say, Pittsburgh, or Philadelphia?

And besides, do you think Nashville would be more likely to match a 1-year, $14M offer, or a 14-year, $110M offer? They would've matched Gillis' offer 10 minutes after it was received.

Maybe that's not a bad thing for him, but if that was the case, why wouldn't he have avoided the circus and just signed a similar deal with Nashville to begin with? He did it for one of two reasons: because he wanted out, or he wanted to force Nashville to offer a contract that could potentially jeopardize the financial health of the franchise just so he could stay there.

What do you think is more likely?


I would think that he'd probably PREFER to play in a place like Philadelphia, or Vancouver, but he is also CLEARLY happy to stay in Nashville, or else he simply would not have exposed himself to the possibility of doing so.
  • 0

#489 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,082 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 24 July 2012 - 01:38 PM

Why would Weber do that? Seriously, think about it for a minute. The CBA could be adjusted next year to ban the "lifetime"-type contracts. And then, he's screwed.


In as much as someone who's just signed a contract for 14 million dollars could consider themselves "screwed", I suppose you're correct...
  • 0
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!

#490 NuxFan09

NuxFan09

    Canucks Third-Line

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

Posted 24 July 2012 - 01:54 PM

So Nashville ended up doing what they knew they needed to do and matched the offer sheet so they could keep their captain and face of the franchise for the next 14 years.

Oh, and Gillis/Gillman called it.
  • 0

#491 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,028 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 24 July 2012 - 01:55 PM

Why would Weber do that? Seriously, think about it for a minute. The CBA could be adjusted next year to ban the "lifetime"-type contracts. And then, he's screwed. There's too much money at stake here to do a foolish move like that, which could kill your career. Just ask Matt Leinart.

And then there are other risks. What if the Canucks just bomb this year, and don't make the playoffs? What if the Sedin's suffer a steep decline? What if Gillis makes a few other boneheaded trades, mid-season? There are a lot of negatives around this organization that seem to be converging at the same (like, now). If there's a pullback this season (likely, IMO), and if Vancouver's future isn't looking too bright in the summer of 2013, and If Weber becomes a UFA, and if his interest is a Stanley Cup, why would he rather come to Vancouver than, say, Pittsburgh, or Philadelphia?

And besides, do you think Nashville would be more likely to match a 1-year, $14M offer, or a 14-year, $110M offer? They would've matched Gillis' offer 10 minutes after it was received.

I would think that he'd probably PREFER to play in a place like Philadelphia, or Vancouver, but he is also CLEARLY happy to stay in Nashville, or else he simply would not have exposed himself to the possibility of doing so.

What if, what if, what if? You clearly didn't like the what if game when talking about how Salo seemed to be on a decline while Garrison is more likely to be better going forward. The what if game was around earlier in the thread too, and you shot it down like you were playing Duck Hunt in your parent's basement.

You've missed the point again (and again, and again...) where a one year offer sheet had a strong intention that Nashville would match, and then Weber would be a UFA and Nashville could potentially lose him. I'd even argue the percentage of Nashville not matching Philly's huge offer sheet was about the same as the percentage that they would not have matched Vancouver's one year offer sheet since they knew he could walk at the end of the season for nothing if they did. We could have offered a lesser cap hit as a result and only had to worry about giving up two 1sts, a 2nd and a 3rd and then given him the maximum deal possible when the opportunity to re-sign rolled around. Clearly no downside to offering that, which was what they did discuss with Weber.

Just because Weber didn't like it, that's on him, not Gillis. He took the money rather than an opportunity to play near to home, so that's what was important to him. Security is great, so I don't fault him, but it doesn't mean we had a better chance or even equal chance to any of the other teams - including Nashville - to get him in a Vancouver jersey.

Shocking how there are so many possibilities you've failed to comprehend, and you're so bull-headed on a tact that clearly failed where you'd rather say anything else was a failure.

I'll leave off with this, a re-quote from one of my posts earlier. It may not apply 100% to you, but clearly you have something going on beyond what was a reasonable thought process by Gillis and co.:
SHOULD GILLIS HAVE MADE THE HOLMGREN OFFER?

Is it fair to criticize Mike Gillis for not being as bat-crap crazy as Paul Holmgren? I don't really think so, not that it will stop anyone.
...
This is what the anger and criticism being directed towards Mike Gillis over the past few days is actually all about, I think: the death of the Shea Weber fantasy. But if the Canucks were going to make a move to go after an elite, 1A defenseman, I'd prefer them to go about it in a way that actually, you know, lands that blue-chip 1A blueliner! For the Canucks, who didn't have the trade chips to compete with the Rangers, Flyers or Red Wings, the only real hope was that Weber wanted out of Nashville and was committed to doing everything in his power to hit unrestricted free-agency, personal costs be damned.


Edited by elvis15, 24 July 2012 - 01:57 PM.

  • 1
Posted ImagePosted Image

#492 Drybone

Drybone

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,403 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 12

Posted 24 July 2012 - 02:06 PM

So Nashville ended up doing what they knew they needed to do and matched the offer sheet so they could keep their captain and face of the franchise for the next 14 years.

Oh, and Gillis/Gillman called it.


I called it before that, but Im sure Gillis privately called it the minute he heard about the offer sheet.
  • 0
Posted Image

#493 Tearloch7

Tearloch7

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,038 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 24 July 2012 - 02:08 PM

As my dear Daddy always said, "What if the dog hadn't stopped to sh!t?? .. why he would'a caught the rabbit" .. "should-woulda- coulda" .. there is no place for it in today's CDC .. :lol:
  • 0
"To Thine Own Self Be True"

#494 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 24 July 2012 - 02:10 PM

What if, what if, what if? You clearly didn't like the what if game when talking about how Salo seemed to be on a decline while Garrison is more likely to be better going forward. The what if game was around earlier in the thread too, and you shot it down like you were playing Duck Hunt in your parent's basement.


Salo's 37 years old, Garrison is 28. The one that is more likely to be on the decline is pretty obvious. But for a supposed Cup-contender, would I rather have Salo's contract, or Garrison's contract? Salo's, easily. I'm already sickened by all of the excuses that I'll see everywhere on this board, when Garrison walks in and underwhelms:

-"Oh, he's young. Give him time".
-"Oh, he came from Florida. It's an adjustment to a hockey market".
-"Oh, he's just getting used to our system. He'll be fine."

AKA, the things we heard about Keith Ballard since roughly November 2010.

You've missed the point again (and again, and again...) where a one year offer sheet had a strong intention that Nashville would match, and then Weber would be a UFA and Nashville could potentially lose him. I'd even argue the percentage of Nashville not matching Philly's huge offer sheet was about the same as the percentage that they would not have matched Vancouver's one year offer sheet since they knew he could walk at the end of the season for nothing if they did. We could have offered a lesser cap hit as a result and only had to worry about giving up two 1sts, a 2nd and a 3rd and then given him the maximum deal possible when the opportunity to re-sign rolled around. Clearly no downside to offering that, which was what they did discuss with Weber.


Yep, fair enough. One possibility. But surely, the odds of Weber playing out the year in Nashville, without getting traded (to Philly, for example), with Poile having the knowledge that he's not interested in signing L/T, would be pretty lean.

Just because Weber didn't like it, that's on him, not Gillis.


Well, I think it's pretty obvious why he liked Philly's OFFER better than Gillis' idea. With Gillis' idea, Weber takes all the risk, Gillis gets him a year later for absolutely nothing. Nice thought, but so is a sleepover with 5 Playmates. Weber's not stupid.
  • 0

#495 Kesler_smash

Kesler_smash

    Comets Regular

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

Posted 24 July 2012 - 03:05 PM

Troll thread proven pointless...
  • 0

#496 thad

thad

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,887 posts
  • Joined: 09-February 09

Posted 24 July 2012 - 03:10 PM

A little premature with your tweets eh Ed?

Everyone calls gillis an idiot for calling exactly what was going to happen.

King of ES, we know weber is not an idiot and almost anyone would take the money. But you and others have repeatedly called gillis out for not trying to get weber. In fact gillis went and sat down with him as soon as he could and laid out the only plan that could get him out of Nashville(if that was his top priority). It was apparently not his top priority and the money was(can't blame him).
  • 0

#497 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,706 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 24 July 2012 - 03:12 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.


So basically you're mad at Gillis for not pursuing an exercise in futility purely to grant you the brief illusion that Weber would be a Canuck simply to make you feel better. A futile exercise that eliminates any chance of Weber ever becoming a UFA during his career and having the freedom to sign here if he ever actually wanted to be a Canuck in the first place.

Well, despite it not being at MG's hands you have your end result. He's now a Pred for life and the Weber stupidity here can finally come to a close.
  • 1
Posted Image

#498 Kesler_smash

Kesler_smash

    Comets Regular

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

Posted 24 July 2012 - 03:13 PM

Now when you look at it, if Weber really wanted out of NSH signing the offer sheet was a big mistake. Instead of playing out his last year and becoming a UFA he's now basically in a lifetime contract with the Preds. Sure he could be traded but I see that as a lot less likely with that contract and probably not for a few years if at all.
  • 0

#499 TheCammer

TheCammer

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,582 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 08

Posted 24 July 2012 - 03:21 PM

Now when you look at it, if Weber really wanted out of NSH signing the offer sheet was a big mistake. Instead of playing out his last year and becoming a UFA he's now basically in a lifetime contract with the Preds. Sure he could be traded but I see that as a lot less likely with that contract and probably not for a few years if at all.

What Weber wanted was BIG GUARANTEED LONG-TERM $$$ before the new CBA. You can't blame him, he's got life long security for him and future generations of Webers. Signing the sheet with Philly may have been an attempt to get out of Nashville but ill-advised at best.
  • 0
Posted Image

#500 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 24 July 2012 - 03:27 PM

So basically you're mad at Gillis for not pursuing an exercise in futility purely to grant you the brief illusion that Weber would be a Canuck simply to make you feel better. A futile exercise that eliminates any chance of Weber ever becoming a UFA during his career and having the freedom to sign here if he ever actually wanted to be a Canuck in the first place.


It wasn't an "exercise in futility" until Poile matched it. The whole time, Holmgren probably had roughly a 45% chance at landing Weber with this deal. It went to the 6th day for a reason. He had that chance at all because he went for it - and he was a lot closer than any other GM in the league.

This was really Gillis' ONLY shot at landing him, because this franchise's ability to draft is so non-existent that we've really got nothing in the way of young assets that we could offer through trade.

Anyway, here's one thing that I can GUARANTEE: if it were GILLIS that had made the offer, this board would've CRASHED with the following sentiment, EVERYWHERE:

-"There's your bold move, guys! WE MIGHT HAVE SHEA WEBER!!!"
-"OMG, Gillis is God!"
-"This is a huge statement that Shea Weber wants to be a CANUCK!!"

And then, once Poile matched:

-"I can't applaud Gillis enough for having the balls to go out and try to get him"
-"So great to see that Gillis is prepared to do whatever it takes for this team to win"

Seriously, tell me I'm wrong. This site's servers would've EXPLODED if it were the Canucks that signed him to that deal.
  • 1

#501 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 24 July 2012 - 03:30 PM

Signing the sheet with Philly may have been an attempt to get out of Nashville but ill-advised at best.


And that's exactly why he wasn't trying to do that. He wanted to make sure that he got paid under this current CBA's rules. Nashville is a very, very well-ran organization. People talk about "Moneypuck" around here, like Mike Gillis somehow employs it (laughable), but that's absolutely Nashville. Cost-per-point is MILES ahead of anyone else.
  • 0

#502 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,082 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 24 July 2012 - 03:30 PM

It wasn't an "exercise in futility" until Poile matched it. The whole time, Holmgren probably had roughly a 45% chance at landing Weber with this deal. It went to the 6th day for a reason. He had that chance at all because he went for it - and he was a lot closer than any other GM in the league.

This was really Gillis' ONLY shot at landing him, because this franchise's ability to draft is so non-existent that we've really got nothing in the way of young assets that we could offer through trade.

Anyway, here's one thing that I can GUARANTEE: if it were GILLIS that had made the offer, this board would've CRASHED with the following sentiment, EVERYWHERE:

-"There's your bold move, guys! WE MIGHT HAVE SHEA WEBER!!!"
-"OMG, Gillis is God!"
-"This is a huge statement that Shea Weber wants to be a CANUCK!!"

And then, once Poile matched:

-"I can't applaud Gillis enough for having the balls to go out and try to get him"
-"So great to see that Gillis is prepared to do whatever it takes for this team to win"

Seriously, tell me I'm wrong. This site's servers would've EXPLODED if it were the Canucks that signed him to that deal.


So....basically your argument is that Gillis is an idiot for not giving all the CDC fanbois a reason to slap the salami....

...gotcha!
  • 1
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!

#503 Duodenum

Duodenum

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,505 posts
  • Joined: 29-July 07

Posted 24 July 2012 - 03:33 PM

What Weber wanted was money, plain and simple. I doubt he cared where from. Now he's got it and cash-strapped the Preds in the process, eliminating the chance of any big improvements to their line-up.

You want an example of a player who chooses money over success, here's your prime example. That being said, there aren't many players that would turn down a deal like that.
  • 0
Posted ImagePosted Image

#504 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 24 July 2012 - 03:40 PM

So....basically your argument is that Gillis is an idiot for not giving all the CDC fanbois a reason to slap the salami...


My stance this whole time has only been that it's really disappointing that Gillis didn't think it was worthwhile enough to even TRY going this route. Philly was close. They didn't get him, and now they move on at no cost. No biggie.

And don't suggest that Weber should've signed a 1-year deal and been a UFA in 2013. He ain't committing financial suicide to pick and choose where he wants to play.

Edited by King of the ES, 24 July 2012 - 03:41 PM.

  • 0

#505 thad

thad

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,887 posts
  • Joined: 09-February 09

Posted 24 July 2012 - 03:44 PM

Actually king of ES, gillis "ONLY" shot at landing him was if he took the one year offer sheet making him UFA in a year.. Or if Holmgren had the brains gillis had and realized Nashville would match any offer.

IMO the one year offersheet was the only chance because I bet weber would have eventually signed a deal with Nashville to get his contract under the old Cba.

All in all there was absolutely no way to land weber because he wanted a long term offer more than he wanted out of Nashville. Gillis knew this and continued to focus his time on the Canucks, instead of spending all summer on a complete pipedream... I'd rather have him focus on doan than an offersheet that would obviously get matched.
  • 0

#506 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,082 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 24 July 2012 - 03:48 PM

My stance this whole time has only been that it's really disappointing that Gillis didn't think it was worthwhile enough to even TRY going this route. Philly was close. They didn't get him, and now they move on at no cost. No biggie.

And don't suggest that Weber should've signed a 1-year deal and been a UFA in 2013. He ain't committing financial suicide to pick and choose where he wants to play.


I've mentioned this several times (as have others) but you continually ignore it: There was a "cost".

Weber is now a Pred for life, at a huge Cap hit. Homer could have done the same as Gillis and let Weber get to UFA status.

At that point, he could have thrown the big money at him. Now it's going to cost him big money plus Schenn and Coutourier, etc.
  • 0
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!

#507 Mastaj

Mastaj

    Comets Star

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

Posted 24 July 2012 - 04:16 PM

My stance this whole time has only been that it's really disappointing that Gillis didn't think it was worthwhile enough to even TRY going this route. Philly was close. They didn't get him, and now they move on at no cost. No biggie.

And don't suggest that Weber should've signed a 1-year deal and been a UFA in 2013. He ain't committing financial suicide to pick and choose where he wants to play.


Keep telling yourself this, if you like. The FACT is, there WAS a cost, and that was that they could not make ANY OTHER MOVES until after they knew the outcome of the Weber offer sheet.

(Look, I can use C-A-P-S too!)

You think because Nashville waited 6-days that they were "47%" close to getting him? No, that was a 6-day punishment for Philly, handcuffing them so they could not go after other players such as RICK NASH (who they were interested in).

Nashville knew instantly that they would match. If they had the financial resources to make a $100million pitch to both Suter and Parise, they have the financial resources to match Weber.
  • 0
Go Banana!!
-Ralph Wiggum

#508 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,028 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 24 July 2012 - 05:48 PM

Salo's 37 years old, Garrison is 28. The one that is more likely to be on the decline is pretty obvious. But for a supposed Cup-contender, would I rather have Salo's contract, or Garrison's contract? Salo's, easily. I'm already sickened by all of the excuses that I'll see everywhere on this board, when Garrison walks in and underwhelms:

-"Oh, he's young. Give him time".
-"Oh, he came from Florida. It's an adjustment to a hockey market".
-"Oh, he's just getting used to our system. He'll be fine."

AKA, the things we heard about Keith Ballard since roughly November 2010.

I don't remember anyone guaranteeing Garrison would be an obvious and immediate upgrade on Salo. Certainly we've been saying he'll be able to do similar to what Salo had produced for us last year while not being a downgrade, and will be a definite upgrade in future considering Salo's age and likelihood of retirement soon.

Blaming one for another's performance is a fallacy. Just because he and Ballard are both from Florida doesn't mean they'll both have the same results coming here. Is it possible? Yes. Is it likely? No.

It's just as likely that Weber won't live up to a massive contract without Suter to be his partner, but you never complained about that.

Yep, fair enough. One possibility. But surely, the odds of Weber playing out the year in Nashville, without getting traded (to Philly, for example), with Poile having the knowledge that he's not interested in signing L/T, would be pretty lean.

It's a possibility we've been trying to tell you about for some time.

If you understood how offer sheets worked, you'd know by Nashville matching any offer sheet they are forced to keep him for one year. One year, not one season. By this time next year they would already have paid out two signing bonuses worth $13M each (and $1M in salary if there's no lockout).

That means he'd be a UFA before Nashville would be able to trade him in Gillis' scenario (oddly enough, why Gillis suggested it like we've been saying). That means the odds would be 100% Weber would play out the year in Nashville without getting traded and be a UFA come this time next year.

Even with this current offer sheet, Nashville is forced to keep him until this time next year (two signing bonuses paid out, $1M in salary) so they could be likely to try and keep him until the trade deadline to get a better return for him. Maybe they try and keep him longer term even if he wants out considering the cash they'll have invested.

Plenty of reasons to see how Weber will be stuck there longer in his current scenario than if he'd gone the one year route. Maybe he'll be happy with that, maybe not if they can't improve because of his massive contract.

Well, I think it's pretty obvious why he liked Philly's OFFER better than Gillis' idea. With Gillis' idea, Weber takes all the risk, Gillis gets him a year later for absolutely nothing. Nice thought, but so is a sleepover with 5 Playmates. Weber's not stupid.

Never said he was stupid, never said he wouldn't be risking losing potential income. In this case he was trying to get the sleepover with the 5 playmates rather than picking up the cute girl next door he wanted growing up. Too bad he had to settle for the same girl he's been thinking about leaving for some time, regardless of how nice she is.

I am glad you were able to pin a percentage on how much chance Holmgren had (45%? what formula did you use to come up with that?). The board probably would have gone crazy, almost as crazy as when Nashville matched and people were outraged that he was now locked up long term instead of having the option to come here as a UFA next year.
  • 0
Posted ImagePosted Image

#509 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 24 July 2012 - 06:28 PM

Keep telling yourself this, if you like. The FACT is, there WAS a cost, and that was that they could not make ANY OTHER MOVES until after they knew the outcome of the Weber offer sheet.

You think because Nashville waited 6-days that they were "47%" close to getting him? No, that was a 6-day punishment for Philly, handcuffing them so they could not go after other players such as RICK NASH (who they were interested in).


Complete and utter BS.

Look what CBJ got for Nash. At ANY point, Philly could've gotten him with a single phone call.

And what sort of drooling idiot do you take Paul Holmgren to be? Do you really think that he sent out the offer, and 10 minutes later realized, Oh, $!&*#! Now I can't make any other major roster moves for a whole week! Whoops! Guess I should've read the offer sheet protocol first!

Of course not. This was a calculated move. And in no way was this an impediment to a Rick Nash deal, which Nashville "screwed them" out of.
  • 0

#510 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 24 July 2012 - 06:35 PM

I am glad you were able to pin a percentage on how much chance Holmgren had (45%? what formula did you use to come up with that?). The board probably would have gone crazy, almost as crazy as when Nashville matched and people were outraged that he was now locked up long term instead of having the option to come here as a UFA next year.


In 2013, when the Sedin's are 33, Burrows & Bieksa are 32, Hamhuis is 31, etc.

Seriously, am I the only one that feels a sense of urgency here, if this organization ever wants to actually win a CUP?
  • 0




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.