Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
* * - - - 3 votes

Anyone else feel bad for Gillis?


  • Please log in to reply
329 replies to this topic

#301 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,710 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 05 August 2012 - 04:39 PM

Dave Nonis was fired because of the 2007-08 collapse, which WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED if he had acquired Brad Richards, which he could have, at a cost of Kesler + Edler + Schneider.


Was there anything else coming back to Vancouver in this deal, other than Richards? Holy overpayment.

regards,
G.
  • 0
Following the Canucks since before Don Cherry played here.

#302 NucksBruins

NucksBruins

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 221 posts
  • Joined: 23-May 12

Posted 05 August 2012 - 04:48 PM

Was there anything else coming back to Vancouver in this deal, other than Richards? Holy overpayment.

regards,
G.


That's what they wanted for just Brad Richards. I remember being relieved that deal wasn't made. The Lightning then made a deal with Dallas for players who didn't pan out for them instead.
  • 1
Posted Image

#303 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,710 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 05 August 2012 - 04:58 PM

He has done it once, but he has played TWO seasons. TWO.

It's rare that a guy will score 34 in his rookie season, and just wilt into a fringe NHLer. It's pretty difficult to fake your way to 34 goals in the NHL.

And BTW, if 174 games is too small a sample size to evaluate someone's talent, you must be VERY concerned about the 6 year, $4.6M per contract that we have to Jason Garrison, because he's 3 years older than Grabner, and has played 190 games. How do you feel about that deal?


As I've pointed out earlier, Grabner showed the same percentage of drop-off in goal production that Raymond had over the two year period from '09 - '10 and '10 - '11. As far as we know, he could put up another 30+ goal season, or he could continue to drop off the pace.

I'm okay with the Garrison deal. He has shown himself to be solid as a defensive d-man, he's got size and can play a physical game (even if he turns out to not necessarily a punishing hitter) and he's a pretty good skater. The only thing which is a real question mark is whether he can reproduce the offensive season he had last year, and with him likely getting ice time with the Sedins, Burrows and likely Edler, I think there's a pretty good chance of that happening, perhaps even a better chance than Grabner has of getting a 30+ goal season next year.

regards,
G.
  • 0
Following the Canucks since before Don Cherry played here.

#304 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,710 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 05 August 2012 - 05:12 PM

Um, yeah, except that to get out of it he had to take David Booth's terrible contract on.

But seriously, Marco Sturm. What the hell was the logic? Maybe the most senseless Canuck FA signing in history.


I'm okay with Booth and his contract. I'm hoping (as in, I'm not sure but I'm thinking positively) that Booth will have a great year. Assuming Gillis acquires a playmaking right-winger, or perhaps Kesler reverts to his form of a few years back when he passed more than shot, I think he can do some good things for the team.

Yeah, the Sturm signing wasn't his finest moment and I didn't care for it at the start. This being said, if it had worked I suppose we'd all be singing a different tune.

regards,
G.
  • 0
Following the Canucks since before Don Cherry played here.

#305 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,710 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 05 August 2012 - 05:23 PM

I have been thinking over the whole protective goon thing and, unless that goon is on the ice to prevent the hit, Keith still makes that hit.


Correct. :)

Not much sense having a policeman taking up bench space and playing only 5 minutes a game on the off chance that someone goons your star players. And what does the team do when that does happen? Do you try and organize it so that the policeman is out there more often, thereby affecting your team's offensive and defensive play? Or do you just have your policeman goon the first guy on the other team he can lay his hands on?

I like the idea of total team toughness. Could more have been done in the past to improve in this area? Sure. More is being done now. Griping about it not being done in the past is that, griping.

regards,
G.
  • 0
Following the Canucks since before Don Cherry played here.

#306 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 05 August 2012 - 05:25 PM

Marc Savard didn't get run? Nathan Horton got put out of the Final and the Bruins answered by winning the series. When has a star player been injured as an answer for another star player being injured?


These are all totally different circumstances.

I'm not talking about "injuries", I'm talking about a sheer lack of respect towards the opponent. The video that you showed were, predominantly, good, clean hits. Aaron Rome on Nate Horton was mostly a good, clean hit.

Show me some video of a defenceman blatantly targeting one of Boston's star players with his elbow, with an intent to injure, and concussing him. That was not the case with Cooke on Savard. Show me some video of Joe Thornton shoving his hand in Iginla's face when they're both debating with the ref. Things like these show a complete and total lack of respect, and, really, sheer disgust, for the Canucks. We need a guy who will ensure that we get respect. And if we're not given respect, it's beaten into someone else on the other team. Christ, somebody on Chicago should've left the ice a bloody mess after what happened to Daniel. But, nope, no pushback at all. "We beat them on the PP" - horseshat.
  • 0

#307 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 05 August 2012 - 05:30 PM

Not much sense having a policeman taking up bench space and playing only 5 minutes a game on the off chance that someone goons your star players. And what does the team do when that does happen? Do you try and organize it so that the policeman is out there more often, thereby affecting your team's offensive and defensive play? Or do you just have your policeman goon the first guy on the other team he can lay his hands on?


Just him being there makes a difference. I'll again point to Gino/Pavel as proof. In addition, when was the WCE at their best? Right, we had this guy named Donald Brashear on the team.

Having a guy like this makes the small, skilled guys better. They play with more confidence, because there's a DETERRENT. Brashear would've smashed someone's face in if they did that to Naslund - the opponents knew this, which is why they didn't do it. Ever. Simple, right?

I like the idea of total team toughness. Could more have been done in the past to improve in this area? Sure. More is being done now. Griping about it not being done in the past is that, griping.


More is being done now? Where?

Edited by King of the ES, 05 August 2012 - 05:30 PM.

  • 1

#308 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,710 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 05 August 2012 - 05:38 PM

Yes he does. Because the other teams knows that if someone is to cheap shot a guy on their team, they're going to get their asses kicked. Maybe not them, but someone. A star player. An eye for an eye.

Frankly, nobody on our team has the balls, at this point. But do you think Gino would've let a team get away with someone doing that to Pavel? Not bloody likely. That's why it's teams like us that get cheap-shotted, and not the Boston's, or the Anaheim's, the Calgary's, etc.


Yeah, our goon cheapshots one of their players in retaliation.

The first thing would be that our team gets extra penalty time because refs like to do that kind of thing to keep games under control. If it's a tight game, the Canucks have probably just lost it, assuming they still had any chance left after the cheap shot to our player.

The second thing that happens is that, after the game our goon is suspended for several games by the NHL, leaving the team vulnerable to additional cheapshots.

The only way this issue can be properly addressed is to improve overall team size and toughness, not just getting one goon among a dozen small guys. Even with the goon, the non-physical guys will still not play a physical game.

This is now being addressed. As I've mentioned elsewhere, it would have been nice if it had happened earlier. It wasn't. It is now. Any complaining about it not being done in the past is pointless.

regards,
G.
  • 0
Following the Canucks since before Don Cherry played here.

#309 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 05 August 2012 - 05:45 PM

The first thing would be that our team gets extra penalty time because refs like to do that kind of thing to keep games under control. If it's a tight game, the Canucks have probably just lost it, assuming they still had any chance left after the cheap shot to our player.

The second thing that happens is that, after the game our goon is suspended for several games by the NHL, leaving the team vulnerable to additional cheapshots.


Who cares about extra penalty time? It's a regular season game. Who cares if we lose? We don't need another President's Trophy, that's for sure.

And what we really don't need is other team's taking liberties with our star players.

This is now being addressed. As I've mentioned elsewhere, it would have been nice if it had happened earlier. It wasn't. It is now. Any complaining about it not being done in the past is pointless.


It hasn't been addressed yet. How do you know that it's being addressed?
  • 1

#310 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,710 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 05 August 2012 - 06:15 PM

Just him being there makes a difference. I'll again point to Gino/Pavel as proof. In addition, when was the WCE at their best? Right, we had this guy named Donald Brashear on the team.

Having a guy like this makes the small, skilled guys better. They play with more confidence, because there's a DETERRENT. Brashear would've smashed someone's face in if they did that to Naslund - the opponents knew this, which is why they didn't do it. Ever. Simple, right?


Hmm, back in the day the the WCE also had a guy named Bertuzzi on the line. He is kind of bigger than Burrows, who the Sedins have to work with in that capacity.

Whether Brashear was on the team or not, there was a big body on the WCE line who could do the policeman work. Having Brashear helped, sure, but Bertuzzi was by far more of a deterrent, because he was out there, sorry, BECAUSE HE WAS OUT THERE. :P

Odjick played a number of shifts with Bure, and that helped Bure's game a lot. Pavel still got his knees taken out.

The biggest thing that has to change here is in how the team reacts, which is a philosophy which the coaching staff sets. If the coach has a "turn the other cheek, and we'll score on the power play, and if you don't I'll sit you down" philosophy, as has been apparent these last couple of years, then having a goon means nothing.

So I'm wondering, do you want to go back to the old Flyers "Broadstreet Bullies" days? As I've mentioned, I like the idea of an improved team toughness, with more size. Which leads me to....

More is being done now? Where?


Kassian is the obvious answer. You may, or may not like his potential, but I'm in favour of it and I like it as part of the direction the team is taking in this area. He has skill, size and he can skate. The only thing he really needs is experience.

Booth was a good size addition, and he's a fairly physical player. Kesler is still a pretty phyical guy. Guys like Volpatti can do policeman work. It's that the team is getting bigger than they have been over the last couple of years, and they are still pretty good for team talent.

regards,
G.
  • 0
Following the Canucks since before Don Cherry played here.

#311 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,710 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 05 August 2012 - 06:35 PM

Who cares about extra penalty time? It's a regular season game. Who cares if we lose? We don't need another President's Trophy, that's for sure.

And what we really don't need is other team's taking liberties with our star players.


And if it was in a playoff game? Game one, their goon takes liberties with one of your star players, not enough to warrant more than a minor. Your goon is not on the ice, just as Brashear wasn't normally on the ice with the top-6.

What do you have your goon do? Do you have your goon start a fight on the next play? Do you have him goon one of their star players? Do you care more about the penalty time in this circumstance? And what if your guy gets tossed, in the first period?

Deterrance is workable only if it is on the ice at the same time as the other guy's goon.

It hasn't been addressed yet. How do you know that it's being addressed?


There has to be a change in how the team is permitted to react by the coaching staff.

I don't like the idea of the one note, goon. I would like to see an improvement over a large part of the team, where they get bigger, tougher, more physical, and able to stand up for themselves if needed. As I've mentioned earlier, Kassian is a move in that direction. Size, strength, skating ability, offensive upside, and he can defend himself and his team mates. There's a number of guys now on the team who have pretty size. They aren't fighters/goons, but they have the ability to stand up for themselves. The team has also drafted bigger this past year, which I see as an improvement.

It could still get better, but I don't see it as being as bad as some make it out to be.

regards,
G.
  • 0
Following the Canucks since before Don Cherry played here.

#312 nuck nit

nuck nit

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,639 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 10

Posted 05 August 2012 - 08:02 PM

Hmm, back in the day the the WCE also had a guy named Bertuzzi on the line. He is kind of bigger than Burrows, who the Sedins have to work with in that capacity.

Whether Brashear was on the team or not, there was a big body on the WCE line who could do the policeman work. Having Brashear helped, sure, but Bertuzzi was by far more of a deterrent, because he was out there, sorry, BECAUSE HE WAS OUT THERE. :P

Odjick played a number of shifts with Bure, and that helped Bure's game a lot. Pavel still got his knees taken out.

The biggest thing that has to change here is in how the team reacts, which is a philosophy which the coaching staff sets. If the coach has a "turn the other cheek, and we'll score on the power play, and if you don't I'll sit you down" philosophy, as has been apparent these last couple of years, then having a goon means nothing.

So I'm wondering, do you want to go back to the old Flyers "Broadstreet Bullies" days? As I've mentioned, I like the idea of an improved team toughness, with more size. Which leads me to....
Kassian is the obvious answer. You may, or may not like his potential, but I'm in favour of it and I like it as part of the direction the team is taking in this area. He has skill, size and he can skate. The only thing he really needs is experience.

Booth was a good size addition, and he's a fairly physical player. Kesler is still a pretty phyical guy. Guys like Volpatti can do policeman work. It's that the team is getting bigger than they have been over the last couple of years, and they are still pretty good for team talent. regards,
G.


Yes,now that Daniel has suffered a head injury and concussion who do the Sedins have opening up ice for them,never mind protecting them?

Nobody.The same old story and answer that has gone on for four years now.

If Daniel is taken out with another severe concussion and he decides to retire that 'beat them on the PP' philosophy is the fantasy of a GM that did not take care of his superstar,even after having four years to address his delusions.

Gump.Burrows is not instilling fear into anybody.Sorry,you fail to ,well,you and Gillis fail outright.

Yeah,nobody was on the ice to protect Pavel-NOBODY WAS OUT THERE,I MEAN OUT THERE.

Gino could not hold a candle to Pavel's abilities and should not have been OUT THERE,I MEAN OUT THERE.

Kassian is not an answer,never mind the obvious answer.Spare me,Gump.

Sure,the kid can go on and develop some year? but sitting out entirely or playing fourth line minutes is no deterrent to any opposing club.

Booth had three concussions and two extremely dangerous concussions.If he is to become aneffective banger and crasher-which he should not-then he risks a fourth concussion on an expedited ,neurological level.Everything about acquiring Booth was a mistake.Florida dumped another multiple injured player on the Canucks and salary,to boot.At least Gillis did not give up two first rounders on this Florida fleece job.

Kesler has had two hip injuries and a shoulder injury and faces groin injury issues.He is a shadow of his former self and has gone back to figure skating with Raymond along with his diving career it looks oh,so promising.What a second line-two figure skaters,one actor and a neurologically compromised helper.

Hockey is about having players that stick up for one another and can battle for each other and know that somebody has their back so they have the confidence to make that extra play and go to the dirty areas.

First line-nada.Second line-nada.Third line with Higgins and Lappy is a-ok.Fourth line is stunning.

And that is why this team fails going into playoff brutality and intensity ,Gump.

Gillis has never addressed the real issues of protecting and providing presence for his stars on lines 1+2 and nothing changes at all.

Edited by nuck nit, 05 August 2012 - 08:28 PM.

  • 0

#313 nuck nit

nuck nit

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,639 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 10

Posted 05 August 2012 - 08:19 PM

Deterrance is workable only if it is on the ice at the same time as the other guy's goon.
There has to be a change in how the team is permitted to react by the coaching staff.
I don't like the idea of the one note, goon. I would like to see an improvement over a large part of the team, where they get bigger, tougher, more physical, and able to stand up for themselves if needed. As I've mentioned earlier, Kassian is a move in that direction. Size, strength, skating ability, offensive upside, and he can defend himself and his team mates. There's a number of guys now on the team who have pretty size. They aren't fighters/goons, but they have the ability to stand up for themselves. The team has also drafted bigger this past year, which I see as an improvement.

It could still get better, but I don't see it as being as bad as some make it out to be.

regards,
G.


The coach puts out the players that the GM has given him.

It is not about 'goon deterrence',Gump.It is not about Harvard educated guys with God on their side and a cookie cutter family waiting at home.

It is about guys with character,finding those guys with character and weeding out the guys that won't back up your mates.

Kassian denotes a move in the right direction,four years too late and two years shy of doing much of anything to help the Sedins or Kes now.He will be lucky to get third line minutes and it is the top two lines that need help.

There has been nothing done to protect the Sedins or Kes and his wingers.Nothing in four ,long years-and counting.

Edited by nuck nit, 05 August 2012 - 08:30 PM.

  • 0

#314 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,710 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 05 August 2012 - 08:25 PM

Yes,now that Daniel has suffered a head injury and concussion who do the Sedins have opening up ice for them?

Nobody.The same old story that has been going on for four years now.

If Daniel is taken out with another severe concussion and he decides to retire that 'beat them on the PP' philosophy is a dream of a GM that did not take care of his superstar,even after having four years to address it.

Gump.Burrows is not instilling fear into anybody.Sorry,you fail.


However, chum, what you said about Burrows was my point. One of the reasons the WCE worked as well as it did was because of Bertuzzi being on the ice with Naslund and Morrison. Brashear was only a deterrence if the other team put out their goon.

Hmm, back in the day the the WCE also had a guy named Bertuzzi on the line. He is kind of bigger than Burrows, who the Sedins have to work with in that capacity.



One of the reasons the Sedin line has problems is because the role of Bertuzzi is filled by Burrows, as indicated in the above quote.. This is not a knock on Burrows, it's merely a fact that he isn't a 6' 3", 230 lb player.

I'm saying that the "we'll beat them with the power play" worked in the regular season, but it failed in the playoffs. I was making the point that Burrows is not the physical presence of Bertuzzi.

regards,
G.
  • 0
Following the Canucks since before Don Cherry played here.

#315 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,710 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 05 August 2012 - 08:30 PM

The coach puts out the players that the GM has given him.

It is not about 'goon deterrence',Gump.It is not about Harvard educated guys with God as their saviour.

It is about guys with character,finding those guys with character and weeding out the guys that won't back up your mates.

Kassian denotes a move in the right direction,four years too late and two years shy of doing anything to help the Sedins or Kes now.

THere has been nothing done to protect the Sedins or Kes and his wingers.Nothing in four ,long years-and counting.


Yup. Once again we are in agreement. The team is moving in the right direction on this particular issue. I'm suggesting that the team is getting bigger, tougher and if they are allowed, they'll do more to stand up for one another as seems to be necessary.

regards,
G.
  • 0
Following the Canucks since before Don Cherry played here.

#316 nuck nit

nuck nit

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,639 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 10

Posted 05 August 2012 - 08:52 PM

Too little too late,chum.

Window is closing shut now.

Management has had four and now five off seasons to fortify lines one and two-you know,the lines out there for most of the games that have the star players that score?

Where are the additions to lines one and two that make them tougher,Gump?

Don't give me the Booth answer again,please.

Edited by nuck nit, 05 August 2012 - 08:55 PM.

  • 0

#317 Tortorella's Rant

Tortorella's Rant

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,133 posts
  • Joined: 11-April 12

Posted 06 August 2012 - 12:05 AM

He has done it once, but he has played TWO seasons. TWO.

It's rare that a guy will score 34 in his rookie season, and just wilt into a fringe NHLer. It's pretty difficult to fake your way to 34 goals in the NHL.

And BTW, if 174 games is too small a sample size to evaluate someone's talent, you must be VERY concerned about the 6 year, $4.6M per contract that we have to Jason Garrison, because he's 3 years older than Grabner, and has played 190 games. How do you feel about that deal?


That's right. Two seasons. One season of above average success. I'm not the one making claiming that it was a mistake letting him go and that he would be any better than our offensive guys though because there is a lack of evidence to suggest that in the first place. So until he can consistently prove otherwise, I won't admit you're right about this.

I think the Garrison deal will be a bust if he doesn't bring that offense he brought in Florida for that one season. Yes, it's a gamble. And that is precisely why he's now being paid the money he is and at that term. We've already seen one Florida defenceman arrive here and watch his game dry up, we can't afford nine million for two guys providing average results. Then again its also happened to better players; Gomez, Drury, Redden, Heatley. Time will tell :unsure:
  • 0
Posted Image

#318 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 06 August 2012 - 04:26 AM

And if it was in a playoff game? Game one, their goon takes liberties with one of your star players, not enough to warrant more than a minor. Your goon is not on the ice, just as Brashear wasn't normally on the ice with the top-6.

What do you have your goon do? Do you have your goon start a fight on the next play? Do you have him goon one of their star players? Do you care more about the penalty time in this circumstance? And what if your guy gets tossed, in the first period?

Deterrance is workable only if it is on the ice at the same time as the other guy's goon.


No, that's not how a deterrent works at all.

He doesn't need to be on the ice. The point is that the other team sees him on our team, and because of his presence, they're DETERRED from trying to pull any liberties with us. Because they're aware that the guy on the other bench will smash them. Did you ever see Gino on the PP with Pavel? It was the knowledge that he was there which was enough. Heck, look at George Parros, who was priority #1 for a lot of fans on this site this year. He plays 5 minutes per night. I'm not too high on him, personally, but he's probably one of the better policemen in the league.

The guy doesn't have to be on the ice, which is where you and others have it all wrong. Pretty simple. If we have a nasty, bad MFer who ain't gonna stand for our stars to be blatantly disrespected and essentially hunted, and if Keith still does that Daniel, he goes out, and he does something equivalent to, say, Pat Sharp. Brent Seabrook. Whoever. Point is, the Hawks wronged us, and they're gonna pay. Other teams will see this, and it'll make them think twice.

And, please, Ivy League Aaron Volpatti is not the answer. Kassian might turn out to be effective at this, but he's a long ways away, as it stands now, still looks like a deer in headlights at this point.
  • 0

#319 tiredatwork

tiredatwork

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 814 posts
  • Joined: 15-May 09

Posted 06 August 2012 - 06:31 AM

However, chum, what you said about Burrows was my point. One of the reasons the WCE worked as well as it did was because of Bertuzzi being on the ice with Naslund and Morrison. Brashear was only a deterrence if the other team put out their goon.




One of the reasons the Sedin line has problems is because the role of Bertuzzi is filled by Burrows, as indicated in the above quote.. This is not a knock on Burrows, it's merely a fact that he isn't a 6' 3", 230 lb player.

I'm saying that the "we'll beat them with the power play" worked in the regular season, but it failed in the playoffs. I was making the point that Burrows is not the physical presence of Bertuzzi.

regards,
G.


Sorry, i have to call you on this. In all of your ramblings you've never had a point.
  • 0

#320 CanucksCouchCoach

CanucksCouchCoach

    K-Wing Regular

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 33 posts
  • Joined: 26-September 11

Posted 06 August 2012 - 07:58 AM

Nope. No reason to feel sorry for him. He's doing a good job. Can't say that I really miss Pyatt, Glass, Wellwood, Torres, CoHo(who only had 30 good games in Van), Rome, Salo(seeing him on IR really helped the team), and the many more plug players he's let go. Ehroff now we miss him but the price was to high. As for the 4+ mil to contracts to ex-Florida players Ballard, Booth, Garrison I can live with them. 2 out of 3 ain't bad who knows. Ballard could stay out of Coach V's dog house without Rome around. Loungo. He's a bargin at a 5.something cap hit and needs a return on his investment. GOOD patience. He could still be in Van when Burke gets fired from Leafs. Only thing left to do is drink a Granville Island Lager and wait for Doan to sign. Peace
  • 1

#321 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,710 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 06 August 2012 - 10:56 AM

No, that's not how a deterrent works at all.

He doesn't need to be on the ice. The point is that the other team sees him on our team, and because of his presence, they're DETERRED from trying to pull any liberties with us. Because they're aware that the guy on the other bench will smash them. Did you ever see Gino on the PP with Pavel? It was the knowledge that he was there which was enough. Heck, look at George Parros, who was priority #1 for a lot of fans on this site this year. He plays 5 minutes per night. I'm not too high on him, personally, but he's probably one of the better policemen in the league.

The guy doesn't have to be on the ice, which is where you and others have it all wrong. Pretty simple. If we have a nasty, bad MFer who ain't gonna stand for our stars to be blatantly disrespected and essentially hunted, and if Keith still does that Daniel, he goes out, and he does something equivalent to, say, Pat Sharp. Brent Seabrook. Whoever. Point is, the Hawks wronged us, and they're gonna pay. Other teams will see this, and it'll make them think twice.

And, please, Ivy League Aaron Volpatti is not the answer. Kassian might turn out to be effective at this, but he's a long ways away, as it stands now, still looks like a deer in headlights at this point.


No, I got your point. The other team sees a BMF sitting on the end of the bench and they're supposed to go all jelly in the knees, our star guys can then score at will, and the Canucks win the Cup. Start the parade!

So what happens if the other guys don't care if the Canucks have a BMF sitting at the end of the bench? What happens then?

And what happens if the Canucks have more to lose than the other team in this "eye for an eye" kind of game? What if the best player on the other side is equivalent to a third liner on this team?

Here's a scenario: the other guys send a few goons after the Sedins. Each Sedin gets concussed and are out for however many games in the regular season or playoffs. You would then send out your goon to go after their star player, an amazing center with third line potential, if he was on your team, and you have your goon do "something equivalent". How are the Canucks any better off? Are the Sedins any less concussed?

It sounds like you want to return to the "good old days" of Flyers hockey.


And my point regarding guys like Volpatti, or Kassian and so on, is not that they fit your image of a "deterrent". They do however fit my idea of increasing overall team size and toughness which will do as much, if not more, to reduce the number of liberties other teams take. The threat of immediate deterremce is better than something which might happen down the road.

regards,
G.
  • 0
Following the Canucks since before Don Cherry played here.

#322 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,710 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 06 August 2012 - 11:03 AM

Sorry, i have to call you on this. In all of your ramblings you've never had a point.


And yet, you were echoing my points just a few posts ago.

regards,
G.
  • 0
Following the Canucks since before Don Cherry played here.

#323 AK_19

AK_19

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,436 posts
  • Joined: 20-July 08

Posted 06 August 2012 - 12:46 PM

I don't necessarily disagree with you at all actually. We differ about Shannon as I don't think he's as bad as you think he is and my point about Ellington was more that in retrospect Pahls did very little for this team.

Sturm was what he was. I wouldn't put that try out signing in as bad a category as Schaefer. Schaefer was much worse than Sturm. I elluded to him when talking about Morrison.

I would say the Johnson signing wasn't as bad as you're making it out to be. He wasn't bad in the circle but he was good with the blocked shots. He was a meh guy on the team.

Where we disagree the most is your use of the word dislike. Even going along with everything you said and I said in terms of mistakes I don't dislike him as a GM. The good has outweighed the bad but I think one has to be able to see the forest for the trees. This team is far superior to the team he took over. He kept the right guys and got rid of the right guys more often than not.I liked Nonis and wanted to see him carry out his 5 year plan but having said that...Gillis > Nonis. We'll see if he can do better than Burke but I think a good argument can be made that he's already built a better team. (and before all you come at me with Gullus Uzed Nunis nd Berkz pieces go find me a GM who built a contending team purely on their own draft picks. When you get handed a puzzle you don't credit the company that built the pieces when you put it together.)


Read closer, neither did I. I like MG but there's no denying he's made his share of mistakes.

I can't even take you seriously on the Ryan Johnson comments. The guy posted a FO% of 48.5 in both his years here. Who gives a f*** if he was blocking shots if they weren't correlatively improving our PK. It's like complementing a player for hitting despite putting himself out of position to do so. I don't want to dig for the old info but someone here along time ago figured out that our PK ranking IMPROVED when he was injured and that he was on the ice for more SH goals per SH ice time than any player on our team. He sucked.

I don't even understand the mentality in making the Pahlsson comments either. Despite our disappointing end to the season, he was a bright spot for this team when he was on it. Our overall GA went down since he was on our team, it finally gave our third line an identity, and it gave Kesler more offensive opportunities (although its Kesler's fault for not capitalizing on it). If that isn't worth a prospect that can't even crack the AHL I don't know what is.

From what I understand you're saying that having Marco Sturm at 2.5 mil is not as bad as losing Morrison for Schaefer? Agreed, but I'd still rather have that 2nd round of Schaefer on our team (for peanuts in cap space) than Sturm at 2.5 mil. Schaefer was always a temporary fill-in (hence the two-way contract) and I'm not sure it was an either/or situation with Morrison anyways. They played different positions for one and Morrison was looking for a one way contract.

Edited by AK_19, 06 August 2012 - 01:25 PM.

  • 1

#324 NucksBruins

NucksBruins

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 221 posts
  • Joined: 23-May 12

Posted 06 August 2012 - 03:20 PM

These are all totally different circumstances.

I'm not talking about "injuries", I'm talking about a sheer lack of respect towards the opponent. The video that you showed were, predominantly, good, clean hits. Aaron Rome on Nate Horton was mostly a good, clean hit.

Show me some video of a defenceman blatantly targeting one of Boston's star players with his elbow, with an intent to injure, and concussing him. That was not the case with Cooke on Savard. Show me some video of Joe Thornton shoving his hand in Iginla's face when they're both debating with the ref. Things like these show a complete and total lack of respect, and, really, sheer disgust, for the Canucks. We need a guy who will ensure that we get respect. And if we're not given respect, it's beaten into someone else on the other team. Christ, somebody on Chicago should've left the ice a bloody mess after what happened to Daniel. But, nope, no pushback at all. "We beat them on the PP" - horseshat.


Why does it matter if Horton was hit with a mostly clean hit? He is a 30 goal scorer who was out for the rest of the playoffs. If you think Joe Thornton facewashing a player with his glove is a lack of respect, who cares? Like if one of the Sedins are going to cry because of a glove to the face, they're obviously not built for the playoffs anyway.

I could always play the video of Odjick sucker punching Eric Lindros when he played for the Flyers years back. There was plenty of tough players in Philly back then, too. That is not the kind of player the team needs. We are also discounting that at the start of his career, Bure was tough and hit everything that moved. He played hard and answered every hit he took. I don't recall him having to tap Gino on the shoulder and ask for protection.

I guess when I see players on every team out with concussions, I don't worry about the clean ones as opposed to the dirty ones since they all hinder careers.

Clearly, the team needs Grabner... for a deterrent on those top two lines and all.
  • 0
Posted Image

#325 Millerdraft

Millerdraft

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,509 posts
  • Joined: 02-March 04

Posted 06 August 2012 - 04:57 PM

Nobody cares about what Gillis' best chance was. Holmgren had let everyone know that the offer sheet was coming if he wasn't traded before Date X. So how "close" was Gillis, really? The answer is not at all.

Once the offer sheet was sent, which Gillis knew was coming, Holmgren had anywhere from a 1% - 50% chance of getting Weber. Gillis had a 0% chance.


And as hindsight turns out, Holmgren's 1%-50% chance was the exact same 0% chance that Gillis had by deciding not to screw up his chances of landing Weber for nothing the following summer by locking Weber into a life long contract. My God, Poile let it be publicly known he was in the game for Suter at 13-years/$91m (so Suter's $12m '12-'13 salary + Weber's $7.5m QO = $19.5m in actual cash which meant that the dollars were there for Nashville) and that he'd match any offersheet given to Weber after Suter chose to walk. The last time someone said those words was Dary Regier in regards to Thomas Vanek and he matched that ridiculous offer. This time the GM who ended up matching the 'sheet let it be known his biggest regret was not matching St. Louis' offersheet on Scott Stevens. The only offersheet that actually had any chance of prying him loose was a 1-year deal and Gillis himself said that publicly days before he was proven correct about Nashville matching anything with term attached to it.

Since you're so fond of judging poor decisions without taking into account the circumstances of the time, who was the smarter GM?

A. The guy who ended up having no chance of signing him and now has no chance to trade for him after burning that bridge by submitting a predatory offersheet.

B. The guy who was prepared to either wait for Weber to hit unrestricted free agency in a year (if Weber truly wanted out) or not be the one to submit an offersheet and destroy his opportunity to trade for Weber later on should Weber demand a trade.

?

Edited by Millerdraft, 06 August 2012 - 04:59 PM.

  • 1

Kassian.... Taylor Pyatt 3.0

Lies. He's more of a Steve Bernier. Hopefully his talent level goes up so he can become like a Taylor Pyatt.


#326 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 06 August 2012 - 05:47 PM

And as hindsight turns out, Holmgren's 1%-50% chance was the exact same 0% chance that Gillis had by deciding not to screw up his chances of landing Weber for nothing the following summer by locking Weber into a life long contract.


And?

At least Holmgren put himself in a position to have a chance. And that's all that I was applauding him for. Nashville took 6 days to make the decision.

Rather than be proactive and TRY, Gillis chose to just sit back and hope that Weber decided to be an utter moron, do something that's not at all in his best interests and sign a 1-year deal, then become a UFA in 2013 and fall into the Canucks' lap for nothing.

My God, Poile let it be publicly known he was in the game for Suter at 13-years/$91m (so Suter's $12m '12-'13 salary + Weber's $7.5m QO = $19.5m in actual cash which meant that the dollars were there for Nashville) and that he'd match any offersheet given to Weber after Suter chose to walk.


Poile was also fielding trade offers before Philly submitted their offer sheet, so don't tell me that the UFA route was the "only shot" that Gillis had at landing him.

Edited by King of the ES, 06 August 2012 - 05:49 PM.

  • 1

#327 nuck nit

nuck nit

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,639 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 10

Posted 06 August 2012 - 05:48 PM

Gump,I know this may be over your attention span but Daniel Sedin has already suffered a concussion.

No payback.No pushback.Nada.Just a head injured superstar one more head injury away from early retirement.

This team has nobody on line one and two that acts as a deterrent or that opens up the ice for the stars.

This is not the 70's,Gump. The Sedins and Kes need protection and the ice opened up last year and the year before and next year,as well.

The fact is Gillis has not addressed it.Period.

Your idea that Kassian is going to help the Sedins is hilarious.Kassian is now a fourth line NHL'er and nobody is scared of the guy.

What is needed is first and second line guys that provides deterrence/pushback/opens up the ice,not some third or fourth liner that barely touches the ice.
  • 0

#328 Millerdraft

Millerdraft

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,509 posts
  • Joined: 02-March 04

Posted 06 August 2012 - 06:08 PM

And?

At least Holmgren put himself in a position to have a chance. And that's all that I was applauding him for. Nashville took 6 days to make the decision.

Rather than be proactive and TRY, Gillis chose to just sit back and hope that Weber decided to be an utter moron, do something that's not at all in his best interests and sign a 1-year deal, then become a UFA in 2013 and fall into the Canucks' lap for nothing.



Poile was also fielding trade offers before Philly submitted their offer sheet.


1. Matching teams almost always make the submitting team sweat it out.

2. Which made the decision to submit an offersheet all the more ridiculous (unless the whole intent was simply to block him from everyone else in the East) since a trade could have eventually been worked out. Instead, as it stands now, they will be the last team Poile will trade him to (if he ever does) and their defence is paper thin with Pronger's career in jeopardy and with Carle bolting for Tampa.

At least Gillis didn't burn that bridge, and still fail to land the player you want, like he did before with the Backes offersheet. It seems to me he learned from that mistake. I don't begrudge Weber for signing a great deal for himself but if he really wanted out of Nashville he should've at least demanded a limited NTC from Philly before signing that deal because as it stands Poile can send him to any team he feels like anytime after July 26th, 2013.

Ironically, that decision was utterly moronic on Mr Weber's part.

Edited by Millerdraft, 06 August 2012 - 06:09 PM.

  • 0

Kassian.... Taylor Pyatt 3.0

Lies. He's more of a Steve Bernier. Hopefully his talent level goes up so he can become like a Taylor Pyatt.


#329 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 06 August 2012 - 06:39 PM

1. Matching teams almost always make the submitting team sweat it out.


STL didn't with Backes, nor did we with Bernier. It offers a stronger signal of conviction by the team to match early. Nashville probably had some serious convincing to do, to their ownership group. I would guess that it was a lot closer than what many would think.

2. Which made the decision to submit an offersheet all the more ridiculous (unless the whole intent was simply to block him from everyone else in the East) since a trade could have eventually been worked out. Instead, as it stands now, they will be the last team Poile will trade him to (if he ever does) and their defence is paper thin with Pronger's career in jeopardy and with Carle bolting for Tampa.


I doubt that. Some argue that Holmgren did Poile a favor. They're very buddy-buddy, look at all the trades orchestrated by the two of them over the last decade.

At least Gillis didn't burn that bridge, and still fail to land the player you want, like he did before with the Backes offersheet. It seems to me he learned from that mistake. I don't begrudge Weber for signing a great deal for himself but if he really wanted out of Nashville he should've at least demanded a limited NTC from Philly before signing that deal because as it stands Poile can send him to any team he feels like anytime after July 26th, 2013.


The whole "burned bridges" notion is ridiculous. These are grown men. Davidson and Gillis never dealing with eachother ever again is hilarious, as is Burke and Lowe. Ego-driven BS. It'll be a great day in the NHL when a franchise gets the balls to hire a non-member of the old boy's fraternity to run their team.

Anyway, the thing is, Weber obviously had no great qualms about signing in Nashville, or else he wouldn't have exposed himself to the opportunity of that happening. Nashville's a great organization. I don't really blame him, to be honest. He wanted to (obviously) cash in, which is another thing I certainly don't blame him for. But don't assume that he wanted out so bad. He's in Nashville, not Phoenix.

Edited by King of the ES, 06 August 2012 - 06:40 PM.

  • 0

#330 Millerdraft

Millerdraft

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,509 posts
  • Joined: 02-March 04

Posted 06 August 2012 - 09:28 PM

Poile was also fielding trade offers before Philly submitted their offer sheet, so don't tell me that the UFA route was the "only shot" that Gillis had at landing him.


I never did say that. In fact, I'm saying the exact opposite. By not being the one who submitted the offersheet he's still at least in a better position than Holmgren if Weber ever demands out or if Poile feels like trading him.

In the mean time Gillis has an entire season to get Edler onto a contract and if the age of UFA eligibility rises even by one year, one of the main reasons Gillis didn't at least submit a 1-year offersheet imo (the other obvious reason being Weber's desire for the mega deal), Edler's expected NTC won't be kicking in until July 1st, 2014. One of the biggest reasons Edler couldn't have been a properly valued asset to use in trade discussions when Poile was fielding offers for Weber was the fact that he's currently on an expiring contract in an UFA eligible year. Edler would be a great starting point for a team looking to replace two elite level defenceman and there still could be a fit there if Poile wants out of that deal for 2014-2015 (I doubt they trade him after having to pay that $13m signing bonus on July 1st, 2013 when they could keep him until the 2014 entry draft for only $1m more).

Hey, it's a long shot that I do not believe is ever going to happen, just like Weber's never gonna be in a Flyer uniform now, but in this case the odds are now 1%-0% in favour of Gillis and wasn't that what you were arguing? That Holmgren's 1% was better than Gillis' 0%?

Tables on those odds (as miniscule & irrelevant as they may be) are now flipped.

STL didn't with Backes, nor did we with Bernier. It offers a stronger signal of conviction by the team to match early. Nashville probably had some serious convincing to do, to their ownership group. I would guess that it was a lot closer than what many would think.


Your point about matching early is valid (Kesler, Vanek, Backes, Bernier were all matched within 4 days) and it seems my memory failed me on Kesler's offersheet in particular. I know Sakic's took the whole week (for securing finances so point in your favor again) but Federov's holdout culminating in the 'Canes offersheet took the Red Wings 6 days to match (even though they had every intention of matching despite the $12m bonus clause if he were to end up winning a Cup during that time).

And yet Poile reportedly offered Suter a $10m signing bonus and he also, again reportedly, tried to land Parise as well. There's no way ownership thought those three would come in under $33m so $14m for Weber was always well within reason and likely expected (especially once they struck out on both Suter and Parise) which is why it was ultimately matched. This wasn't a Colorado-Sakic offersheet scenario where they were scrambling to secure finances despite every intent to match (something Neil Smith admitted he told the Rags owners - "they'll never let him go").

I doubt that. Some argue that Holmgren did Poile a favor. They're very buddy-buddy, look at all the trades orchestrated by the two of them over the last decade.


So which is it? Holmgren did his buddy a solid or was he being "proactive and TRY"ing to poach a Norris Trophy candidate? If it's the former, how would that have been better for the Flyers than Gillis re-visiting signing him as an UFA would have been for the Canucks?

Even great relationships can turn sour quickly. Especially after something like this.

The whole "burned bridges" notion is ridiculous. These are grown men. Davidson and Gillis never dealing with eachother ever again is hilarious, as is Burke and Lowe. Ego-driven BS. It'll be a great day in the NHL when a franchise gets the balls to hire a non-member of the old boy's fraternity to run their team.

I thought you were of the opinion it was a catastrophic day in the NHL once Aquillini "got the balls to hire old boy's fraternity non-member" Mike Gillis?

Did Kevin Lowe and Bobby Clarke both not have to move upstairs before another Oilers-Sabres/Flyers-Canucks deal happened or am I mistaken? Have Gillis & Davidson made a trade since? It is an overblown notion that most GMs absolutely will not deal with GMs who have submitted an offersheet on one of their players, but I highly doubt they trade that exact same matched player to that same team unless they vastly overpay. I don't believe this has ever been done before, correct me if I'm wrong. Philly traded Chris Gratton back to Tampa after first snatching him away via offersheet (only to watch him bust for them) but that's not the same as being forced to pay far more up front for a player than you needed to and then turning around and trading him to the offending team for a package that is just barely better than what someone else is offering.

Anyway, the thing is, Weber obviously had no great qualms about signing in Nashville, or else he wouldn't have exposed himself to the opportunity of that happening. Nashville's a great organization. I don't really blame him, to be honest. He wanted to (obviously) cash in, which is another thing I certainly don't blame him for. But don't assume that he wanted out so bad. He's in Nashville, not Phoenix.

Yeah, I think we pretty much see eye to eye to this. If Weber truly wanted out ASAP above all else, he would've said yes to a 1-year offersheet. It's obvious that his primary concern was getting in while the gettin's still good (not sure that was wise if there ends up being a big salary roll back). The only part I don't agree with is that Nashville is a great organization. They should've surrounded Suter and Weber with some better offensive support to convince them to stay Predators at cap friendly deals like Gillis did with the twins. They let a 27-year old Hamhuis walk for nothing and the next summer they lost an even better player in a 27-year old Suter for nothing yet again. If Gillis lets Edler walk for nothing next July will he get a free pass too?

Just imagine how great that organization would've looked if they didn't make the no-brainer decision to match. Three top two defencemen walking out of your organization 3 years in a row and all they would've had to show for that would've been four late 1st round picks. Not letting the Sedins slip away for nothing like Poile just did with two of the best two-way defencemen in the game ought to be seen as a positive for Gillis. Especially so when you see that they are on unbelievably cap friendly $6.1m contracts. Either give a positive for Gillis and a break even for Poile, or give a negative for Poile and a break even for Gillis (sorry but 27 forwards making more than $6.1m says it can't be anything but a positive for Gillis to me).

Edited by Millerdraft, 06 August 2012 - 09:45 PM.

  • 0

Kassian.... Taylor Pyatt 3.0

Lies. He's more of a Steve Bernier. Hopefully his talent level goes up so he can become like a Taylor Pyatt.





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.