Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
* * - - - 3 votes

Anyone else feel bad for Gillis?


This topic has been archived.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

#181 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,742 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 03 August 2012 - 12:38 PM

And everyone tells me to stop using regards :)


Yeah, so what happened this time? :P

regards,
G.

PS - you're also supposed to preface it with "endless paragraphs of nonsense". Proper form is important.
Following the Canucks since before Don Cherry played here.

#182 tiredatwork

tiredatwork

    Comets Star

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

Posted 03 August 2012 - 01:51 PM

That sums things up rather nicely.

:lol:


You actually have good points in many posts but have come unglued on this topic. You really want to line yourself with buddy who's trying to argue that we needed a dman as Bieksa was thought to be traded? huh? i guess being a gm must be hard if ownership is trading players behind your back. you are seriously in agreement with this guy?
And yes, when he starts rambling i don't read. Can you really blame me? at least you guys have each other.

#183 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,742 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 03 August 2012 - 06:07 PM

You really want to line yourself with buddy who's trying to argue that we needed a dman as Bieksa was thought to be traded? huh? i guess being a gm must be hard if ownership is trading players behind your back. you are seriously in agreement with this guy?


Go to around 1:00 mark, but it's mentioned a few times throughtoout the segment.



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

#184 tiredatwork

tiredatwork

    Comets Star

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

Posted 03 August 2012 - 06:41 PM

Go to around 1:00 mark, but it's mentioned a few times throughtoout the segment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpEOiCJWnNg

regards,
G.



hahahhah, that is classic. Interview is about how expendable Bieksa is as we have added so much depth on D.
You argue how we had to make the trade as we were so thin on the blue line and then show me an interview where it talks about who we move as we are stacked on D. You never disappoint!
awesome man.
Do you ever even think hmmmm, when you say something like "bieksa was thought to be traded". You do realize that the gm makes the trade, right? Who did MG think traded Bieksa? Think man.

#185 nuck nit

nuck nit

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,710 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 10

Posted 03 August 2012 - 06:45 PM

Ho Ho Ho and Ha Ha.

Just like Christmas.

#186 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,116 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 03 August 2012 - 08:09 PM

Landsberg is at his ignorant, smug little p.o.s. best in that interview. Lucky Bieksa didn't go all Chael Sonnen on him.



#187 Tortorella's Rant

Tortorella's Rant

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,191 posts
  • Joined: 11-April 12

Posted 03 August 2012 - 08:12 PM

Landsberg is at his ignorant, smug little p.o.s. best in that interview. Lucky Bieksa didn't go all Chael Sonnen on him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeL4W9o7RXA


Chael is a mental case anyway.
Posted Image

#188 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,742 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 03 August 2012 - 08:12 PM

hahahhah, that is classic. Interview is about how expendable Bieksa is as we have added so much depth on D.
You argue how we had to make the trade as we were so thin on the blue line and then show me an interview where it talks about who we move as we are stacked on D. You never disappoint!
awesome man.
Do you ever even think hmmmm, when you say something like "bieksa was thought to be traded". You do realize that the gm makes the trade, right? Who did MG think traded Bieksa? Think man.



More straw grasping on your part, with liberal attempts at muddying the waters, and an unhealthy dose of hysterics.

The interview was dated post July 1. It illustrates that Bieksa was being talked about as trade bait, something about which you seem to be in denial. At no time have I ever suggested that the team was considering trading Bieksa, as you are suggesting by your, "You do realize that the gm makes the trade, right?" comment.

I think it's sad that this is the only kind of defense you can mount to defend your position on the Ballard trade.


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

#189 Millerdraft

Millerdraft

    Canucks Franchise Player

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

Posted 03 August 2012 - 08:14 PM

What part of "Hamhuis wasn't signed when Mike Gillis acquired Ballard" is so hard to understand? There were no guarantees that Hamhuis was going to choose Vancouver, "at the time", and two teams were so confident in their chances to sign him that they were willing to, and actually did, trade mid-round draft picks for his rights.

If Gillis hadn't traded for Ballard and Hamhuis decided to sign elsewhere, then what? Sorry, but no Malhotra (huge part of winning the #1 seed which helped us bust out to three 2-0 series leads in the playoffs) and a defence in shambles; therefore, no Cup run in 2011. Furthermore, Hamhuis probably accepted $500,000 less than he would have had we not been so cap strapped at the time since $4.2m extra cap space =

"Excuse me but you can afford to pay me $5m instead of $4.5m especially since the Islanders are offering $6m, Pittsburgh is offering $5.5m. and the Flyers are offering $5m..."

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.


#190 Schnieds

Schnieds

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 171 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 12

Posted 03 August 2012 - 08:20 PM

The luongo deal was a great signing because it gave the Canucks elite goal tending for a long time. The thing is now Shneids has emerged and we all know what has transpired. I still think the deal is a good one and Luongo has 4-5 years of solid play infront of him.

Now, as far as Gills being a great GM, only time will tell. I'm at a point where I'm on the fence as far as whether or not I like him. At first I thought he was genius but not so much lately. Moneyball tactics seem to be a good thing with a lower salary cap, but you can't expect players to keep taking less when they see others hitting homeruns in free agency.

The Ehrhoff pick-up was great, not re-signing him wasn't. I'm not sure if Buffalo got to Hoff before free agency started or not, but I was not happy with not having him back.
The way he handled the whole Cody Hodgson situation was classless and he should've just kept his mouth shut in the end, it made the situation even harder to swallow. Grabner and a First for Ballard? Is this Gillis's fault or is it his fault only for listening to his scouting staff's opinion of Ballard? Another question is does Gillis know what a compentent scouting staff is and if he know's if he has one or not? I've thought about that from time to time!

What it comes down to for me right now is not the return the Canucks get for Luongo, but how it's all handled in the end. Im sure the Canucks will do well in the trade, but I really really hope it's done before the season starts. I don't want to see a circus like the Pavel Bure situation again and hope Gillis isn't holding out for a total fleecing of Florida or nothing deal. As you all can see I have my doubt's but am hoping he know's what he's really doing. <_<


I would've given Luongo a 7 year deal max at a 6 mil cap hit which at the time would've placed him 4th in the league behind Lundqvist, Ward and Miller in terms of cap hit. So what if we gotta pay him another $666,667? It means we can't sign Desbiens. Oh no, what a huge lost! For a goalie who has won nothing in the NHL, that's a pretty damn good pay. If he don't like it, MG should be more than willing to drive him to the airport.

#191 Hockey Fever

Hockey Fever

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,808 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 09

Posted 03 August 2012 - 08:28 PM

Yeah i sure do feel sorry for him, those millions of dollars he collects every year must really make his life difficult! :picard:

Posted Image

NHL Wikipedia : Operates Major Ice Hockey League known for predetermining Stanley Cup winners and rampant corrupt officiating

"I would love for (the Canucks) to win the Stanley Cup because that would put to bed all the talk about 1994", he says facetiously".
Nathan Lafayette on hitting the post in game seven of the Stanley Cup.


#192 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,025 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 03 August 2012 - 10:56 PM

You actually have good points in many posts but have come unglued on this topic. You really want to line yourself with buddy who's trying to argue that we needed a dman as Bieksa was thought to be traded? huh? i guess being a gm must be hard if ownership is trading players behind your back. you are seriously in agreement with this guy?
And yes, when he starts rambling i don't read. Can you really blame me? at least you guys have each other.


I actually found the pic apt as you simply refuse listen to reason. You obviously don't have the ability to look at the Grabner situation objectively as it stood when he was moved. Instead you go on about his production that season and that Gillis should have known. As far as I'm concerned you can question whether or not Ballard was the best choice or not, but not whether Grabner should have been moved.
Posted Image

#193 tiredatwork

tiredatwork

    Comets Star

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

Posted 04 August 2012 - 02:01 AM

More straw grasping on your part, with liberal attempts at muddying the waters, and an unhealthy dose of hysterics.

The interview was dated post July 1. It illustrates that Bieksa was being talked about as trade bait, something about which you seem to be in denial. At no time have I ever suggested that the team was considering trading Bieksa, as you are suggesting by your, "You do realize that the gm makes the trade, right?" comment.

I think it's sad that this is the only kind of defense you can mount to defend your position on the Ballard trade.


regards,
G.


once again you say nothing here.
Please explain, if Gillis is the GM, the guy who makes the trades, how could he havr thought Bieksa was traded?
Do you see the gap in logic?

#194 nuck nit

nuck nit

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,710 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 10

Posted 04 August 2012 - 04:59 AM

The Canucks gave up on Grabner 20 games into his NHL career.

Everybody with half a hockey brain should be questioning that move-and will question that move - for the next fifty years.

It has all the makings of Neely Part 2.

Let's hope Quinton Howden does not turn into an NHL gem or it is just a laugher all around.

#195 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,742 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 04 August 2012 - 07:26 AM

More straw grasping on your part, with liberal attempts at muddying the waters, and an unhealthy dose of hysterics.

The interview was dated post July 1. It illustrates that Bieksa was being talked about as trade bait, something about which you seem to be in denial. At no time have I ever suggested that the team was considering trading Bieksa, as you are suggesting by your, "You do realize that the gm makes the trade, right?" comment.

I think it's sad that this is the only kind of defense you can mount to defend your position on the Ballard trade.


regards,
G.


once again you say nothing here



Once again, I say lots, you continue to have an issue with understanding and accepting.

1.) In my post, I said your previous post (to the one included here) was grasping at straws as far as trying to find an adequate argument to support your position. Further, I stated that you are "muddying the waters", which is an attempt on your part to deflect my arguments, against which you appear not to have any adequate response. I then go on to say that you are looking like you're getting a bit hysterical on this subject. (That last bit was perhaps a bit unkind. I apologize.)

That was just the first line.

2.) I then pointed out that the interview contains comments about Bieksa who, at that time was being considered as "trade bait", something of which you seemed to be completely unaware. I then commented that I had never suggested that the team was going to trade Bieksa,

3.) I finished by stating, "I think it's sad that this is the only kind of defense you can mount to defend your position on the Ballard trade."

Your response to the above is to return to an idea which I have never written, but is rather something you have generated and has somehow become, at least in your mind, an idea of mine.

Please explain, if Gillis is the GM, the guy who makes the trades, how could he havr thought Bieksa was traded?
Do you see the gap in logic?


Where did I write anything about how Bieksa was going traded by the team without Gillis being being involved? I did write:

"Other guys got injured, which meant that Bieksa wasn't traded, as pretty much everyone on here were assuming was going to happen, and he played pretty well." which is found in post #141.

"Bieksa looked like he was going to be traded (but he wasn't)", found in post #173.

It is clear to me that these comments refer to opinions expressed by posters on these forums. and have nothing to do with Gillis, nor do they suggest that the team was going to trade Bieksa behind Gillis' back..


Do I see the gap in logic? No. What I do see is a lack of understanding on your part, You are jumping to conclusions which are not there. You are also trying to put words in my mouth. If that is the only way you feel you have a chance to win a debate on this subject then good luck trying.

I suggest you go back and read all of the the posts which you have suggested you do not fully read. Once you've done that I'm sure things will be clearer.

It's okay, take your time. I'll still be here.

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

#196 tiredatwork

tiredatwork

    Comets Star

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

Posted 04 August 2012 - 08:34 AM

Once again, I say lots, you continue to have an issue with understanding and accepting.

1.) In my post, I said your previous post (to the one included here) was grasping at straws as far as trying to find an adequate argument to support your position. Further, I stated that you are "muddying the waters", which is an attempt on your part to deflect my arguments, against which you appear not to have any adequate response. I then go on to say that you are looking like you're getting a bit hysterical on this subject. (That last bit was perhaps a bit unkind. I apologize.)

That was just the first line.

2.) I then pointed out that the interview contains comments about Bieksa who, at that time was being considered as "trade bait", something of which you seemed to be completely unaware. I then commented that I had never suggested that the team was going to trade Bieksa,

3.) I finished by stating, "I think it's sad that this is the only kind of defense you can mount to defend your position on the Ballard trade."

Your response to the above is to return to an idea which I have never written, but is rather something you have generated and has somehow become, at least in your mind, an idea of mine.



Where did I write anything about how Bieksa was going traded by the team without Gillis being being involved? I did write:

"Other guys got injured, which meant that Bieksa wasn't traded, as pretty much everyone on here were assuming was going to happen, and he played pretty well." which is found in post #141.

"Bieksa looked like he was going to be traded (but he wasn't)", found in post #173.

It is clear to me that these comments refer to opinions expressed by posters on these forums. and have nothing to do with Gillis, nor do they suggest that the team was going to trade Bieksa behind Gillis' back..


Do I see the gap in logic? No. What I do see is a lack of understanding on your part, You are jumping to conclusions which are not there. You are also trying to put words in my mouth. If that is the only way you feel you have a chance to win a debate on this subject then good luck trying.

I suggest you go back and read all of the the posts which you have suggested you do not fully read. Once you've done that I'm sure things will be clearer.

It's okay, take your time. I'll still be here.

regards,
G.


i try going with short direct posts hoping to keep you slightly on a point, not working very well.
When you go off on these never ending lists of excuses you keep contradicting yourself.

"Even I could spot the potential.............he would have to be put on waivers"
"Our D was so thin we had to make the trade............we were so deep Bieksa was rumoured to be traded by everybody here"
"He had a much better year than anybody could have predicted..............he has no value"

but when i point any of these out it's just more nonsense.
anyway, i don't want to put words in your mouth. but maybe something a little direct.
if Bieksa was thought to be traded, instead of making a bad trade for Ballard, maybe, here's an idea.............DONT TRADE HIM!
Your statement that Gillis was under pressure to add a d man, before free agency as Bieksa was thought to be traded, is still my favorite. You see my point was, nobody could trade him but Gillis, so how could he think he was traded? I know better than to ask a direct question, but....................have at it. I noticed even Baggins jumped ship on you on this one, he aint touching it.

#197 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,437 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 04 August 2012 - 08:40 AM

once again you say nothing here.
Please explain, if Gillis is the GM, the guy who makes the trades, how could he havr thought Bieksa was traded?
Do you see the gap in logic?


Have you ever thought that maybe you're so anti Gillis and that's clouded your ability to use reason and logic so much that you're actually now just anti-Canuck?

To any outsider looking in that sure seems the case. Same would go for guys like KofES and maybe even Nucknit. I know the next line from any of you is that you just love the Canucks so much you won't turn a blind eye blah blah blah but that doesn't make sense if every move Gillis makes is considered bad by you guys.

Just something to think about...I'm sure you won't care and it won't sink in. Keep on keeping on...
Posted Image
Posted Image

#198 tiredatwork

tiredatwork

    Comets Star

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

Posted 04 August 2012 - 09:02 AM

Have you ever thought that maybe you're so anti Gillis and that's clouded your ability to use reason and logic so much that you're actually now just anti-Canuck?

To any outsider looking in that sure seems the case. Same would go for guys like KofES and maybe even Nucknit. I know the next line from any of you is that you just love the Canucks so much you won't turn a blind eye blah blah blah but that doesn't make sense if every move Gillis makes is considered bad by you guys.

Just something to think about...I'm sure you won't care and it won't sink in. Keep on keeping on...


That's probably good advice. I should probably just accept we missed our chance, root for our guys and hope for the best. Watching our gm piss away our chances at a cup sucked, but nothing can be done now. Endless posts about why we made bad trades aint gonna help.

#199 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,437 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 04 August 2012 - 09:22 AM

That's probably good advice. I should probably just accept we missed our chance, root for our guys and hope for the best. Watching our gm piss away our chances at a cup sucked, but nothing can be done now. Endless posts about why we made bad trades aint gonna help.


So that would be a no you don't realize it and a yes that I called what your response would be.

Sometimes...I even scare myself.

Seriously though...what you just said in the post I quoted...was wrong. The problem is that you won't listen to anything that doesn't jive with what you believe to be true. Furthermore you think that what you believe to be true is absolutely true and will seemingly not see other points of view because anytime anyone makes a counterpoint to you you tell them they haven't said anything.

The problem I'm talking about has nothing to do with Gillis or the Canucks...it has to do with you. It's why I don't bother debating these things with you anymore...it's a one sided conversation with a brick wall that simply has "Gillis Sucks" spray painted across it. Until you stop worrying about winning a debate and start having discussions I can't see you being able to enjoy this place so much...or the Canucks but that may be a stretch to say.
Posted Image
Posted Image

#200 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 04 August 2012 - 09:29 AM

Please tell me more about wanting to spend 3.750M for two years with a modified NMC on a 37 year old who is injury prone.


Please tell me more about wanting to spend $4.60M for six years on an undrafted 28 year-old with one decent NHL season under his belt.

#201 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 04 August 2012 - 09:38 AM

Because Garrison > Rome, Salo. Not to forget Tanev is able to make the jump full time next year.

Hamhuis - Bieksa
Edler - Garrison
Ballard - Tanev
Alberts

How is this not improved? Three solid pairings that bring everything, and are reliable. You won't have to worry about them having an injury plagued season like Salo where it's one thing after another, worry about the speed of Salo etc etc, nor do you have to worry about Aaron Rome creeping into our top 4 anymore. I liked him as a depth guy, however, but I'm fine with him leaving.


Jesus, there is so much wrong with this post.

You're suggesting that Garrison is individually better Rome & Salo combined, yes? Too funny.

You're then assuming that 145 lb. Chris Tanev will be "able to make the jump full-time next year". That is an assumption, not a fact. Training camp will dictate. But from what I see of Tanev, he needs to be locked in a room at Morton's and be fed liquid steak through a tube for multiple hours per day. He will get pushed around badly, and probably isn't as ready as you think.

Number 3, you're assuming that Salo's injury history will repeat itself, and because Garrison (who has played LESS THAN 200 GAMES IN THE NHL) hasn't yet had a significant injury, he's somehow immune from the inherent risks of getting injured. Yet another dangerous assumption on your part.

IMO, and at this point, Salo is clearly a better player than Garrison. Garrison is Gillis' crapshoot. I suspect it will fail, big time.

#202 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 04 August 2012 - 09:46 AM

Yes, the Canucks are better than they were June 23rd.
To repeat.
Successful draft of a better than expected big, physical two-way center.
Signed Schneider before July 1st - avoided serious complications, a bigger cap hit, and drama.
Signed Garrison - the best, most affordable long term option available in the UFA defensemen market.
Bettter chance than anticipated of signing Doan, who looked dead-set to go back to Phoenix - at this point the Canucks look to have a decent chance. To sign other not very attractive available UFAs would get in the way.
Luongo value higher than projected by eastern lobby/media - wise to hold out - will eventually add more depth to the roster.
A number or young players in the system improving.
I'd say the Canucks are well positioned right now.


You're calling a 1st round pick a success? :lol: Boy, yeah, such aptitude shown by Gillis, walking all the way to podium, and making good use of his vocal chords to call Brendan Gaunce's name. What a success.

And did you say "no drama" when referencing our current goalie situation? :lol:

Garrison is a PURE gamble. That was a risky signing. Good chance it doesn't turn out. And then what? Will you blame Gillis?

"Better than anticipated" chance of signing Shane Doan? Do we have the same odds as we did Schultz?

Luongo's value is INCREASING? OK, I think I've officially seen everything on these boards.

#203 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 04 August 2012 - 09:48 AM

Ballard may not have panned out as expected but the only thing Florida really got out of it was that bottom end 1st rounder. Grabner couldn't even crack their offense starved roster. He sure as hell wasn't going to beat any of our top six (all of them coming off a career year) for a spot.


Two teams making an ERROR doesn't at all mask the fact that it was an ERROR.

#204 nuck nit

nuck nit

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,710 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 10

Posted 04 August 2012 - 09:51 AM

Yeah,blindly sucking up to Gillis is going to win us a cup.

Let's not be critical whatsoever as the 9 prior Vancouver Canucks GM's all have the same thing in common:

No CUP.

Gillis gets paid big dollars to have big shoulders.

If he can't take criticism he would have stayed away from the job.

#205 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 04 August 2012 - 09:53 AM

HINDSIGHT, HINDSIGHT, HINDSIGHT, HINDSIGHT, and more HINDSIGHT.


Um, yes, everything is in hindsight. What's your point? Does that somehow absolve Mike Gillis of his mistakes? Gee, I'd sure love to have a job where I can just raise my hand and say "OOOH! OOOH! Hindsight!" and be waived of my responsibilities.

In hindsight, I'm sure that OJ Simpson regrets lopping off his ex-wife's melon, should he thus be freed from prison?

#206 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 04 August 2012 - 10:24 AM

The Canucks gave up on Grabner 20 games into his NHL career.

Everybody with half a hockey brain should be questioning that move-and will question that move - for the next fifty years.

It has all the makings of Neely Part 2.

Let's hope Quinton Howden does not turn into an NHL gem or it is just a laugher all around.


I think Hodgson will be Cam Neely Part II, but Grabner's a mistake, no doubt about it. The people who are defending Gillis about this trade are nothing but unreservedly biased homers. 29/29 other markets in the NHL would call the trade a mistake.

For those referencing "hindsight" - was it a good move for Calgary to trade Dion Phaneuf to Toronto, than, for Nik Hagman & Matt Stajan? At the time, Calgary had a newly-acquired Bouwmeester, who had shown the ability to be a #1. Also at the time, both Hagman & Stajan were fairly productive offensive players on Toronto.

So, I guess, using the "at the time" logic, Darryl Sutter didn't make a mistake in making this deal?

#207 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 04 August 2012 - 10:30 AM

To any outsider looking in that sure seems the case. Same would go for guys like KofES and maybe even Nucknit. I know the next line from any of you is that you just love the Canucks so much you won't turn a blind eye blah blah blah but that doesn't make sense if every move Gillis makes is considered bad by you guys.


Seriously, shut it, pal.

We're both making good points and offering good support for our positions. The worst part about this board is the notion that you're somehow a "negative troll" if you're not waving the Canuck flag for every single move that they make. It's good to think for yourself. If myself, or nucknit, or whoever, doesn't like a move made by the Canucks, what's wrong with voicing our opinion? THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF THIS MESSAGE BOARD!

Also, every move is not considered bad. As mentioned many times, I like the off-season extension of Raymond. There's good value there, IMO. That said, I don't think there's anything else that I like. Does that make me wrong? NO. It's an OPINION.

So, please, quit crying about negativity. These guys don't care what we say about them, and neither should you. Grow up.

#208 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,742 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 04 August 2012 - 11:13 AM

i try going with short direct posts hoping to keep you slightly on a point, not working very well.


You're trying to do that for me? How thoughtful! Lots of people have said that you're "trying", I guess this is what they meant. However, while your posts are short, I suspect it has more to do with a lack of attention span on your part rather than an attempt at trying to keep me on topic.


When you go off on these never ending lists of excuses you keep contradicting yourself.

"Even I could spot the potential.............he would have to be put on waivers"
"Our D was so thin we had to make the trade............we were so deep Bieksa was rumoured to be traded by everybody here"
"He had a much better year than anybody could have predicted..............he has no value"

but when i point any of these out it's just more nonsense.


Any contradictions are in your mind. Go back and read one of my posts, thoroughly.

For example, what you see is, "Grabner had/has potential.......he would have to be put on waivers", like you've noted above. However, the part in the middle which you don't read is the important part: "but because he was a lazy sod who didn't put in enough effort to make the team over his time here". When you add that part into the sentence it makes much more sense: "Grabner had/has potential, but because he was a lazy sod who didn't put in enough effort to make the team over his time here he would have to be put on waivers".See how that works? Read the entire line and things get so much clearer.

I get the impression that when you pick up a book to read the entire experience for you is, "Chapter One.........The End".

Also, you keep swapping back and forth between "excuses" and "nonsense" when describing what I write. Could you make up your mind and stick to one or the other? Some of the folks who support you have a difficult time keeping up with the terminology.


anyway, i don't want to put words in your mouth. but maybe something a little direct.
if Bieksa was thought to be traded, instead of making a bad trade for Ballard, maybe, here's an idea.............DONT TRADE HIM!
Your statement that Gillis was under pressure to add a d man, before free agency as Bieksa was thought to be traded, is still my favorite. You see my point was, nobody could trade him but Gillis, so how could he think he was traded?


As I have pointed out previously, you derive conclusions from a comment which has a completely different meaning. I say that the opinion of a significant portion of the people on this forum believe Bieksa would be traded. You jump to, "How could he be traded without Gillis knowing about it?" Do you see how silly this makes you appear?

Since you have requested it, I will once again attempt to make clear to you why the Ballard trade came to be:

*Grabner was drafted................and then his lazy butt got traded.*

Was that better?

I know better than to ask a direct question, but....................have at it.


I'm not sure I understand what ...........you're saying here.


I noticed even Baggins jumped ship on you on this one, he aint touching it.


Yeah, I'm feeling all abandoned. I'll just sit here in the dark, alone with my thoughts.

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

#209 nuck nit

nuck nit

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,710 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 10

Posted 04 August 2012 - 11:17 AM

Have you ever thought that maybe you're so anti Gillis and that's clouded your ability to use reason and logic so much that you're actually now just anti-Canuck?


Another thoughtful hockey insight from the guy with a raging lunatic as his sig.

Edited by nuck nit, 04 August 2012 - 11:26 AM.


#210 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,437 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 04 August 2012 - 11:33 AM

Another thoughtful hockey insight from the guy with a raging lunatic as his sig.


Ironic?
Posted Image
Posted Image




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.