Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
* * * - - 1 votes

Mike Gillis Co-Hosting Team 1040 from 11-1


This topic has been archived.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

#61 LuongoG1

LuongoG1

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,833 posts
  • Joined: 03-April 07

Posted 23 July 2012 - 12:05 PM

And why in his right mind would Weber sign a 1 year deal to become UFA next year when he's got a 100 million dollar deal in from of him? By the time he became UFA, he would not have the same kind of deal to sign because of the new CBA - he would've lost boat loads of money on it.

#62 hockeyville88

hockeyville88

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Super Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,362 posts
  • Joined: 24-October 06

Posted 23 July 2012 - 12:07 PM

Sounds like a lot of young prospects have a chance to make the opening night roster. That's different from the past few years. Makes me excited!
Posted Image
Sig credit: GoaltenderInterference. Thanks!

#63 arsenalian

arsenalian

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,354 posts
  • Joined: 20-January 06

Posted 23 July 2012 - 12:07 PM

No offer was made. That's what they were "mulling over" doing.

But, they assumed Nashville would match, so they instead just chose to not even try.


Sorry yes, but he discussed the one-year w/ Weber. Doesn't alter the fact that Gillis would have a much better idea of what Poile is thinking/doing than any of us

#64 NuxFan09

NuxFan09

    Canucks Third-Line

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

Posted 23 July 2012 - 12:07 PM

Gillis just confirmed the Canucks were in the Nash sweepstakes early on but Columbus wanted way too much. Here comes De Niro with his complaints that Gillis didn't get it done, though, because he doesn't have a clue how to smartly manage a hockey team.

#65 nucklebucker

nucklebucker

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 547 posts
  • Joined: 25-April 09

Posted 23 July 2012 - 12:08 PM

We could not have got Weber as an RFA. Here's why:

Nashville will likely (but not definetly) match Philly's offer sheet. BUT, had the offer sheet come from Vancouver they would absolutely have matched. They couldn't have let him walk to a Western Conference contender in exchange for a few very late1st round picks (from the back to back Presidents' Trophy winning team). No way.

#66 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,312 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 23 July 2012 - 12:09 PM

We're not the ones sounding whiny here...just saying. He did make an offer, it was 1 year, so that if Nashville matches he's UFA next year. He believes Nashville will match any offer, and part of it has to do w/ the new CBA coming in. I'm not a Gillis apologist, but I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt on this one, and assume he has his ear closer to the NHL, and what Poile is thinking saying, than fans on this board.


Well it sounds whiney to me. I say one bad thing about Gillis and I get 4 people trying to attack me.

He said they were thinking about making him a 1 year offer because they thought Nashville would match. Bottom line is, Weber was never going to seriously sign a 1 year offer sheet, when there was clearly going to be other teams offering more.

He didn't even make a competitive offer for Weber to consider. So it has nothing to do with him wanting to play here or not, it has to do with us not even offering him anything enticing.

Nashville said they would match because they wanted to protect their player. Philly called their bluff, and now they might reap the rewards from it. If Gillis had at least offered a multi year contract with a big signing bonus, I would be happy. But this was a feeble attempt on his part.

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#67 NuxFan09

NuxFan09

    Canucks Third-Line

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

Posted 23 July 2012 - 12:10 PM

Bunch of whiney Gillis lovers in here.

Gillis had a chance to make a bold move, and he couldn't get it done. Now he's making an excuse. That deserves some amount of criticism, whether you like to admit it or not.

Meeting with a player, and actually making an offer are two different things. It sounds like he thought Nashville would match for sure, so he planned to offer him a 1 year offer sheet so that he would remain in Nashville until he was a free agent. It didn't work, and now he missed out.

I think I should be allowed to criticize our GM when he doesn't get things done. This doesn't always have to be a Gillis love fest.


Ironically, you're the one who's whining.

This isn't a Gillis love-fest. It's a simple acknowledgment of the logical rationale of Gillis not signing Weber to an offer sheet. You're the one irrationally crying over Gillis not "getting it done". I mean, who cares that it would take almost $30M in salary dollars in the first year, a year in which there might not even be a hockey season.

#68 Drybone

Drybone

    Canucks Prospect

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

Posted 23 July 2012 - 12:10 PM

Well if he had sent him an off sheet first, his choice would be to sign it or stay in Nashville.

Your telling me he wouldn't play for the Canucks if we offered to sign him? I don't buy that.

My guess is Gillis just wasn't willing to pay him what it would have taken to get him here. Philly was, and now there's a good chance they'll get him.


I agree but you do have to admit thats a HELL of a lot of money . 14 years.

I would have thought Gillis would offer 8 mil for 7 years or something to this effect. I was nowhere near close to the Philly offer.
Posted Image

#69 Drybone

Drybone

    Canucks Prospect

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

Posted 23 July 2012 - 12:13 PM

Sounds like a lot of young prospects have a chance to make the opening night roster. That's different from the past few years. Makes me excited!


Im definitely excited for Kassian and Schroeder. :towel:
Posted Image

#70 arsenalian

arsenalian

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,354 posts
  • Joined: 20-January 06

Posted 23 July 2012 - 12:13 PM

Well it sounds whiney to me. I say one bad thing about Gillis and I get 4 people trying to attack me.

He said they were thinking about making him a 1 year offer because they thought Nashville would match. Bottom line is, Weber was never going to seriously sign a 1 year offer sheet, when there was clearly going to be other teams offering more.

He didn't even make a competitive offer for Weber to consider. So it has nothing to do with him wanting to play here or not, it has to do with us not even offering him anything enticing.

Nashville said they would match because they wanted to protect their player. Philly called their bluff, and now they might reap the rewards from it. If Gillis had at least offered a multi year contract with a big signing bonus, I would be happy. But this was a feeble attempt on his part.


No one's attacking you, just responding to your statements. It's all been reasonable responses, you're the one that threw out the everyone who disagrees with me is whiny. So I'll just stop responding now.

edit: Oh and if he really wanted out of Nashville he would sign a one-year, so he's a UFA next year and could play anywhere he wanted, for pretty much the max amount of money and term he'd be allowed under the new CBA. There, that's the last I'm going to say on it

Edited by arsenalian, 23 July 2012 - 12:15 PM.


#71 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,312 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 23 July 2012 - 12:13 PM

Gillis just confirmed the Canucks were in the Nash sweepstakes early on but Columbus wanted way too much. Here comes De Niro with his complaints that Gillis didn't get it done, though, because he doesn't have a clue how to smartly manage a hockey team.


Give me a break. :picard:

It's one thing if the cost for a trade is too high, it's another if you have a chance to offer a contract to a player and the best you can do is a 1 year deal.

But I'm sure you're an expert on running a hockey, just like everyone else on here.

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#72 Knowmatic

Knowmatic

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 254 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 06

Posted 23 July 2012 - 12:15 PM

Well if he had sent him an off sheet first, his choice would be to sign it or stay in Nashville.

Your telling me he wouldn't play for the Canucks if we offered to sign him? I don't buy that.

My guess is Gillis just wasn't willing to pay him what it would have taken to get him here. Philly was, and now there's a good chance they'll get him.

Ummmmmm, pretty sure it's Nashville's choice to match, not Weber's. Gillis believes that Nashville will match the offer sheet, same as they would have if the Canucks had offered, locking him up long term in another city and essentially having little to no chance of getting him in the end. Gillis also stated that the decision was not about marketplace, so we can squash that notion of him deciding against Vancouver. It sounds like it came down to Philly being the only team willing to take the risk of having him locked up long term in Nashville with the faint hope that they wouldn't match. I think Gillis ultimately wanted to get a 1 year offer sheet (which Nashville may not have matched) and sign him to an extension.
sig is too large, 400x200 pixels please

#73 NuxFan09

NuxFan09

    Canucks Third-Line

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

Posted 23 July 2012 - 12:15 PM

Whatever, I'm perfectly content, at least as far as the Weber situation goes. It would have been awesome to get him but the Canucks didn't. Really, no big deal. The Canucks still have an excellent defense and Edler himself is a top 15 defenseman in the league.

The sky isn't falling in my world.

#74 smurf47

smurf47

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,948 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 10

Posted 23 July 2012 - 12:17 PM

How can one fault Gillis in this deal. 98 million or whatever it was is like selling the farm for one player. Contracts are out of control and far too expensive...if owners conyinue to pay they deserve to fail !

#75 NuxFan09

NuxFan09

    Canucks Third-Line

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

Posted 23 July 2012 - 12:17 PM

Give me a break. :picard:

It's one thing if the cost for a trade is too high, it's another if you have a chance to offer a contract to a player and the best you can do is a 1 year deal.

But I'm sure you're an expert on running a hockey, just like everyone else on here.


I'm not an expert on running a hockey team by any means, but I like to think I possess a great deal of common sense, which is really all that is needed to see why not acquiring Weber is not a colossal failure.

#76 M A K A V E L I 96

M A K A V E L I 96

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,705 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 11

Posted 23 July 2012 - 12:17 PM

Were any of these things said?

"____ smack dab in the middle of Canucks lunch"
"____ on all things ____"
"We'll play tell me I'm wrong at ____. Get your submissions in to the Sonitroll verified Sportsaction BC Back Institute Kirmac Cares for Kids instant access inbox"
Posted Image

#77 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,312 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 23 July 2012 - 12:17 PM

Ironically, you're the one who's whining.

This isn't a Gillis love-fest. It's a simple acknowledgment of the logical rationale of Gillis not signing Weber to an offer sheet. You're the one irrationally crying over Gillis not "getting it done". I mean, who cares that it would take almost $30M in salary dollars in the first year, a year in which there might not even be a hockey season.


I'm not crying over anything. Apparently questioning Gillis's attempts is whining though...I guess I had this place mistaken for a hockey forum where people can be unbiased though.

And I'm not complaining about him not getting a deal done. I'm complaining about him making excuses even though he didn't even make a competitive offer. He didn't even make one actually, so why is he even talking about it.

That's like him saying, well I was thinking about drafting Jordan Eberle, but I didn't. It doesn't mean anything.

Edited by DeNiro, 23 July 2012 - 12:19 PM.

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#78 JordanEberle

JordanEberle

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 288 posts
  • Joined: 08-June 12

Posted 23 July 2012 - 12:18 PM

We could not have got Weber as an RFA. Here's why:

Nashville will likely (but not definetly) match Philly's offer sheet. BUT, had the offer sheet come from Vancouver they would absolutely have matched. They couldn't have let him walk to a Western Conference contender in exchange for a few very late1st round picks (from the back to back Presidents' Trophy winning team). No way.

Yes but the whole point would be that we WANT Nashville to match so that he comes up again as a UFA this season. We would not expect him on our team this next year anyways.
Posted Image
Credit: Garrett-6

#79 arsenalian

arsenalian

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,354 posts
  • Joined: 20-January 06

Posted 23 July 2012 - 12:18 PM

Were any of these things said?

"____ smack dab in the middle of Canucks lunch"
"____ on all things ____"
"We'll play tell me I'm wrong at ____. Get your submissions in to the Sonitroll verified Sportsaction BC Back Institute Kirmac Cares for Kids instant access inbox"

Gasp... How did you know? ;)

#80 Raiun

Raiun

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,112 posts
  • Joined: 23-February 12

Posted 23 July 2012 - 12:20 PM

Give me a break. :picard:

It's one thing if the cost for a trade is too high, it's another if you have a chance to offer a contract to a player and the best you can do is a 1 year deal.

But I'm sure you're an expert on running a hockey, just like everyone else on here.


I gotta admit, I agree with you. Offering him a 1 year deal sounds like it's just a way to test the waters.. like "Hey, we'll offer you this, but if Nashville matches then we'll see you next year... wink once if you want to be a Canuck next year". It's more trying to feel out Weber's position than making a serious offer. However, there was no way we were going to get him by offering him a reasonable contract and hoping Nashville wouldn't match, because of course they would. Philly MIGHT get him just because they went insane and offered him the Moon, hoping that Nashville wouldn't have a spare Moon to spend (or want to spend their Moon).

I'm glad Gillis didn't do what Philly did, and I don't see how he could have possibly gotten Weber otherwise, so maybe playing it safe and putting the offer out there to pick him up next year *if he wants to* was not a terrible idea.

#81 nucklebucker

nucklebucker

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 547 posts
  • Joined: 25-April 09

Posted 23 July 2012 - 12:21 PM

No one's attacking you, just responding to your statements. It's all been reasonable responses, you're the one that threw out the everyone who disagrees with me is whiny. So I'll just stop responding now.

edit: Oh and if he really wanted out of Nashville he would sign a one-year, so he's a UFA next year and could play anywhere he wanted, for pretty much the max amount of money and term he'd be allowed under the new CBA. There, that's the last I'm going to say on it


To be fair, I think it's pretty clear that Weber wants out of Nashville. The offer sheet was tailored specifically for Nashville's finances in the sense that it is so front-heavy (likely the most front-heavy NHL contract ever) that Nashville's ownership simply may not be able to swing the money (especially with the risk of a work-stoppage).

He didn't wait for his UFA chance because the owners are going to get term-limits on contracts. He managed to squeeze in the last one of those contracts before they're banned.

#82 Drybone

Drybone

    Canucks Prospect

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

Posted 23 July 2012 - 12:23 PM

To be fair, I think it's pretty clear that Weber wants out of Nashville. The offer sheet was tailored specifically for Nashville's finances in the sense that it is so front-heavy (likely the most front-heavy NHL contract ever) that Nashville's ownership simply may not be able to swing the money (especially with the risk of a work-stoppage).

He didn't wait for his UFA chance because the owners are going to get term-limits on contracts. He managed to squeeze in the last one of those contracts before they're banned.


This.

I think the decision is out of Polie's hands now. Its up to the owner(s) if they are willing to put their money where there mouth is and pony up . Proving to Weber and their season ticket holders they are willing to do whatever it takes to build a cup winner.

If they let him walk, it will just reinforce that they are a second tier team whose sole purpose is to develop talent for other teams.
Posted Image

#83 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,312 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 23 July 2012 - 12:24 PM

We could not have got Weber as an RFA. Here's why:

Nashville will likely (but not definetly) match Philly's offer sheet. BUT, had the offer sheet come from Vancouver they would absolutely have matched. They couldn't have let him walk to a Western Conference contender in exchange for a few very late1st round picks (from the back to back Presidents' Trophy winning team). No way.


It has nothing to do with what team was making the offer, it simply has to do with whether or not they can afford it.

Philly called their bluff that they couldn't afford this deal, and for all we know, they might be right.

If Nashville doesn't match on Wednesday, I think everyone will have a different tone.

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#84 cdubuya

cdubuya

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,427 posts
  • Joined: 02-August 05

Posted 23 July 2012 - 12:24 PM

Gilly shoulda offered more than Philly.
Posted Image

#85 nucklebucker

nucklebucker

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 547 posts
  • Joined: 25-April 09

Posted 23 July 2012 - 12:25 PM

Yes but the whole point would be that we WANT Nashville to match so that he comes up again as a UFA this season. We would not expect him on our team this next year anyways.


Gotcha, but what I was referring to was a long-term contract. The 1 year option sounds nice but it was clear that Weber was shooting to get his big deal right now before long contracts are no longer allowed in the CBA. I was responding to people saying that we should have done what Philly did.

As for the one year, it seams likely he wouldn't have signed it, as it would have meant signing away his chance at the mega-deal.

#86 Raiun

Raiun

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,112 posts
  • Joined: 23-February 12

Posted 23 July 2012 - 12:25 PM

He didn't wait for his UFA chance because the owners are going to get term-limits on contracts. He managed to squeeze in the last one of those contracts before they're banned.


I really hope you are right and they do get banned. These contracts are BS. I don't mind having longterm contracts, but you should pay the cap hit the entire time, no frontloading, and no signing bonuses (or any other kind of bonuses)

#87 Drybone

Drybone

    Canucks Prospect

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

Posted 23 July 2012 - 12:26 PM

I gotta admit, I agree with you. Offering him a 1 year deal sounds like it's just a way to test the waters..


I disagree. The one year sheet is fishing to get Weber to UFA status. If weber bites and signs it, Nashville can only match to UFA status.

It think it was Weber thinking the next CBA will forbid long contracts so he had to cash in when he could.
Posted Image

#88 Drybone

Drybone

    Canucks Prospect

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

Posted 23 July 2012 - 12:26 PM

It has nothing to do with what team was making the offer, it simply has to do with whether or not they can afford it.

Philly called their bluff that they couldn't afford this deal, and for all we know, they might be right.

If Nashville doesn't match on Wednesday, I think everyone will have a different tone.


I think they have to.
Posted Image

#89 NuxFan09

NuxFan09

    Canucks Third-Line

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

Posted 23 July 2012 - 12:27 PM

Keep in mind that Gillis is also handcuffed by other issues. He wants to see where his team stands in the Doan sweepstakes and get an idea of how much of the cap he will need to commit to him if he did indeed sign with the Canucks. There's also the Luongo situation. At this point, it sounds like Gillis has no clue if Luongo will be on the team once the season starts, hence whether that $5.333M cap hit will be on the books or not.

There are a lot of money questions right now and things need to fall into place one at a time.

Edited by NuxFan09, 23 July 2012 - 12:28 PM.


#90 Raiun

Raiun

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,112 posts
  • Joined: 23-February 12

Posted 23 July 2012 - 12:27 PM

Gilly shoulda offered more than Philly.


And how would we fit that into the cap, exactly?




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.