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This topic has been archived.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

#181 shadowgoon

shadowgoon

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 771 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 10

Posted 23 July 2012 - 05:21 PM

Nice diagram. Sorry you had to waste your time with that.

It still has nothing to do with last season, which was the only season I was talking about.

Thanks for coming out though.


Wasted my time? OK, I'm sure I will really lament wasting the 10 seconds it took for me to Ctrl+t, search "salo injury chart", right click copy image URL and paste into here. Hell, I just wasted more time explaining what I did than it took to actually do it.

The "point" of all that, is injuries take a cumulative toll on an athlete. It's very conceivable that Salo could "hit the wall" so to speak this season and decide it's in his best interest to retire at seasons end, saddling Tampa with that 3.75 cap hit with no return.

Moving forward I would rather have Garrison for 6 years than miss out and have Salo for maybe 1 more season, but hey if Salo plays all 82 games and wins the Norris I'll be the first to congratulate you on your impeccable ability of foresight.

#182 TRR

TRR

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 521 posts
  • Joined: 01-November 06

Posted 23 July 2012 - 05:22 PM

Nice diagram. Sorry you had to waste your time with that.

It still has nothing to do with last season, which was the only season I was talking about.

Thanks for coming out though.


Last year should be essentially irrelevant - as it's already over. You're clearly ignoring the fact this guy is made like a sheet of glass and isn't getting any younger; good production or not.
Posted Image

#183 Bigturk8

Bigturk8

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 680 posts
  • Joined: 08-June 11

Posted 23 July 2012 - 05:22 PM

lol, wow, talk about full of crap.


I disagree. The debate was weather Garrison will be a significant improvement from Salo last year, not weather Garrison has more of a future, or is a better deal than Salo this year. The diagram was irrelevant.
TL.jpg

#184 CanucksFanMike

CanucksFanMike

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,632 posts
  • Joined: 28-September 11

Posted 23 July 2012 - 05:25 PM

:lol: MG has nothing better to do than sit in a studio fielding dumb questions
Posted Image
Credit to -Vintage Canuck-

#185 shadowgoon

shadowgoon

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 771 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 10

Posted 23 July 2012 - 05:30 PM

I disagree. The debate was weather Garrison will be a significant improvement from Salo last year, not weather Garrison has more of a future, or is a better deal than Salo this year. The diagram was irrelevant.


The diagram is entirely relevant as it plays into the overall decision on whether Salo would be as effective this coming season as he has been in previous seasons, especially when you compare to a 10 year younger and way more physical body in Garrison and equivalent point production. In my opinion, Garrison is hands down above and beyond what Salo would be able to provide next season if for no other reason than he stands a much higher chance of playing in all 82 games.

The logic? Not having to miss time due to injury means consistent playing time, it means not having to catch up to speed with the rest of the team. Is it likely that Garrison might be injured during the season? Sure, but a lot less likely than Salo. Consistent time in the line up equals a higher chance at increased point production.

There are nothing but positives when considering Garrison over Salo.

#186 Bigturk8

Bigturk8

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 680 posts
  • Joined: 08-June 11

Posted 23 July 2012 - 05:31 PM

Last year should be essentially irrelevant - as it's already over. You're clearly ignoring the fact this guy is made like a sheet of glass and isn't getting any younger; good production or not.


At this point, Garrison is essentially Salo's replacement in our roster; Therefor, judging the improvement that we will see from Garrison this year over Salo from last year is actually pretty important.
TL.jpg

#187 Wonder__Bread

Wonder__Bread

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 364 posts
  • Joined: 11-June 09

Posted 23 July 2012 - 05:37 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.

You're arguing over conclusions that you made prior to posting that Gillis couldn't get it done, what makes you the fountain of knowledge concerning Weber, you don't know what kind of complications could have risen in that 3 hour session. You can criticize all you want, cause you have your right to an opinion but don't argue with people when you're arguing based on self-derived speculation and opinion.

Posted Image


#188 Bigturk8

Bigturk8

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 680 posts
  • Joined: 08-June 11

Posted 23 July 2012 - 05:38 PM

The diagram is entirely relevant as it plays into the overall decision on whether Salo would be as effective this coming season as he has been in previous seasons, especially when you compare to a 10 year younger and way more physical body in Garrison and equivalent point production. In my opinion, Garrison is hands down above and beyond what Salo would be able to provide next season if for no other reason than he stands a much higher chance of playing in all 82 games.

The logic? Not having to miss time due to injury means consistent playing time, it means not having to catch up to speed with the rest of the team. Is it likely that Garrison might be injured during the season? Sure, but a lot less likely than Salo. Consistent time in the line up equals a higher chance at increased point production.

There are nothing but positives when considering Garrison over Salo.


Going forward Garrison will be the better choice, but I said this in my last post, that is not what DeNiro was debating with you.

The impact that Garrison has this year will not likely be a large improvement over the impact that Salo had last year. This means that as a team, we are not largely improved from the previous year. Salo's production or worth in coming years has nothing to do with the argument.
TL.jpg

#189 Rounoush

Rounoush

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,208 posts
  • Joined: 19-October 10

Posted 23 July 2012 - 05:43 PM

De Niro, you're making an absolute fool of yourself. It is so easy to admit to being wrong on the internet: Quit posting.

2dgqi51.jpgfcvifc.jpg
Thanks a bunch to khalifawiz501 and Discord for the signatures.


#190 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,935 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 23 July 2012 - 05:44 PM

Going forward Garrison will be the better choice, but I said this in my last post, that is not what DeNiro was debating with you.

The impact that Garrison has this year will not likely be a large improvement over the impact that Salo had last year. This means that as a team, we are not largely improved from the previous year. Salo's production or worth in coming years has nothing to do with the argument.


Exactly what my point was. Some people have a hard time understanding I guess.

It seems like people would rather debate you on here than actually read what you wrote.

I seem to be popular like that today though.

Edited by DeNiro, 23 July 2012 - 05:44 PM.

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#191 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,935 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 23 July 2012 - 05:49 PM

De Niro, you're making an absolute fool of yourself. It is so easy to admit to being wrong on the internet: Quit posting.


Nice to meet you too, Rounoush is it?

I don't think I'll quit posting. If you're so offended by what I'm posting, don't read it. You must be new to the internet if you have this much problem with different people's point of views.

And the fact I have almost 10,000 posts and 5,000 plus votes means that people usually like what I have to say more than they don't. Sorry I offended you so deeply though. ;)

Edited by DeNiro, 23 July 2012 - 05:51 PM.

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#192 BananaMash

BananaMash

    xX_qUiCkScOpEz_Xx

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,396 posts
  • Joined: 23-May 10

Posted 23 July 2012 - 05:51 PM

Nice to meet you too, Rounoush is it?

I don't think I'll quit posting. If you're so offended by what I'm posting, don't read it. You must be new to the internet if you have this much problem with different people's point of views.

And the fact I have almost 10,000 posts and 5,000 plus votes means that people usually like what I have to say more than they don't. Sorry I offended you so deeply though. ;)


Isn't that skewed by the current lack of a minus button?

FWYIerW.png


#193 shadowgoon

shadowgoon

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 771 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 10

Posted 23 July 2012 - 05:59 PM

Going forward Garrison will be the better choice, but I said this in my last post, that is not what DeNiro was debating with you.

The impact that Garrison has this year will not likely be a large improvement over the impact that Salo had last year. This means that as a team, we are not largely improved from the previous year. Salo's production or worth in coming years has nothing to do with the argument.


"Going forward" includes next year. If at best Garrison proves to be equivalent to Salo NEXT YEAR, how would re-signing Salo over offering a long term contract to Garrison be the better decision?

It just proves the shortsightedness you possess when pragmatically looking at and assessing the given situation. There are more factors present in any business decision, let alone tendering performance based contracts. Potential absolutely has to be one of the criteria, this is an asset management game. You have to plan 5 steps ahead of where you are to ensure you are perennially competitive.

I fail to see how the Canucks are any less competitive with Garrison in the roster next year instead of Salo. I think you need to take a step back and correct your lack of objectivity. Salo has been here for a long time, so he was a known quantity; I get that but you also need to be able to adjust and ride the wave or risk getting sucked under and pulled down by the current.

The point is, from a performance stand point, a business stand point and a future stand point Garrison was all positive. Even if you only look at next season (which IMO is a very narrow sighted stance to take, and an incomplete sample size to base a decision upon), I would have still gone with Garrison.

Edited by Shadowgoon, 23 July 2012 - 06:00 PM.


#194 Tragoedia

Tragoedia

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,113 posts
  • Joined: 10-February 11

Posted 23 July 2012 - 06:02 PM

Isn't that skewed by the current lack of a minus button?

Yep. Kind of pointless to have positive reps without any actual repercussions. If Clutch posted his infamous post today it would probably get 3 or 4 pluses, despite having almost the entire sites disgust.

#195 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,935 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 23 July 2012 - 06:06 PM

Isn't that skewed by the current lack of a minus button?


Well I got the majority of the upvotes before the minus button was taken away. But regardless, you don't have to give posts pluses, just like you don't have to give them minuses.

If you're getting a plus for every couple posts, chances are you're getting more positive reaction then negative.

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#196 Bigturk8

Bigturk8

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 680 posts
  • Joined: 08-June 11

Posted 23 July 2012 - 06:07 PM

"Going forward" includes next year. If at best Garrison proves to be equivalent to Salo NEXT YEAR, how would re-signing Salo over offering a long term contract to Garrison be the better decision?

It just proves the shortsightedness you possess when pragmatically looking at and assessing the given situation. There are more factors present in any business decision, let alone tendering performance based contracts. Potential absolutely has to be one of the criteria, this is an asset management game. You have to plan 5 steps ahead of where you are to ensure you are perennially competitive.

I fail to see how the Canucks are any less competitive with Garrison in the roster next year instead of Salo. I think you need to take a step back and correct your lack of objectivity. Salo has been here for a long time, so he was a known quantity; I get that but you also need to be able to adjust and ride the wave or risk getting sucked under and pulled down by the current.

The point is, from a performance stand point, a business stand point and a future stand point Garrison was all positive. Even if you only look at next season (which IMO is a very narrow sighted stance to take, and an incomplete sample size to base a decision upon), I would have still gone with Garrison.


I said "Going forward Garrison is a better decision, BUT I said this in my last post, that is not what DeNiro was debating with you."

You're not arguing the same thing. Be careful when you read or else you will begin to belligerently argue a point that has nothing to do with it.

TL.jpg

#197 BananaMash

BananaMash

    xX_qUiCkScOpEz_Xx

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,396 posts
  • Joined: 23-May 10

Posted 23 July 2012 - 06:13 PM

Well I got the majority of the upvotes before the minus button was taken away. But regardless, you don't have to give posts pluses, just like you don't have to give them minuses.

If you're getting a plus for every couple posts, chances are you're getting more positive reaction then negative.


True, but no matter how bad an opinion or thought is, someone will always agree if you have enough people. That's probably why I have 700+'s :lol:

FWYIerW.png


#198 shadowgoon

shadowgoon

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 771 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 10

Posted 23 July 2012 - 07:16 PM

I said "Going forward Garrison is a better decision, BUT I said this in my last post, that is not what DeNiro was debating with you."

You're not arguing the same thing. Be careful when you read or else you will begin to belligerently argue a point that has nothing to do with it.


Obviously you should take a dose of your own medicine. My argument has since evolved to fall in with the scope of what DeNiro was "arguing", so maybe you should let that bone go and actually read the substance of my previous post. In any event DeNiro was providing nothing but Straw Man arguments, and you backing him up like a blind sheep. Neither of you have pointed out any of the merits of any of my posts that in my opinion blatantly blow your opinions out of the water.

This is so futile that I'll cease this argument as there is obviously no point in pointing out facts and coming to logical conclusions, go back to using the magic 8 ball to formulate your mundane and redundant retorts.

Edited by Shadowgoon, 23 July 2012 - 07:16 PM.


#199 MoneypuckOverlord

MoneypuckOverlord

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,519 posts
  • Joined: 24-September 09

Posted 23 July 2012 - 07:18 PM

I think it's really cool for MIke Gillis to co host the show. Very classy.

Players Nikolaj Ehlers have been compared too by the fan base of the Vancouver Canucks.

 

1 Pavel Bure

2 Markus Naslund

3 Nathan Mackkinon

4 Jonathan Drouin.

5 Jonathan Tavares

 

http://bleacherrepor...d-top-prospects

combine results.  Ehlers 5'11 162 lbs of solid rock.  


#200 Bigturk8

Bigturk8

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 680 posts
  • Joined: 08-June 11

Posted 23 July 2012 - 07:47 PM

Obviously you should take a dose of your own medicine. My argument has since evolved to fall in with the scope of what DeNiro was "arguing", so maybe you should let that bone go and actually read the substance of my previous post. In any event DeNiro was providing nothing but Straw Man arguments, and you backing him up like a blind sheep. Neither of you have pointed out any of the merits of any of my posts that in my opinion blatantly blow your opinions out of the water.

This is so futile that I'll cease this argument as there is obviously no point in pointing out facts and coming to logical conclusions, go back to using the magic 8 ball to formulate your mundane and redundant retorts.


Dear god man...

I agree with alot of what you have to say, but the fact of the matter is that you didn't address what he had to say. You responded with something irrelevant to his direct argument. I don't care about any of the other points that you have made because they have no relation to what was being argued in the first place.

You can't change what is being argued and then claim to be right.

There is no point in arguing against someone who doesn't understand how to argue.

Edited by Bigturk8, 23 July 2012 - 07:48 PM.

TL.jpg

#201 LimitedEdition

LimitedEdition

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 610 posts
  • Joined: 15-October 06

Posted 23 July 2012 - 08:29 PM

Gillis has zero personality. What a doorknob. Props for doing the segment though.

Edited by LimitedEdition, 23 July 2012 - 08:30 PM.


#202 shadowgoon

shadowgoon

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 771 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 10

Posted 23 July 2012 - 09:38 PM

Dear god man...

I agree with alot of what you have to say, but the fact of the matter is that you didn't address what he had to say. You responded with something irrelevant to his direct argument. I don't care about any of the other points that you have made because they have no relation to what was being argued in the first place.

You can't change what is being argued and then claim to be right.

There is no point in arguing against someone who doesn't understand how to argue.


Lol, everything I have said has pointed to one conclusion; that Garrison instead of Salo will significantly improve the hockey club. I merely skipped over the part where you say one thing, I say you're/he's wrong, they say no you're wrong provide your arguments as to why.

Rather than argue over bull I substantiated the argument and expanded the discussion. I was not aware that this was a straight up debate on whether Salo is better than Garrison in the roster next season, if that's the case none of us have any business saying yes/no. It's not a cut and dry black and white situation.

Yes, I added above and beyond what the "original argument" was, not doing so leads to boring conversation so instead it was you who dragged the topic through the mud and disregarded the simple premise of what I was doing; educating you that it's not as simple as someone makes it out to be. "Having Garrison in the roster over Salo is not a significant improvement" (paraphrased). That's his opinion, it wasn't a point proven in fact that merited a debate with the onus on me proving it to be false.

So if your point was that DeNiro was commenting under the guise of a debate, that wasn't clear. To me it looked like an opinion, to which I provided my own and expanded upon the "argument".

I mean really, that's what were here for is discussion but it's this kind of lowbrow crap that descends into rhetoric and name calling that gives this forum the joke of a reputation that it has.

Is this how I was supposed to respond?

DeNiro: "I don't see Garrison as being a significant improvement over Salo next season"
ShadowGoon: "You're wrong, he's way better than Salo".

...

Edited by Shadowgoon, 23 July 2012 - 09:42 PM.


#203 Avicii

Avicii

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,363 posts
  • Joined: 02-July 07

Posted 23 July 2012 - 09:56 PM

Haha, DeNiro actually bragging about his 10,000+ posts and vote points? How about +500 man points for you! Go share them with the rest of your friends in you know, the real world. I could get 5,000 easy, post how how much Luongo sucks and there ya go.

Weren't you the guy that said you wanted Doan to mentor Kassian, then goes on to say that we don't need people to mentor grown men?

Posted Image


#204 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,376 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 23 July 2012 - 10:05 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.


Or perhaps ownership wasn't willing to dish out that much in the front end. You don't think MG talked to ownership about what it would take for Nashville not to match? The Flyers offer is insane and he believes Nashville will match.
Posted Image

#205 Bigturk8

Bigturk8

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 680 posts
  • Joined: 08-June 11

Posted 23 July 2012 - 10:20 PM

Lol, everything I have said has pointed to one conclusion; that Garrison instead of Salo will significantly improve the hockey club. I merely skipped over the part where you say one thing, I say you're/he's wrong, they say no you're wrong provide your arguments as to why.

Rather than argue over bull I substantiated the argument and expanded the discussion. I was not aware that this was a straight up debate on whether Salo is better than Garrison in the roster next season, if that's the case none of us have any business saying yes/no. It's not a cut and dry black and white situation.

Yes, I added above and beyond what the "original argument" was, not doing so leads to boring conversation so instead it was you who dragged the topic through the mud and disregarded the simple premise of what I was doing; educating you that it's not as simple as someone makes it out to be. "Having Garrison in the roster over Salo is not a significant improvement" (paraphrased). That's his opinion, it wasn't a point proven in fact that merited a debate with the onus on me proving it to be false.

So if your point was that DeNiro was commenting under the guise of a debate, that wasn't clear. To me it looked like an opinion, to which I provided my own and expanded upon the "argument".

I mean really, that's what were here for is discussion but it's this kind of lowbrow crap that descends into rhetoric and name calling that gives this forum the joke of a reputation that it has.

Is this how I was supposed to respond?

DeNiro: "I don't see Garrison as being a significant improvement over Salo next season"
ShadowGoon: "You're wrong, he's way better than Salo".

...


You didn't substantiate the argument, you neglected it.

I would like direct replies to each point so that we are on common ground for this.

1.DeNiro: "I don't see Garrison as being a significant improvement over Salo next season"


From what I can tell, you took this to mean that Salo would be a better option than Garrison this season.
If that is the case, you are incorrect. What was meant is that Garrison's stats this year will likely not greatly exceed Salo's stats from last year. (Please note that I say "Likely". I am well aware that this is not set in stone)

2."Yes, I added above and beyond what the "original argument" was, not doing so leads to boring conversation so instead it was you who dragged the topic through the mud and disregarded the simple premise of what I was doing"

You didn't address the original argument, that's the problem (also something i've said many times). Do you honestly think that Garrison's stats will eclipse Salo"s from last year? If they don't, are we not an unimproved team? I didn't drag it through the mud, I tried to show you that you missed the point. something you're still doing. To move forward in an argument that is unresolved is pointless, because if it is unresolved, then any argument that spawns from it is purely conjecture. If you get bored with the proper course of an argument, then I would suggest that you pursue a career in politics.

You are supposed to thoroughly read and understand a post before you respond, otherwise you misinterpret. You clearly did not understand the post because the points that you went on to make were un-related but still made in response to his post. You made good points, if the argument was about something else, but it wasn't. Don't try and label people as redundant when you can't even hold a train of thought.
TL.jpg

#206 nuck nit

nuck nit

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,177 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 10

Posted 23 July 2012 - 10:45 PM

"Going forward" includes next year. If at best Garrison proves to be equivalent to Salo NEXT YEAR, how would re-signing Salo over offering a long term contract to Garrison be the better decision?

It just proves the shortsightedness you possess when pragmatically looking at and assessing the given situation. There are more factors present in any business decision, let alone tendering performance based contracts. Potential absolutely has to be one of the criteria, this is an asset management game. You have to plan 5 steps ahead of where you are to ensure you are perennially competitive.

I fail to see how the Canucks are any less competitive with Garrison in the roster next year instead of Salo. I think you need to take a step back and correct your lack of objectivity. Salo has been here for a long time, so he was a known quantity; I get that but you also need to be able to adjust and ride the wave or risk getting sucked under and pulled down by the current.

The point is, from a performance stand point, a business stand point and a future stand point Garrison was all positive. Even if you only look at next season (which IMO is a very narrow sighted stance to take, and an incomplete sample size to base a decision upon), I would have still gone with Garrison.


Gillis has been quoted as saying he wanted Salo and Garrison both.It was not an either/or scenario as Gillis thought he would have Salo saddle up yet again.

#207 Garrison

Garrison

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 851 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 12

Posted 23 July 2012 - 10:50 PM

Shea Weber. Shane Doan. Roberto Luongo.

In an interview with The Globe and Mail on Monday morning, Mike Gillis, president and general manager of the Vancouver Canucks, weighed in on three of the bigger names in hockey, central figures in the flux of the hockey team’s off-season roster.

On Doan

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D-5HhllCog&feature=related

Vancouver remains in the hunt, according to Gillis, who in general disdains multiyear contracts for players 35 or older. But such rules are not set in stone and Gillis chases Doan alongside other teams such as the New York Rangers, Pittsburgh Penguins and Philadelphia Flyers.

“We’re one of the teams that are active in trying to pursue him and see if he’d like to play here in Vancouver,” said Gillis in an interview in his office at Rogers Arena on Monday morning. “Not sure of a timeline yet but we’re hopeful we have a chance to convince him to play here.”
Doan turns 36 in October and has played his whole career for the Phoenix Coyotes. In the past three seasons, he has had an average of 55 points, compared with an average of 69 the three seasons before that.

A Doan signing will be expensive, and demand a multiyear deal. Despite Vancouver’s aversion to such contracts for older players, Gillis said Doan’s availability as a free agent is a rare occurrence.
“There are specific situations that cause you, not to reconsider the guidelines, but present a different set of a facts, a difference set of circumstances, that take you outside of those guidelines.”


On Weber

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lL7_3WNvCAk

The Sicamous, British Columbia-born defenceman, a restricted free agent, has accepted a $110-million, 14-year offer sheet from the Philadelphia Flyers, a deal many in hockey expect the Nashville Predators to match, with a deadline of Wednesday night to decide. Gillis, earlier in July, spent three hours with Weber and his agent, at Weber’s offseason home in Kelowna, near Sicamous.

Gillis believed he would not be able to snag Weber with a long-term offer sheet, concluding that the Nashville Predators would match any proposed contract. He said the 26-year-old defenceman was focused on a big-money, long-term deal, under the current Collective Bargaining Agreement rules.
“Our issue was how do you get the player,” said Gillis. “Our issue wasn’t the money. It’s how do you actually get the player on your team. Our feeling was that a contract with term probably wouldn’t allow that to happen.”

Asked why he didn’t take a flier like Philadelphia general manager Paul Holmgren, Gillis measured his answer.

“Well.” He paused, took a breath. “I guess that’s one school of thought. To me I’d rather be trying to accomplish things rather than, ‘Okay, throw something up in the air and hope that it sticks.’

“We threw around trade possibilities. We threw around every possible scenario. I spoke to him [Weber] about every possible scenario, and his agent. At the end of the day, I guess Philadelphia was prepared to take that chance.”

On the B.C. connection, Gillis said, “We hear constantly, people want to tweet and blog, every player who has been born in British Columbia wants to play for the Vancouver Canucks.” Gillis, the former player agent, said the factors that influence a decision for a player, especially in free agency, are myriad, particularly because players have only rare opportunities to truly test their market value as a professional.

In the end, with a new Collective Bargaining Agreement coming, possibly with contract term limits, Weber went for the money.

“It was quite clear, at the end of the day, what the objectives were,” said Gillis. “To take advantage of the current system, and to maximize his economic return, which is absolutely fair, which he’s completely entitled to.”


On Luongo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJv8BAUh9Sg

Gillis hasn’t spoken with his former starting goaltender in a while and stated, in general, “there’s nothing new to report.”

He suggested more activity could percolate in mid-August. “As you get closer to the season, things begin to pick up as teams see their needs.”
On the market for Luongo, there have been real deals on the table. Gillis hasn’t been motivated to move, though he suggested that could evolve with time.

“We’ve been given solid offers. Nothing we would do today. We’re going to continue the process with the teams that are interested.”



Discuss.

Posted Image


I don't think the Rangers necessarily need Doan now that they got Nash, Philly is out of the hunt if they get Weber. So its us, Pens and obviously the favorites in the coyotes

#208 Yosupermexican

Yosupermexican

    K-Wing Prospect

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 12

Posted 23 July 2012 - 10:54 PM

Posted Image

#209 samurai

samurai

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,338 posts
  • Joined: 20-March 06

Posted 23 July 2012 - 11:10 PM

It would be absolutely amazing if Nashville bucks up on this. Would love to see it just to spite philly and for that matter the way Weber has gone about this.

#210 nucklehead2

nucklehead2

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 132 posts
  • Joined: 23-February 09

Posted 23 July 2012 - 11:41 PM

They did. He said they definitely want to get bigger and stronger but players like that are hard to come by, and teams aren't giving them away. He thinks Kassian will make an impact this year, but they're still looking to get bigger and stronger, and that's why they're targeting Doan. They'll also be looking at any other possibilites as they come along, but unfortunately this year there isn't a lot on the market, and teams aren't just parting w/ those players. He says next years crop of FAs have a lot more options.

Totally agree finally someone with half a brain




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.