Who should get credit for the Canucks current success Burke/Nonis or MG?

[Baggins]

So, you would still see the DET model as successful if they didn't have any Cups? I find that hard to believe.

[ramone1984]

If the CEO/Manager/President of a company is running a business that's losing money, he gets fired. Much in the way a GM of an NHL team gets fired if he doesn't put a winning team on the ice.

And when a new CEO/Manager/President is hired, he doesn't come in and fire every single person who works in that company. He comes in, gets rid of the deadwood, changes up some processes that put the employees in a position to succeed, and hopefully turns the ship around. Then we the company starts making money, he gets the credit as a good manager. Not the previous CEO/President/Manager who was fired because he was losing money.

Sure the previous manager probably hired a few good people, maybe even the bulk of the company was excellent and only needed minor changes. At the end of the day though, it's the results that matter.

With that in mind, MG gets the credit for the state of this hockey club, not the previous GM's who were fired for putting an inferior product on the ice. Every single new GM to ever take over the reigns of a hockey club keeps a core of the original team that he inherited. Look no further for examples that Burke with his cup winning team in Anaheim.

Does he get the credit despite inheriting Getzlaf, Perry, Selanne, and a couple of top ten draft pick prospects (Smid/Lupul) which he traded for Pronger? It could easily be argued that he came onto the scene with a pretty solid team and a stacked prospect pool. He made a couple of good signings, and traded some of his young assets for the key pieces that put his team over the top. Much like MG has done (although no cup yet).

Does he get the credit for that team? If he does, then Gillis does. I'm of the belief that the guy with the cup ring should get the credit. Much like the guy with two Presidents trophies and a GM of the year award should get the credit for his accomplishments.

Cheers,

Ramone

[Baggins]

If the CEO/Manager/President of a company is running a business that's losing money, he gets fired. Much in the way a GM of an NHL team gets fired if he doesn't put a winning team on the ice.

And when a new CEO/Manager/President is hired, he doesn't come in and fire every single person who works in that company. He comes in, gets rid of the deadwood, changes up some processes that put the employees in a position to succeed, and hopefully turns the ship around. Then we the company starts making money, he gets the credit as a good manager. Not the previous CEO/President/Manager who was fired because he was losing money.

Sure the previous manager probably hired a few good people, maybe even the bulk of the company was excellent and only needed minor changes. At the end of the day though, it's the results that matter.

With that in mind, MG gets the credit for the state of this hockey club, not the previous GM's who were fired for putting an inferior product on the ice. Every single new GM to ever take over the reigns of a hockey club keeps a core of the original team that he inherited. Look no further for examples that Burke with his cup winning team in Anaheim.

Does he get the credit despite inheriting Getzlaf, Perry, Selanne, and a couple of top ten draft pick prospects (Smid/Lupul) which he traded for Pronger? It could easily be argued that he came onto the scene with a pretty solid team and a stacked prospect pool. He made a couple of good signings, and traded some of his young assets for the key pieces that put his team over the top. Much like MG has done (although no cup yet).

Does he get the credit for that team? If he does, then Gillis does. I'm of the belief that the guy with the cup ring should get the credit. Much like the guy with two Presidents trophies and a GM of the year award should get the credit for his accomplishments.

Cheers,

Ramone

[hockeyking]

I agree with most of your list Coastal1 but Sundin (10 Million), Garrison ($5,000,000??? or something like that) and Malhotra ($2,500,000) definitely didn't take discounts to come here.

When it comes to spending MG is a bit out there, but power to him for going after what he wants and needs.

[hockeyking]

Trades that have worked out for the Canucks so far tough guy.

No Ballard and his contract have not helped the Canucks commensurate with having traded a first round pick (which became Howden) and two former 1st round picks (Bernier and Grabner). Thats three first round pics for Ballard, his $4.2 mill contract plus Oreskevich.

Ballard is a perfectly good player nailed deep in our depth charts. No it has not panned out for us so far. How do you evaluate that trade?

[tiredatwork]

Well said.

I'll always remember Gillis criticizing the Nonis regime when he was first hired for not providing a prospect pool that included any "impact players". He was referring to a group that included Edler, Schneider, Hansen, and Grabner, the first three of whom were steals in the position they were selected in the draft. But Gillis was going to change all that and revamp the Canucks scouting and player development regime so we resembled the elite drafting clubs like the Red Wings.In the ensuing years he has drafted exactly ONE NHL player, and he mishandled that player so badly he was forced to trade him in his rookie season.

Ironically, Gillis has done such an abysmal job in this one crucial area where he had been so critical of his predecessor ( his Canucks typically rank in the 27-29 region in the most credible prospect pool evaluation lists ) that he will leave his successor with a catastrophic empty cupboard total organizational rebuild on his hands. Gillis ranks no better than the bottom tenth among active NHL GM's and Aquilini will regret that he didn't hire a professional consultant to search for a replacement for the unjustly fired Dave Nonis.