Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

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


vcr1970

Recommended Posts

Luongo is still the backbone of this team and MG is about to break it because of AV.

So Gillis is the front runner if:

He convinces Luongo to compete for the number one job, which he would easily regain by giving an outright top 5 league-wide performance, or by Schneider's slightest fall, who ought to garner as much support as Luongo has garnered for his demise, by media and fans alike, in which case the Canucks keep Luongo. Gillis wins the ultimate poker game and an alliance of Gillis/ AV/ Luongo is once more renewed.

(Schneider for Lucic: I understand that it is like trading college for war. I assure you that keeping Luongo and having Lucic is better than not keeping Luongo and not having Lucic.)

Dangle both Luongo and Schneider on the market as the season progresses and at the trade deadline of the upcoming season, trade the best for the buck No. 1 defenseman abailable that offers the highest return and first an foremost, the least risk to the franchise. I am not convicted of Schneider and I am secure with Luongo, the "backbone" of the franchise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OMG Really? Really dude? How bout a soother? Lou is being traded buddy let it go.And MG needs to convince Luongo to compete? And this is the goalie you want in our nets?Your words, "MG convinces lou to compete for the number 1 job"...Really? MG's job is to convince a guy making 6 mil a year to compete for a number one job?And you want this player who is paid 6 million a year, who needs to have his boss tell him to compete to be our number one?WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Burke and/or Nonis are responsible for the following players on the team:

Sedin

Sedin

Luongo

Schneider

Kesler

Burrows

Bieksa

So basically your top two lines, both of your goalies and a key defenseman...................I'd say MG loses this race. What do you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes Tessie. So Luongo knows he has the back of his GM, of the team, eventually the fans once again, that the roof is NOT caving in. Schneider might not be the answer and if he is, then I want the insurance policy of having Luongo in case Schneider falters.

Otherwise, at best, you have picks and prospects that will bloom when the window of opportunity closes and journeymen barely making 4th line duty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All three clearly had an impact

1. Burke for making the Sedin deal

2. Nonis for drafting a terrific core and trading for Lou, who as much as I now prefer Schnieds, did turn this franchise into a contender.

3. Gillis for developing the talent he had, resigning the sedins, making some good supporting signings (hammer, higgy, manny, lappy), even the Sundin signing helped both Kesler and the twins, helped teach them, that matters. Further, being smart enough not to let good assets go and staying the course. Being wise enough to trade Lou, and smart enough not to upset the balance of his cap strategy by making silly signings.

Test is now to continue to stockpile some youth, ensure that some of the younger players now get the chance to get serious minutes in the NHL and develop. Along the way, we'll need a steal or two in the draft but we have a nice core developing in Kassian, Jensen, Connaughton, Sauve, Corrado, Schroeder, Rodin, Lack and Schnieds. If those guys continue to develop and can contribute at the NHL level add in a steal or two in the draft and we'll have a very good team for a long time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of the credit should go to Gillis, since he retained important key pieces (e.g. signing the Twins all the way in Sweden) and bringing in strong roster pieces (Hamhuis, Higgins, Lapierre, Lu, Manny) to create the team into what it is now. The other two did nothing more than bring in the raw roster pieces but the whole team's structure was constructed during MG's time and he took the time to build it into the team it is through free agency and the occasional questioned trade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

:picard:

Did you say Grabner hasn't panned out?

Do you watch hockey?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure we can blame Gillis regarding Hodgson!

Hodgson had a contract, and is an employee. The employer has every right to expect to be able to dicate expectations and levels of performance. We also had leverage. He had a two way contract, and could be demoted to the minors, without fearing loosing his rights. And he would be a restricted free agent upon expiry of his current contract. In a competitive market for NHL roles, and playing time which earn him his next contract; it's up to Hodgson to do what his employers want so he can receive internal promotions and opportunities. Gillis was under no pressure to trade Hodgson for less than market value, or to trade him for value which does not help the team while we are contenders.

The other side of the coin?

Gillis made dumb comments (dumb that even if true, should have been held in confidence) suggesting they propped up Hodgson's numbers just to get a better trade value. By playing him in offensive situations beyond what made sense. First, this is what Hodgson is good at. It takes few, if any brains, to start developing a player by playing him to his strengths. And we already spent two years not putting Hodgson in those positions, which I'm sure was his key complaint. 2knd, he led us in scoring in January. Thats significant for several reasons. First, anyone who can outscore back to back reigning scoring champs (who were slumping when we elevated Hodgson) plus a forty goal scorer (Kesler) has merit! Second, we went from a loosing streak onto our best winning streak of the year while Hodgson was on his tear. We took over #1 place in the league and Hodgson did not just lead us in scoring; he scored key goals in key situations against top teams.

Then we also "put him back in his place" restricting his playing time, back to defensive zone draws. Funny thing happened? We started loosing again! Then we throw under the bus to justify a trade that has not worked out yet! Both ends do not look favorably on how Hodgson was handled.

Yeah, great message!

I remain mystified by how many people have been duped by all!

Mending fences; Kassian has potential to be an important piece for us. Its not likely he will be as good a player as Hodgson will become (nay sayers are fooling themselves). We also, and nobody should say Kassian was helping us last year, went backwards after the trade. But we were much weaker at right wing than centre, and seriously lacking size. There is logic to the trade. I would have preferred a Hodgson for Iginla style trade. We may have won a cup last year? But now that Kassian is getting in shape at least we can regain some value.

While there is an ounce of truth in your comments I beg to differ.

1. Hodgson has an ego and wanted out. He saw his buddies in Tavares and others getting top line minutes on weak teams and wants the big payday. Players understand they league now, get pts in your first three years, and your next contract is big. How do you get pts? Play first or second line minutes, the idea of developing has gone and now money rules. Hodgson wanted out not because of how he was treated but because he wants to make money faster and wants notoriety. If he cared about becoming the best NHLer he could be, he would have been happy to develop on the third line and learn the defensive aspects of his game - learning behind a Hart/Art Ross center, and a Selke center, can't think of a better place for him to learn his craft if he actually cared to do so. Don't oversimplify nor blame MG for this.

2. Don't discount the fact that Nonis and Burke had better draft positions.

3. MG's draft record will now start to show if it has been succesful, he hasn't had the luxury of high picks, but if you look at the group of players we have, there is some solid potential. Jensen was a good pick by all indications, Lack, Sauve, Schroeder, Connaughton, Cannata, Rodin, Friesen, Corrado, Gaunce, all look like they have potential to be regular nhlers. Within those picks there are always surprises and failures, but having a solid team at the NHL level and letting players develop in the minors often leads to better outcomes. Unless you have a top 5 pick who can step into the NHL, putting players in positions they are not ready for just busts them, go ask the Leafs about that.If players like Schroeder, Sauve, Connaughton, Lack fail to make the jump, you'd have an argument. But I don't think you do quite yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simple.

When the Canucks dominate the regular season, that's because of Burke and Nonis patiently and astutely stockpiling our core.

But when the Canucks fail in the playoffs, that's because Gillis has failed to deliver the bold moves required to get this core over the top.

That sound about right?

This topic isn't completey exhausted yet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

go take some smelling salts and wake up from your dreamy state of lovey dovey lou lover land.he's getting traded.....actually nah lets keep the quitter, the guy who needs a gm to teach him or order him to compete..lol...you don't even understand what you even said buddy...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet another dumb fruitless post. Who's in charge right now. How long ago was Burke in charge.

Note, the guy in charge, Mike Gillis could very easily traded all the players that where here when he arrived. couldn't he have?

The guy in charge with the present power of GM takes the credit, just like Burke took the credit when when the Ducks won the Cup, regardless of whom was there before.

I"m so tired of this argument.

Go get a summer job, move out of mommy's basement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a loaded question. What's the definition of success? Cup finals, Presidents' trophies, the most recent 1st round exit or 2 consecutive meltdowns against CHI?

It's good to be excited about the present but the recent crop of fans' declarations of "greatest GM", "greatest coach", "greatest team" etc.. just shows that you have no respect for the past, nothing else.

ie. Flames made the finals in 2004. Oilers in 2006. Senators in 2007. I don't think any of those GMs are considered successes by their ex-fanbases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a loaded question. What's the definition of success? Cup finals, Presidents' trophies, the most recent 1st round exit or 2 consecutive meltdowns against CHI?

It's good to be excited about the present but the recent crop of fans' declarations of "greatest GM", "greatest coach", "greatest team" etc.. just shows that you have no respect for the past, nothing else.

ie. Flames made the finals in 2004. Oilers in 2006. Senators in 2007. I don't think any of those GMs are considered successes by their ex-fanbases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many of those teams have a comparable record? Success can't be measured by winning the cup alone. Success is maintaining a contending team for several years. Heaven forbid the cycle comes around and we're a bottom feeder again. Then you'll see an unsuccessful team. I don't see Detroit as a successful team because they've won the cup. I see them as successful team because they've remained a contender for around two decades. That's freaking amazing success. The longer you can remain a contender the greater the chance of the stars eventually aligning and winning a cup. I see winning the division as a success, the conference as an even bigger success, the league as a huge success and the cup as the ultimate success. Enjoy the success this team is having. Two decades of it is unlikely in a cap world unless you have a damn smart management team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...