Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
- - - - -

What We Learned: Maybe Mike Gillis was serious


This topic has been archived.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

#121 Tearloch7

Tearloch7

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,071 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 07 August 2012 - 10:36 AM

That has NOTHING TO DO with being a fan. It's really too bad that that's how people seem to define one's level of fan-dom on this site, as there could otherwise be some excellent debates given the high level of traffic.


You are a "glass half empty" guy constantly .. "when you're lost in the rain in Juarez and its Easter time too, and your gravity fails and negativity won't pull you thru" .. Mr Dylan in Tom Thumb Blues .. a great lesson on "positivity" .. B)

"To Thine Own Self Be True"

 

"Always tell the Truth. That way, you don’t have to remember what you said"  ~ Mark Twain ~
 


#122 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,530 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 07 August 2012 - 11:59 AM

Any effect would be MINIMAL, because even if the player were to stand out, other teams would take notice and adjust. Think about it. Go ahead and try to put Manny Malhotra on the Sedin line. Heck, that'll surely lead to him scoring 30, right? Players generally are who they are. You can't "create" a superstar, that's a bunch of bologna. Mike Gillis isn't Vince McMahon.

And BTW, if there's ANY truth to that, Cody Hodgson would've been playing a lot MORE than he did. As I recall, people were complaining pretty loudly at his lack of usage, because he was very, very effective when he was playing - not because of Gillis & AV having him take faceoffs against certain people, but because he can pass, shoot, and he's very smart.



He didn't light up the goals & assists category, but look a little deeper. He had 51 shots over those 20 games, which is far more than what he had proportionally with Vancouver. That's encouraging. Shots lead to goals, it's typically a game of odds. In addition, I think he didn't get a single point in his first 10 games, even, so that'd mean that he had 8 in his last 10.

There are signs. You know it, and I know it. The kid is going to be a STUD.


You just don't get it. NOBODY has said Cody doesn't have any talent. But by picking the match ups and controlling the ice time a player can be made to look better than he is. Philly was sure fooled by Baumers 30+ point season weren't they? It doesn't mean Cody isn't a good player, nor that he won't develop into a star. It just means by controlling his situations on the ice can make him appear further developed than he actually is. Which is what was done. Whenever possible Cody was given easier minutes. AGAIN JUST TO BE CLEAR: NOBODY HAS SAID HE DOESN'T HAVE TALENT.

MentalMidgetSig.jpg


#123 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 07 August 2012 - 12:13 PM

Philly was sure fooled by Baumers 30+ point season weren't they?


Do you think that Vancouver's been fooled by Garrison's 30+ point season, or is he an all-star in the making?

Because they've sure as hell invested a lot more heavily into him vis-a-vis Philly & Baumer.

#124 Mack Attack

Mack Attack

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 471 posts
  • Joined: 12-May 10

Posted 07 August 2012 - 12:51 PM

Do you think that Vancouver's been fooled by Garrison's 30+ point season, or is he an all-star in the making?

Because they've sure as hell invested a lot more heavily into him vis-a-vis Philly & Baumer.


Garrison's been rock solid defensively for three seasons. Even if his offence drops it's still a worthwhile investment. Paying him 4.6 a year was the price of doing business. If we didn't pay it what were we going to do with our defence? Put Alberts on the 2nd pairing?

#125 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 33,329 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 07 August 2012 - 12:59 PM

Since we're dwelling on ex-Canucks like Nolan Baumgartner now, I was wondering if there was a nagging downside to Gillis' Ehrhoff and Lukowich for White and Rahimi trade? Man, even the most negative of trollers should have a tough time with that one.
Posted Image

#126 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,530 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 07 August 2012 - 01:16 PM

Yeah, what a nutjob! Imagine a guy wanting that! :rolleyes:

Look, IF Sami got injured with us, he goes on LTIR and we have much $ to play with. Remember how that happened in 2010, which allowed us to beef up our team at the deadline, contributing to our Cup run? It's not the end of the world. It's 2 freaking years. Gillis showed clearly how he valued Salo, and that was that he wasn't worthy of a 2-year deal.



So if it's so risky to sign guys like Mitchell & Salo, what, then, did you think of the David Booth trade?

And also, since you're so quick to point out the injury risks of them, aren't you concerned about the risks associated with the Garrison deal? Namely, the risk that we're signing a guy at his peak value, who was basically unknown 2 years ago, and who might well just be a one-year wonder - not unlike Nolan Baumgartner, as pointed out by Baggins?


Um...I'll sign you to one year deals as long as you want to play. No appreciation??? Sami takes a serious injury and decides to retire rather than risking further injury and that second year stays on the books. No cap relief if he retires. That is a risk given his injury history. I don't blame Sami for taking the two year deal. But he did have the option to play out his career here on one year deals. He made the choice.

The difference between Booth and Mitchell. Booth had played after his concussion. Mitchell hadn't even started skating when free agency started (about 6 months after the concussion). There's a mighty big risk difference there.


Btw, when somebody has nothing good to say about somebody it's not much of a stretch to assume you don't like the guy. You seem to do nothing but complain about Gillis and his every move. Therefore one can only assume you just don't like him as our GM.

I think you're clutching at straws with Garrison. Garrison took less money to sign here. That's good isn't it? He put up points behind a fairly weak offense. That's good isn't it? His career shooting percentage is higher than any d-man on our team (including Salo). That's good isn't it? On top of offense he hits and blocks shots. That's good isn't it? He averaged over 23 minutes per game. That's good isn't it? He also played on Florida's top PK unit. That's good isn't it? Just further evidence to me that you hate every move Gillis makes just for the sake of it. Do you really want to compare him to Baumer? Only three d-men had less even strength ice time than Baumer in 05/06. Tomas Moizis, Sven Butenschon, and Prestin Ryan. Baumer was 7th in even strength ice time per game and that's taking out Carney and Weinrich, the two deadline acquisitions. He was third in PP time per game. Baumer played sheltered minutes. That physical bute Salo threw more than twice as many hits in 11 fewer games than Baumer. His success in 05/06 is simply a prime example of what sheltered minutes can do for a player. Garrison on the other hand didn't play sheltered minutes.

MentalMidgetSig.jpg


#127 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,530 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 07 August 2012 - 01:17 PM

Since we're dwelling on ex-Canucks like Nolan Baumgartner now, I was wondering if there was a nagging downside to Gillis' Ehrhoff and Lukowich for White and Rahimi trade? Man, even the most negative of trollers should have a tough time with that one.


Lukowich was getting paid big money to play in the minors. Stupid Gillis.

:rolleyes:

MentalMidgetSig.jpg


#128 Common sense

Common sense

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,742 posts
  • Joined: 08-January 06

Posted 07 August 2012 - 01:30 PM

Do you think that Vancouver's been fooled by Garrison's 30+ point season, or is he an all-star in the making?

Because they've sure as hell invested a lot more heavily into him vis-a-vis Philly & Baumer.


One's barely 27 and about to hit his prime.

The other was a 30+ journeyman who hit his cap at 30 pts.

#129 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,243 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 07 August 2012 - 01:45 PM

Yeah, what a nutjob! Imagine a guy wanting that! :rolleyes:

Look, IF Sami got injured with us, he goes on LTIR and we have much $ to play with. Remember how that happened in 2010, which allowed us to beef up our team at the deadline, contributing to our Cup run? It's not the end of the world. It's 2 freaking years. Gillis showed clearly how he valued Salo, and that was that he wasn't worthy of a 2-year deal.

I hoped you'd bring up LTI. What if we don't want to have to be right at the cap so we can even use the LTI exemption? Should we find a way to waste cap space just to get us close enough to do so? What if we'd prefer to have cap space at he beginning to allow for a possible big acquisition at the deadline but that's taken up by whatever replacement we bring in to cover for Salo?

Another point is if Salo wasn't willing to play along with multiple one year deals, what guarantee do we have he'd be willing to play along with not retiring if he isn't injured and just doesn't want to play anymore? He still collects his cheque, so that's clearly not his problem, but it sure becomes Gillis' at that point and I can hear the complaint's now, "Why did we get stuck with an over 35 contract when our window to win is now!"

So if it's so risky to sign guys like Mitchell & Salo, what, then, did you think of the David Booth trade?

And also, since you're so quick to point out the injury risks of them, aren't you concerned about the risks associated with the Garrison deal? Namely, the risk that we're signing a guy at his peak value, who was basically unknown 2 years ago, and who might well just be a one-year wonder - not unlike Nolan Baumgartner, as pointed out by Baggins?

First off, a Garrison deal is neither an over 35 contract nor a situation where we don't have a good idea what level of play to expect from him. He isn't coming off an injury, and he doesn't have a history of injury that we should be concerned of. I know for a fact you weren't worried at all about a long term massive offer since you labelled Gillis a failure when he didn't offer sheet Weber with one, so it's great to see you try and use that as a contrary argument when it comes to injuries.

Garrison had at least shown he was absolutely able to be a very good defensive player, and the offence was a bonus. He certainly earned more than he would have if he were just a defensive guy (but then you brought up Mitchell again...) but Baumer got the deal he did with Philly because of his offence without anything better than him being reasonably reliable to back it up - and his points were much more inflated by PP time (22 of his 34 points). Garrison had less of his points on the PP (only 12 of 33) and is much more than 'reasonably reliable' defensively.

As far as Booth, I wasn't one of those people making proposals about him saying he'd be a great fit. I didn't think it'd be worthwhile considering his contract and what it'd take to get him particularly. Concussions are always a worry, but he'd at least had a season under his belt since the last major concussion to show whether or not he could come back. Mitchell wanted a big deal before even being cleared to play.

While getting Booth may not have been my ideal move, I liked Sturm even less. I'd rather have gone for Fleischmann in the summer but he was a risk not having played since his blood clot issues and a chest injury, so to take Sturm and Samuelsson (who had been good for us in the past but was an aging player dealing with injuries who had only one year left on his deal) and parlay that into Booth (plus Reinprecht for the Wolves in a development/depth role) was a very good result. We certainly weren't going to turn Sturm and Samuelsson into a younger, cheaper, healthier option, so it's a reasonable gamble.

Using cap space on a player who had injuries but was younger is a much preferred to doing so on someone who had even more recent injuries but was older. If he had obviously better options, we didn't hear about it.

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

Tanev is going to EDM. I can put my life savings down on it

 


#130 AFrame14

AFrame14

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,411 posts
  • Joined: 20-April 09

Posted 07 August 2012 - 02:02 PM

Bjugstad would look mighty fine in Kesler's place to start the year.

Pretty sure he is going back to college hockey for one more season.. I hope Florida gives in and trades us bjugsatd tho
NUCKS FOR THE CUP

#131 Canuck Surfer

Canuck Surfer

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,853 posts
  • Joined: 27-December 10

Posted 07 August 2012 - 03:35 PM

By marrying that discussion to Gillis's excuses, the Sedin's are being trumped up for a trade?

Ok sorry, I'll reduce the dramatics; It is a fact the Sedin's / Burrows are also given the benefit of the most offensive zone controlled situations on the ice in the league. They were struggling last year, so coach did the absolutely logical thing and gave their next best puck possession guy an increased profile in those situations. He deserved it; Hodgson was making guys dropped to the 3rd line more productive. The result was he lead us in scoring the month we had our biggest win streak if the year, against the toughest competition. The Sedins are also scoring leaders. Both look like examples of situational good coaching decisions, not an opportunity to make excuses.

The next question is how to get a player / players that helps all these "sheltered" situation players in the play off's.The real issue is acquiring guys like CoHo and the Sedin's a talented enough big man to keep up, but also equalize size mis matches. Look what Bertuzzi did for Naslund, and vice versa?


You just don't get it. NOBODY has said Cody doesn't have any talent. But by picking the match ups and controlling the ice time a player can be made to look better than he is. Philly was sure fooled by Baumers 30+ point season weren't they? It doesn't mean Cody isn't a good player, nor that he won't develop into a star. It just means by controlling his situations on the ice can make him appear further developed than he actually is. Which is what was done. Whenever possible Cody was given easier minutes. AGAIN JUST TO BE CLEAR: NOBODY HAS SAID HE DOESN'T HAVE TALENT.


Edited by Canuck Surfer, 07 August 2012 - 03:42 PM.


#132 Drop Em

Drop Em

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 296 posts
  • Joined: 24-February 09

Posted 07 August 2012 - 06:50 PM

"You are aware that the defence.........the rest of the team......also influences a goalies performance. I didn't see Boston or LA's goalie being molested or left exposed time after time. Even then, there were only 3 tandems with lower goals against, NYR, St. LB and LA.
I think how a defence protects their goalie and the style of the defence can also affect a goalie's figures."

Yes, I am aware of this, but thank you captain obvious. Make all of the excuses that you want, but one of the highest paid goalies in the league has been the second best goalie in all of the last 6 Canucks playoff series and in a couple of those series, it wasn't even close who the better goalie was. Does this scream a top tier goalie to you? The fact that Luongo is only getting older and has so many miles on his body, doesn't exactly make anyone think that he's actually improving at this point in his career either now does it? A proven playoff winner comes up with the big save, can carry a team on his shoulders for a few games and stay hot throughout a series. Luongo hasn't done this recently as evidence by the fact that he gets pulled regularly during playoff games and has been the second best goalie in each of the last 3 series. This is fact!




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.