Archived

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

Strombone1

Mike Gillis on Team 1040 - 9/28/12

350 posts in this topic

OK, but the other reality is that he was traded.

Mike Gillis chose to not adhere to Ehrhoff's demands.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No I'm saying Salo provides a service to the canucks worth a certain amount. The Canucks don't have the needs Tampa does especially on defense. Salo can and will provide something for them they need a great deal...veteran leadership from a solid player. Make no mistake he's being paid for his experience as well as his skill and TB is in great need of that experience.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And Vancouver's not in need of that experience? Huh? Jason Garrison's 2.5 seasons in the NHL is a sufficient replacement?

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. That's what he does, as a GM. Player X wants $Y. It's up to Gillis to choose whether to sign him or not.

He chose to not sign Ehrhoff to an amount required by Ehrhoff to sign in Vancouver. That's how these things work.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope wrong again. It is up to him to make a choice but it's not his job to adhere to demands from players. It up to him to run a team not players. Players are part of the team...needs of the many kind of thing...you seem like a trek guy...I'm sure you get it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really should have included King of the ES in this post as well, man.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice attempt at spinning your own question!

That's not what I said his job was. Read your initial question again.

EDIT: here's your question: Is Mike Gillis required to choose to adhere to players demands?

And the answer, for the second time, is YES. Try reading it a little slower.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got to disagree with this. MG is in no way required to adhere to players demands. In the same way my boss doesn't have to adhere to mine. If I go to my boss and demand $X and he feels he cannot give that to me, i'm free to find employment elsewhere. As in the case of Salo, imo that's just what happened. It's a juggling act to stay cap compliant and ice the best team possible.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:picard:

I did not say that he was. Read the thread. Players make demands; all players do. Gillis' job is to decide whether to adhere to them or not. He decided to let both Ehrhoff and Salo go. I don't see how this is even debatable.

This EOTM guy seems to think that it somehow wasn't Gillis' choice for these two to leave, when, in fact, it was. Gillis is paid to make investment decisions, really. He chose to invest in Jason Garrison, at the cost of Sami Salo. He chose to invest in Keith Ballard, probably at the ultimate cost of Christian Ehrhoff. This is his job.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surprise - another thread sidetracked by whining about the might-have-beens.

Ehrhoff - some of the same people who whine endlessly about Gillis signing Luongo to a long term contract, here whining that Gillis didn't match the ridiculous 10 year term Buffalo gave him.

The Canucks desperately missed Ehrhoff's 5 goals, 32 points and -2 last year... He cashed in on his inflated value as a result of playing-with-the-Sedins and on a contender - and the only annoying thing about it was that he played the he-wants-to-win-a-Cup card. Pullease. Good for him. Good bye Christian.

Hodgson - whatever - done to death.

Salo - love him, one of my all-time favorites - but Yzerman could afford to take a risk that Gillis couldn't. Will spell this out - 35+ contract - means that his 3.75 cap hit counts regardless - if he were to suffer a career ending cheap shot the Canucks would be unable to use that cap space - in the midst of their proclaimed window. Give it up whiners - Gillis, Yzerman and Sami did what they had to. Sami has a guaranteed 3.5 million that Gillis could not afford to offer. If he had and Sami suffered an injury, we'd never hear the end of the Gillis-haters hindsighting what a bad decision that was. Yzerman on the other hand is sitting at the edge of playoff contention with 10 million in extra cap space - nowhere near comparable situations.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The signing of Garrison and the loss of Salo imo is in no way a loyalty issue, or a crapshoot from MG, it's a calculated risk if indeed thats how it happened.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salo - love him, one of my all-time favorites - but Yzerman could afford to take a risk that Gillis couldn't. Will spell this out - 35+ contract - means that his 3.75 cap hit counts regardless - if he were to suffer a career ending cheap shot the Canucks would be unable to use that cap space - in the midst of their proclaimed window.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So instead, he'll dole out 6 years and $27.6M to Jason Garrison?

Even if he sucks, that $4.6M still counts against the cap, annually. Just like Keith Ballard's $4.5M does.

At least we know what Salo will give us. Which is more risky?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will spell this out one more time - 35+ contract. You don't know what Salo or Garrison will/would give us - if they both are low bridged and suffer serious concussions, one guys cap hit will not count, the other's wil - do you understand the difference in the risks yet? (ironically, Mr Cup window)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's a double edged sword....how many games until Salo is injured? (I love Sami too but c'mon now, we all know it's coming regardless of where he plays) As opposed to how much of an impact will Garrison make? hell, maybe Salo goes injury free next season and Garrison goes on ltir.....we just don't know

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI - Sami Salo - 28 years old - "breakout" season in Vancouver - 9 goals, 21 assists.

Year before that at 27 - 66 games, 4 goals, 14 assists - just breaking into the league.

You're whining about Garrison being 28, but it sounds familiar doesn't it.

Such a risky move to give up Schaeffer to acquire him...

Uh, no, a great, calculated risk.

Garrison. Ditto. And being a UFA, cost no assets.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.