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

"Is it still less impactful if he gets a 2 year contract and has to retire halfway through this season"

Odds are rather than retire Salo would just have an injury problem that lasts the duration of the contract.

Pronger style.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it still less impactful if he gets a 2 year contract and has to retire halfway through this season? Seriously King you do understand what a contract signed to a player over the age of 35 means right?

There are more signs pointing to Salo having a career ending injury then their are to Garrison not being good. Doesn't mean Garrison will be good but if we're talking about probabilities which you are what I've said here seems more likely.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? Well then we're going to miss him even more! I wonder why the great Kevin Bieksa wasn't part of the top offensive pairing; I believe it was you who said multiple times that his offensive abilities rivaled Ehrhoff's.

It shouldn't be too baffling, because signing Salo would've involved a lot less commitment risk at 2 years and a lower cap hit. And Garrison is 28, by the way. Pretty old to have only played 190 career NHL games, I would say.

I don't have a crystal ball either, but I do have the ability to perform middle-school mathematical calculations.

And the fact is that the Sedin's already have shown signs of decline.

  • Henrik got 112 points in 2009-10; he had 94 points in 2010-11, representing a 16% decline. In 2011-12, he had 81 points, which is a 14% further decline from 2010-11, and 28% lower than 2009-10.

  • Daniel had 104 points in 2010-11, and only 67 in 2011-12, which computes to a decline of 36% year-over-year. Yes, he played 10 less games, but do the calculation on a PPG basis, if you wish. Significant decline.

How do my numbers above fit into your chosen agenda?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You cannot compare Jason Garrison to Dan Hamhuis. Dan Hamhuis was the 12th overall pick in his draft year. He had played 6 full seasons with Nashville, averaging between 25 - 30 points in each and being very solid in all areas. Dan Hamhuis had also played three years for Canada's World Championship teams. Jason Garrison has none of this pedigree.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So then what were the first round picks paid in their first nhl contract compared to the undrafted players?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, you'd actually be right for a change to say you can't compare these undrafted players to the above first round draft picks. The only thing that matters is what happens when a player gets to the NHL. Not how he got there.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nonis also brought in Willie Mitchell, which would've been a bigger off-season signing than Isbister. He also acquired that Luongo guy, who's had an OK career here. He also drafted practically this entire team's core, which is still in tact. Maybe we're not better off.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Drafted by Nonis and still on the roster....

Cory Schneider '04

Alex Edler '04

Jannik Hansen '04

Mason Raymond '05

Pretty small core.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've based an entire post based on one small leg of my argument.

The crux of my argument was that the comparison of Hamhuis to Garrison is/was crazy. Hamhuis was FAR more proven. He was a good 3rd D on a perennial playoff team and had exceeded 20 points 5 times, with a high of 38 in '05-'06. Being the 12th overall pick meant that a lot of people EXPECTED you to be good, too, lowering your risk via confirmation from other sources. I'm not saying that Garrison being undrafted dooms him to a career of fighting for a spot in the NHL, but it is a factor. The Alex Burrows story is not a common one, and cannot be relied on to make investment decisions.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He also drafted Michael Grabner, who Mike Gillis chose to give away.

And BTW, don't try and tell me that he played no role in drafting the Sedin's, Kesler, and Bieksa. He was the SVP and Director of Hockey Ops. And that's just the draft. He also gave Burrows his shot with this team, and turned Todd Bertuzzi into Roberto Luongo. Nonis' fingerprints are still all over this team, like it or not.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He also drafted Michael Grabner, who Mike Gillis chose to give away.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're saying Burke twiddled his thumbs and Nonis did all the work. Another case of chosing what you want to see. Or perhaps even a case of making it up as you go.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So KIng is a big fanboy of Nonis now huh?

The same Nonis who publicly conceded that the Leafs have to acquire, need to acquire, are chomping at the bit to acquire a legitimate, veteran starting goaltender?

Looks like Nonis pretty much showed his hand there.

So much for offering table scraps...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, Baggins. That is precisely what I said. Brian Burke sat around and twiddled his thumbs while Dave Nonis assembled this team entirely.

Precisely. What. I. Said.

Clearly.

Oh, of course it didn't. All Nonis did was sign him to an NHL contract. That's it. Nothing major, as it relates to Burrows being in the NHL, right? :rolleyes:

As the GM, Nonis was accountable for that contract. He chose to give $X out of a scarce amount of available money to Alex Burrows, period. Wow, a friend recommended him; who cares? Do you really think that GMs aren't given "recommendations" every single day? Money talks, and Dave Nonis provided Alex Burrows an NHL contract. Period.

BTW - I'll assume that you think that although Nonis had nothing to do with Burrows, Gillis had everything to do with Chris Tanev. Am I right in that assumption? :lol:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really, but to think that Gillis is this huge upgrade is foolish. Realistically, all Nonis had to do to keep his job was acquire Brad Richards, which would've cost us Edler & Kesler. He passed. The man did a LOT of very good things for this franchise. Also, a lot nicer of a guy than Gillis, by all accounts, too.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Remember the revolving door of garbage that came through this team trying to make up a bottom 6? Remember no secondary scoring at all?"

The bottom 6 is still not very good, especially the last 3. Secondary scoring, especially in the playoffs is not that good yet either.

Gillis is not the Messiah, neither was Nonis.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Remember the revolving door of garbage that came through this team trying to make up a bottom 6? Remember no secondary scoring at all?"

The bottom 6 is still not very good, especially the last 3. Secondary scoring, especially in the playoffs is not that good yet either.

Gillis is not the Messiah, neither was Nonis.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So who is nit?

And I agree the bottom 6 as compared to the pee wee team in my home town is pretty good. But if you were to compare them to top caliber NHL teams they don't come out as well.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Remember the revolving door of garbage that came through this team trying to make up a bottom 6? Remember no secondary scoring at all?"

The bottom 6 is still not very good, especially the last 3. Secondary scoring, especially in the playoffs is not that good yet either.

Gillis is not the Messiah, neither was Nonis.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.