Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
- - - - -

Mike Gillis on Team 1040 - 9/28/12


  • Please log in to reply
349 replies to this topic

#301 gurn

gurn

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,080 posts
  • Joined: 25-September 11

Posted 04 October 2012 - 08:45 AM

"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

#302 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 04 October 2012 - 09:00 AM

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.


How is what you're saying more likely? Career-ending injuries during an NHL game are common, are they? They're not.

And Salo's "injury-proneness" is overstated. Since being a Canuck, the only time where he's had a SIGNIFICANT injury was in 2010-11, where he missed 55 games. Other than that, his lowest GP total was in 2005-06, where he still played 59 games - he basically missed 25% of the season. His injuries have largely been frequent, but not severe. And who knows how many of those injuries that he actually could've played through; Canuck management may well have been ultra-conservative.
  • 0

#303 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,706 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 04 October 2012 - 11:30 AM

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?


Um, Bieksa plays the shutdown role and has had three 40+ points seasons. How many has the mighty Ehrhoff had? Has Ehrhoff ever been utilized as a shutdown d-man? Has Ehrhoff ever played a physical game?


Get your middle school math ready.....

09/10 seventeen players with 80+ points (seven were 90+)
10/11 nine players with 80+ points (five were 90+)
11/12 nine players with 80+ point (three were 90+)

See a trend? The fact is league scoring has dropped. Are the Sedins actually declining or is it the game becoming more defensive again in combination with the reffing relaxing. I don't know about you, but I noticed a big difference in reffing between the first half of last season and the second half. Btw, players with 70 - 79 points dropped in each successive year as well. Maybe the league as a whole is declining from old age.


Garrison D.O.B. - November 13, 1984 = currently 27 years old. (middle school math there)


The only risk with Salo is multiple injuries causing him to decide to retire leaving a 3.75m cap hit on the books for 13/14. But that seems to baffle you.

Edited by Baggins, 04 October 2012 - 12:30 PM.

  • 1
Posted Image

#304 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,706 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 04 October 2012 - 12:29 PM

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.


You really seem to be stuck on a players draft position as being of utmost importance.

Bieksa 6th round
Wideman 8th round
Jurcina 8th round
Laich 6th round
J. Jokinen 6th round
Seidenberg 6th round
Zidlicky 6th round
Miettinen 7th round
Lombardi 7th round
Lundqvist 7th round
Liles 5th round
Moulson 9th round
Byfuglien 8th round
Enstrom 8th round


Jacub Klepis 1st round
Jesse Niinimaki 1st round
Adrian Foster 1st round
Jens Karlsson 1st round
Jonas Johansson 1st round
Lars Jonsson 1st round
Nathan Smith 1st round
Martin Samuelsson 1st round
Hugh Jessiman 1st round
Shawn Belle 1st round

I could care less what position a player is drafted, or if he's drafted at all.


Did you know....

Andy McDonald
Rene Bourque
Steve Thomas
Jason Blake
Mark Giordarno
Martin St Louis
John Madden
Dwayne Roloson
Niklas Backstrom
Steve Duschene
Curtis Joseph
Dino Cicarelli
Chico Resch
Ed Belfour
Dustin Penner
Phil Bourque
Adam Oates
Geoff Courtnall
Joe Mullen
Dan Boyle
John Klemm
and Alex Burrows
...were never drafted?

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
Posted Image

#305 gurn

gurn

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,080 posts
  • Joined: 25-September 11

Posted 04 October 2012 - 12:42 PM

So then what were the first round picks paid in their first nhl contract compared to the undrafted players?
  • 0

#306 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 04 October 2012 - 12:49 PM

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.


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

#307 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,706 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 04 October 2012 - 01:23 PM

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.


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

Cory Schneider '04
Alex Edler '04
Jannik Hansen '04
Mason Raymond '05

Pretty small core.
  • 0
Posted Image

#308 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 04 October 2012 - 01:38 PM

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

Cory Schneider '04
Alex Edler '04
Jannik Hansen '04
Mason Raymond '05

Pretty small core.


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.

Edited by King of the ES, 04 October 2012 - 01:38 PM.

  • 0

#309 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,706 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 04 October 2012 - 01:39 PM

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.


Does that actually matter when it comes to open market value? Or is the players most recent performance the biggest factor?

I'll say it again....I couldn't give a crap where a player was drafted or his expectations or potential. All that matters is what the player does in the NHL. If Garrison had 6 seasons of 16 goals/30+ points I doubt Gillis could have got him at the same price on the open market. But it was still less than he could have had.

Btw, it's rather pointless comparing Garrisons cap hit to Hamhuis. Dan signed two years ago when the cap was 10.8m lower. As the cap goes up salaries go up. Prorate Hammers contract with the cap and his salary would be 5.32m.
  • 0
Posted Image

#310 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,706 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 04 October 2012 - 01:56 PM

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.


I prefer: Gillis chose to "unload before losing him for nothing".


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. Seems to me Burke did all the wrangling to get the Sedins. Kesler and Bieksa are Burke's kind of players. When Bieksa decked Fedorov outside a bar was it Nonis or Burke that said,"sign him to a contract"?

Burrows was the direct result of our farm team giving Burrows a chance based on a friends recommendation. Then recommending the Canucks sign him as a call up. It really had little to do with Nonis. Burke, Nonis and Gillis have all said the same thing in this regard. When it comes to a call up they ask who is playing well for the role needed. Burrows was recommended and seized the opportunity. Nonis neither drafted him nor found him. He was signed to an AHL contract by the Moose.

You said DRAFTED the core. Lou wasn't drafted here. Not to mention he's on his way out now. So he's not applicable to your post I responded to. For that matter neither is Burrows.

Edited by Baggins, 04 October 2012 - 01:58 PM.

  • 3
Posted Image

#311 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,508 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 04 October 2012 - 01:56 PM

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


Yeah, well considering how he was playing it is surprising that Gillis was even able to give Grabner 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.


Fun fact: Nonis also drafted Patrick White, didn't he?

regards,
G.
  • 0
Following the Canucks since before Don Cherry played here.

#312 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 04 October 2012 - 05:41 PM

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.


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.

Burrows was the direct result of our farm team giving Burrows a chance based on a friends recommendation. Then recommending the Canucks sign him as a call up. It really had little to do with Nonis.


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

#313 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,151 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 04 October 2012 - 06:18 PM

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

#314 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,706 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 04 October 2012 - 09:39 PM

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:

Yes you are.

Tanev was scouted and signed by the Canucks. He was then assigned to our farm team. Burrows was given a tryout by the Moose GM based on a friends recommendation. He was then signed to an AHL contract by the Moose GM. He was signed to a minimum wage NHL contract based the recommendation of the Moose staff. See a difference? So yes, credit for Tanev goes to the Canucks, while credit for Burrows goes to the Moose.
  • 0
Posted Image

#315 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 05 October 2012 - 03:46 AM

So KIng is a big fanboy of Nonis now huh?


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

#316 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,929 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 05 October 2012 - 08:47 AM

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.

Oh is that all he would have had to do.

Hey you know how you complain about Gillis losing Shultz? Remember Brunstrom?

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

I wanted to see Nonis get his 5 years that he layed out when he came in as GM and said as much when he got fired but outside of Luongo he didn't do too much. You've suggested in the past that the GM doesn't get full credit for drafting which is good because then he doesn't take full blame for Patrick White.

I am of the opinion that Nonis was a good GM that like Burke couldn't do what it took to finish the job. Neither of these guys have ever built an entire team. Suggesting Nonis was a great white light is quite silly...and wrong.
  • 0
Posted Image
Posted Image

#317 gurn

gurn

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,080 posts
  • Joined: 25-September 11

Posted 05 October 2012 - 08:58 AM

"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

#318 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,929 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 05 October 2012 - 09:03 AM

"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.

Incorrect nit right up until the last line. Secondary scoring is very good especially compared to what I was talking about and the bottom 6 is actually quite good without even having to say "in comparison".

Neither GIllis nor Nonis nor Burke are perfect GM's and nobody has said otherwise. Under Gillis however this team has become more complete than any Canucks team I've seen in a long time.


WB

Edited by EmployeeoftheMonth, 05 October 2012 - 09:04 AM.

  • 0
Posted Image
Posted Image

#319 gurn

gurn

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,080 posts
  • Joined: 25-September 11

Posted 05 October 2012 - 09:09 AM

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

#320 canucksnihilist

canucksnihilist

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,370 posts
  • Joined: 14-June 11

Posted 05 October 2012 - 10:12 AM

"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.


There is no Messiah. Never was, never will.

Fact is it is impossible to stack a team and hold onto the players - there is a reason that the canucks haven't been offering contracts to free agents who would be perfect fits....

the strategy is, for the foreseeable future: get a core, then surround them with players with whom you might get lucky, or younger players with whom you might get lucky.

van's core is one of the best in the league, that's why the team has been so successful.

van's 2nd tier of other players is ok. the young players aren't making an impact. ergo, no cup. a few injuries have really hurt us in this regard. malholtra was a huge loss, and every player on the 4th line last year got injured. crazy. but these players had injury histories, so maybe not that crazy - calculated risks that fell through.

if we can get the 2nd tier going with the next few years (damn lockout!!!!) we can really get a cup.

and no, the sedins aren't declining. they are still top 10-20 in scoring last I checked (at least ppg aka Daniel). When they are 50-100th, then they have declined. They did have a horrible stretch near the end of the season, but were they just relaxing to prepare for playoffs (sure seemed like Henrik was PRIMED and COMPLETELY READY for last playoffs! too bad we again had so many injuries)
  • 0

#321 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 05 October 2012 - 10:15 AM

Oh is that all he would have had to do.


Yes, because, in all likelihood, acquiring Richards would've gotten us into the playoffs. Optically, it would've been very difficult for new-owner-with-sketchy-past Aquilini to fire local-boy Nonis if we won the division and/or made the playoffs that year. Essentially, Nonis lost his job for what he felt was best for the team; and as it turned out, he was very right. Edler & Kesler for Richards would've been terrible, in hindsight.

Hey you know how you complain about Gillis losing Shultz? Remember Brunstrom?


Yes I do. Do you remember why he didn't end up signing here? It was because Dave Nonis was fired. That didn't sit well with Fabby, and he chose to go to Dallas.

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


Where's the secondary scoring now?! The 4th line is a joke, and has been for years. We had scoring on the 3rd line, in the name of Cody Hodgson, but he was traded for a project at the deadline. You can talk about guys like Higgins & Hansen, but with Vigneault's lines being shuffled all the time, they're all over the place, so it's pretty hard to call them "bottom 6". Malhotra can't score, Lapierre can't score, Weise is pathetic, Bitz is pathetic, Ebbett is actually pretty good but he can't stay healthy, so who else is there?

And BTW, Cooke is probably the best bottom-six guy that we had in a long, long time. He was our one consistent bodychecker that we have not found a replacement for, short of the 1-year relationship with Torres.

I am of the opinion that Nonis was a good GM that like Burke couldn't do what it took to finish the job. Neither of these guys have ever built an entire team. Suggesting Nonis was a great white light is quite silly...and wrong.


Burke won a Cup in Anaheim. And don't say "the pieces were already in place", because he added that Chris Pronger guy to their team, which is/was a lot more significant than anything Gillis has added to us. Also, Burke operated under a far different fiscal environment when he was our GM than what exists now, so you can't compare the two.

Gillis v. Nonis is an adequate comparison, and the former better hope that some of his draft picks start showing a pulse, as the signs aren't looking too good, right now, for his drafting record, an area that he identified as being vitally needed to improve when he arrived.

Edited by King of the ES, 05 October 2012 - 10:19 AM.

  • 0

#322 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,929 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 05 October 2012 - 03:42 PM

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.


It's a long shot but do you care to back up your *ahem* opinion?

Compare our current bottom 6 to what we had in the nonis era. Even by NHL standards now this teams bottom 6 is very good but feel free to actually prove me wrong.

I'm so glad you were able to find your way back. How many of these things do you have anyways? If only there was some sort of address on the internet...if only...

Edited by EmployeeoftheMonth, 05 October 2012 - 11:16 PM.

  • 0
Posted Image
Posted Image

#323 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,151 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 05 October 2012 - 05:20 PM

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.


What a load of crap. Where do you come up with these speculative fantasies? All Nonis had to do was make a Richard's deal... I suppose you got that straight from ownership's mouth did you... feel free to qualify that dumb claim.

Here's whay your boy Dreger said:
"Sources say the Lightning asked the Canucks for talented forward Ryan Kesler and coveted defenceman Alex Edler.
Nonis backed off and said Aquilini supported his decision at the time following a push to get the deal done."

feel free to read the whole article and see if you can smell the obvious contradictions.
http://www.tsn.ca/co...eger/?id=234470

Let me highlight the most evident - what Nonis says above and what Dreger claims... incongruent.
Myself - I'm grateful neither of those deals transpired.
Aquilini likely had more than Richards on his mind when he decided to go with Gillis.
Regardless, what you see is the start of a Dreger axe to grind with Aquilini.

I have no complaints about any of the Canuck's GM's since Keenan. Burke did a good job. Nonis did a good job. Gillis is doing a good job. The three of them may not see eye to eye, but collectively they have produced some results that only uber-whiners could possiblly complain about.
  • 0

#324 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,508 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 05 October 2012 - 05:49 PM

Yes I do. Do you remember why he didn't end up signing here? It was because Dave Nonis was fired. That didn't sit well with Fabby, and he chose to go to Dallas.


So, what you're saying is that Aquilini saved the team by firing Nonis?

regards,
G.
  • 0
Following the Canucks since before Don Cherry played here.

#325 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,508 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 05 October 2012 - 06:44 PM

How is what you're saying more likely? Career-ending injuries during an NHL game are common, are they? They're not.

And Salo's "injury-proneness" is overstated. Since being a Canuck, the only time where he's had a SIGNIFICANT injury was in 2010-11, where he missed 55 games. Other than that, his lowest GP total was in 2005-06, where he still played 59 games - he basically missed 25% of the season. His injuries have largely been frequent, but not severe. And who knows how many of those injuries that he actually could've played through; Canuck management may well have been ultra-conservative.


Having several small injuries over a season, rather than one large one suggests to me that a player is injury-prone.

Frankly, I'd rather have Salo lose approx. 25% of the games a season from one significant injury rather than the large number of small injuries which keep hitting him each season. It seems it would be a bit easier to plan your season if he was out for 20 games and then back for the remainder of the season rather than 5 games here and 10 games there.

regards,
G.
  • 0
Following the Canucks since before Don Cherry played here.

#326 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 06 October 2012 - 05:20 AM

What a load of crap. Where do you come up with these speculative fantasies? All Nonis had to do was make a Richard's deal... I suppose you got that straight from ownership's mouth did you... feel free to qualify that dumb claim.


It's a guess, yes, just like you're guessing that Dreger somehow has an axe to grind with Aquilini.

Do you remember what happened in '07-'08? We had won the division and advanced to round two of the playoffs the year before, out of nowhere. A lot of people saw us making a big step ahead that year. Things were going good, and then an epic collapse happened I believe right around the deadline and up to the close of the year, causing us to miss the playoffs.

If Nonis would've acquired Richards, which he was under heavy pressure to do, we likely would've ended up winning our division, making the playoffs, and then who knows what would've happened (Dallas, who acquired Richards, ended up going to the WCF). I find it hard to believe that Aquilini would've fired Nonis if he acquired Richards, and we ended up winning our division, yes. He would have no basis to - similar to why Gillis didn't fire AV, when he first arrived, and hasn't since - there's really no basis to it.

Nonis not acquiring Richards, or any other significant help, was the reason for his demise.
  • 0

#327 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 06 October 2012 - 05:21 AM

So, what you're saying is that Aquilini saved the team by firing Nonis?


Is this a knock on Fabian Brunnstrom? Not really sure what you're trying to get at here.
  • 0

#328 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,929 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 06 October 2012 - 09:15 AM

Is this a knock on Fabian Brunnstrom? Not really sure what you're trying to get at here.


To answer your question I think yes it was a jab at ol' F.B.
  • 0
Posted Image
Posted Image

#329 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,929 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 06 October 2012 - 09:33 AM

It's a guess, yes, just like you're guessing that Dreger somehow has an axe to grind with Aquilini.

Do you remember what happened in '07-'08? We had won the division and advanced to round two of the playoffs the year before, out of nowhere. A lot of people saw us making a big step ahead that year. Things were going good, and then an epic collapse happened I believe right around the deadline and up to the close of the year, causing us to miss the playoffs.

If Nonis would've acquired Richards, which he was under heavy pressure to do, we likely would've ended up winning our division, making the playoffs, and then who knows what would've happened (Dallas, who acquired Richards, ended up going to the WCF). I find it hard to believe that Aquilini would've fired Nonis if he acquired Richards, and we ended up winning our division, yes. He would have no basis to - similar to why Gillis didn't fire AV, when he first arrived, and hasn't since - there's really no basis to it.

Nonis not acquiring Richards, or any other significant help, was the reason for his demise.


Now we agree. It wasn't just a one player problem here. This team had one offensive line under Nonis and that line was generally a 2 player line with a revolving partner. (I'll still never understood why nobody could seem to fill Anson Carters role for so long; and neither could Nonis unfortunately)

BTW why do you think there was pressure to acquire Richards. I mean I remember at the time it was fairly certain he was going to be traded by the Lightning but I think you're confusing the free agent frenzy before he went to NY. Richards had very little to do with Nonis being fired specifically <--key word) but I agree with you completely when you say he wasn't able to bring in specific help because this team then had a mediocre defense and bringing in guys like Aaron Miller wasn't doing a damn thing to help that although I will say he looked to be gaining momentum by bringing in a guy like Mitchell. Up front though outside of the 2/3rds of a first line until Burrows stepped in Naslund and Morrison were going to the dogs, and the likes of Shannon and Isbister, Pyatt, Ritchie.(Anyone still want to argue about that bottom 6 question) In his last season though we were starting to see Raymond and Hanson emerge and Kesler was really starting to show us the type of player he was going to be.

Nonis wasn't a bad GM he just made too many bad moves. Too many Tommy Santalas and not enough Hamhuis. Anyone who doesn't think this team has improved under Gillis is fooling themselves. That doesn't mean Gillis is a messiah or that he hasn't made gaffs but taking three year samples from each it would be a stretch to make the case for Nonis especially after you've now been given credit to him for simply signing Burrows to a contract and that the people who found him didn't matter as much.
  • 0
Posted Image
Posted Image

#330 Drybone

Drybone

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,403 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 12

Posted 06 October 2012 - 09:55 AM

Nonis may turn out to be the greatest GM we ever had , simply by REFUSING to trade Kesler , Edler and our first second and third for Brad Richards.

But then again, I still say Richards was never actually going to waive to come to vancouver. Nonis was being played to get a better deal from Dallas.
  • 0
Posted Image




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

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.