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

#331 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,078 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 06 October 2012 - 10:04 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.


Not sure why I bother to read your posts honestly as you clearly either don't bother to read other people's, or can't be bothered to process what they actually said.

To repeat what your coveted source 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."

And what makes you assume Richards would have caused the Canucks to win the division? That is noob-think. Without the players that would have gone the other way - and evidently Feaster was asking too much (ie Kesler and Edler) - the Canucks were going nowhere in a hurry anyhow.
I'm relieved Nonis had the sense to say no to that deal. Not surprised however that you have your short term 7.8 millon dollar star-blinders on, and assume Richards would have improved the team. That would have been a disastrous move.

Edited by oldnews, 06 October 2012 - 10:08 AM.

  • 0

#332 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,736 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 06 October 2012 - 06:11 PM

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.


And you would be correct.

Putting on my 20/20 hindsight GM glasses, I see that not signing Brunnstrom was a very good thing. The guy had a whole lot of flash and not a lot of bang. Perhaps the only significant down-side to the Canucks not getting Brunnstrom is that Gillis could likely have gotten a lot more for him than Dallas when they finally traded him away.

Might Brunnstrom have been a more productive player had he played with the Canucks and been on the ice with the Sedins? Sure. Lots of guys have played with the Sedins (forwards and d-men) and have looked a lot better than what they really were (eg. Carter, Ehrhoff).

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

#333 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,008 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 06 October 2012 - 06:37 PM

And you would be correct.

Putting on my 20/20 hindsight GM glasses, I see that not signing Brunnstrom was a very good thing. The guy had a whole lot of flash and not a lot of bang. Perhaps the only significant down-side to the Canucks not getting Brunnstrom is that Gillis could likely have gotten a lot more for him than Dallas when they finally traded him away.

Might Brunnstrom have been a more productive player had he played with the Canucks and been on the ice with the Sedins? Sure. Lots of guys have played with the Sedins (forwards and d-men) and have looked a lot better than what they really were (eg. Carter, Ehrhoff).

regards,
G.


But would he have been Burrows/Carter better, or Pyatt/Bernier better?
  • 0
Posted Image

#334 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,736 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 06 October 2012 - 08:16 PM

But would he have been Burrows/Carter better, or Pyatt/Bernier better?


That is an interesting question.

Based upon his first year in Dallas, I'd assume he'd have been Burrows/Carter better, but likely for only one year.

What happened to this guy after his rookie year? Yeesh! Maybe he can find himself again now that he's back in Sweden.

On a side note about Burrows and the "good luck" in not signing Brunnstrom, 2008 - 09 was his rookie year (17 g), and he was all downhill from there. It was also the year Burrows got paired up, pretty much full time with the Sedins (28g).

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

#335 .Naslund

.Naslund

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,072 posts
  • Joined: 14-June 09

Posted 06 October 2012 - 11:44 PM

To all of you that think Edler is being "greedy", why don't you all just take a cut from what you're making as well from your jobs?
  • 0
Posted Image

#336 Dogbyte

Dogbyte

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,626 posts
  • Joined: 31-March 07

Posted 07 October 2012 - 09:59 AM

To all of you that think Edler is being "greedy", why don't you all just take a cut from what you're making as well from your jobs?

Because unlike him we'd starve to death.
  • 0
There are things known and unknown ... and in between are the doors.

#337 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,259 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 07 October 2012 - 11:25 AM

Because unlike him we'd starve to death.

Or default on our mortgages....have to pull our kids out of sports....etc., etc. You can't compare the life and situation of a professional athlete making millions, to that of the average working person.

Besides, who says Edler is being greedy?
  • 0
Orland Kurtenbach and Dennis Kearns had just been torched 8-1 by the Habs, but they still took time to come out to meet us, some fellow BC boys who were playing hockey in Montreal. THAT"S what being a Canuck is!

#338 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 07 October 2012 - 01:54 PM

And what makes you assume Richards would have caused the Canucks to win the division? That is noob-think. Without the players that would have gone the other way - and evidently Feaster was asking too much (ie Kesler and Edler) - the Canucks were going nowhere in a hurry anyhow.
I'm relieved Nonis had the sense to say no to that deal. Not surprised however that you have your short term 7.8 millon dollar star-blinders on, and assume Richards would have improved the team. That would have been a disastrous move.


Uh-huh.

What happened to Dallas when they got him? 5th seed Stars take out 4th seed Cup-defending Anaheim Ducks in round 1, and then take out 2nd seed big, bad San Jose. Lose to the Cup-winning Wings in 6 in the WCF.

But yes, I'm sure Richards did nothing to help with this. The fact that he had both won a Cup and a Conn Smythe in his past, and contributed 15 points in 18 games in those playoffs with Dallas, were not material in their run (which was longer than anywhere that the Canucks have gotten in all but 3 of their 42 years of existence).

Edited by King of the ES, 07 October 2012 - 01:55 PM.

  • 0

#339 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,078 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 07 October 2012 - 03:48 PM

Uh-huh.

What happened to Dallas when they got him? 5th seed Stars take out 4th seed Cup-defending Anaheim Ducks in round 1, and then take out 2nd seed big, bad San Jose. Lose to the Cup-winning Wings in 6 in the WCF.

But yes, I'm sure Richards did nothing to help with this. The fact that he had both won a Cup and a Conn Smythe in his past, and contributed 15 points in 18 games in those playoffs with Dallas, were not material in their run (which was longer than anywhere that the Canucks have gotten in all but 3 of their 42 years of existence).


First of all - big deal - a fifth seed takes out a fourth seed and then the perenial playoff floppers, the San Jose Sharks.

And you're missing some vital information there king.

To Dallas: Richards and Johan Holmqvist

To Tampa; Mike Smith, Jeff Halpern, Jussi Jokinen and a 4th.

Not exactly a return like Kesler and Edler was it.

In fact, Feaster got fleeced. Doesn't change that a Kesler, Edler deal would have been terrible for Vancouver. What Dallas gave up, however...Smith was horrible in Tampa. Halpern had far and away his worst years there, and Jokinen was such a disappointment that they waived him, and eventually traded him for Wade Brookbank and leftovers. Needless to say all three of those players were better once they moved on from Tampa, but Feaster probably sealed his fate with the results of that misfire.

But your argument that Richards would have made such a significant difference is irrelevent - Dallas was the fifth seed, with reasonable playoff aspirations - the Canucks were the 11th seed and Brad Richards was certainly not going to make them a contender. They were much wiser to hang on to their young stars.
  • 0

#340 gurn

gurn

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,284 posts
  • Joined: 25-September 11

Posted 08 October 2012 - 11:59 AM

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...



It maybe time to consult your doctor and get your medication bumped up as I truly have no clue what you are talking about here.
I am a recent poster here on this site and have never posted here under any other name.In fact if Canucks Central was still around I'd be posting there under the only other name I've ever posted anywhere on the net. Mikeh-that is me.

As to the bottom 6 in the nonis years versus the Gillis bottom six
Nonis:
Matt Cooke
Jarko Ruutu
Trevor linden
Ryan Kesler
Rick Rypien

Seems pretty good to me.
Of the Gillis group I'd say only Malhotra, prior to his injury and Higgins compare favourably. I'd also say Hansen but he was around for part of the nonis era as well.In the next season, if there is one, Lappy may be better than most in the Nonis era.
  • 0

#341 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,736 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 08 October 2012 - 01:19 PM

It maybe time to consult your doctor and get your medication bumped up as I truly have no clue what you are talking about here.
I am a recent poster here on this site and have never posted here under any other name.In fact if Canucks Central was still around I'd be posting there under the only other name I've ever posted anywhere on the net. Mikeh-that is me.

As to the bottom 6 in the nonis years versus the Gillis bottom six
Nonis:
Matt Cooke
Jarko Ruutu
Trevor linden
Ryan Kesler
Rick Rypien

Seems pretty good to me.
Of the Gillis group I'd say only Malhotra, prior to his injury and Higgins compare favourably. I'd also say Hansen but he was around for part of the nonis era as well.In the next season, if there is one, Lappy may be better than most in the Nonis era.


Well, Cooke was drafted the year prior to Burke arriving here, wasn't he? So if you're going to include him in your list, then to be fair you should include Hansen in the Gillis era bottom-6, no?

There's been some very good players who have been part of the Canuck's bottom-6 during the Gillis era. like: Malhotra, Lapierre, Higgins, Hansen, Torres, Hodgson.

regards,
G.

Edited by Gollumpus, 08 October 2012 - 01:20 PM.

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

#342 canuck2xtreme

canuck2xtreme

    Canucks All-Star

  • Assistant to Regional Manager
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,055 posts
  • Joined: 08-July 06

Posted 08 October 2012 - 02:44 PM

WHAT?!?!?

You're telling me that you think there's a team out there that offered Garrison (Jason Garrett is the head coach of the Dallas Cowboys, by the way) a 6-year deal, at $5.5M per?!? The term is critical - on a 1 or a 2-year deal, sure, maybe. But over 6 years, $5.5M per? Is that what you're actually saying?!?


Just wanted to point this out... from Bob McKenzie's Twitter on July 1st:


Bob McKenzie @TSNBobMcKenzie

Garrison left $ on table - was offered "Wideman money" elsewhere - but wanted to play for hometown VAN, which held firm on internal $ scale.


  • 0

CDCGML Commissioner/Winnipeg Jets <---Click For Roster!
Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image
Support Canuck Place Childrens Hospice - http://www.canuckplace.org/

This is what hockey should be. A lot of chances, a lot of hitting, no cheap shots, no chirping after whistles."


#343 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,418 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 08 October 2012 - 10:13 PM

It maybe time to consult your doctor and get your medication bumped up as I truly have no clue what you are talking about here.
I am a recent poster here on this site and have never posted here under any other name.In fact if Canucks Central was still around I'd be posting there under the only other name I've ever posted anywhere on the net. Mikeh-that is me.

As to the bottom 6 in the nonis years versus the Gillis bottom six
Nonis:
Matt Cooke
Jarko Ruutu
Trevor linden
Ryan Kesler
Rick Rypien

Seems pretty good to me.
Of the Gillis group I'd say only Malhotra, prior to his injury and Higgins compare favourably. I'd also say Hansen but he was around for part of the nonis era as well.In the next season, if there is one, Lappy may be better than most in the Nonis era.

That would seem pretty good but there's quite a bit more to it than that.

Cooke was mostly a bottom 6 player and was good. He was in fact the shining light of this teams bottom 6.
Kesler actually started playing second line duties in 2006/07 season but prior to that had that nickname "hands of stone" which while he would grow out of he was still an agitator with skill.
Ruutu was also a good player; can't argue with that at all. He was here for only one season under nonis and scored a grand total of 17 points. Scoring wasn't his role though he was really an agitator..just like Kesler until he developed.
Linden always was good no matter what role he had. He wasn't exactly providing a lot of scoring however even in a bottom 6 role.
Rypien wasn't very good. I'm sorry I know it's terrible to speak ill of the dead so that is where I will leave it I will say this though having a guy on a list you think is pretty good that played a total of 27 games and provided next to no offense shows how poor the bottom 6 really was. Here's a list of other bottom 6 players who played for Nonis. Most of which also played more than Rypien
Bottom 6 05/06
Rick Rypien
Tyler Bouck
Wade Brookbank
Lee Goren
Jash Green
ALex Burrows
Trevor Linden
Jarko Ruutu
Ryan Kesler
Richard Park
Ryan Kesler

Kesler and Burrows and Ruutu all agitators. Poor bottom 6 if you ask me.

06/07
No Rypien
Goren
Reid
Bouck
Moran
Chouinard
Santala
Burrows
Cowan
Linden
Kesler
Cooke/Pyatt (iirc kept going back and forth onto the second line)

Yeesh. Kesler not the player he is now so we're still looking at him and Burrows being agitators mostly but this was the season Kesler started really showing what he was going to develop into. Cowan had a nice streak for a few games...uhhh...that's about it.

07/08
Cooke/Pettinger
Hansen :Give credit where it's due. Nonis is the guy who saw that Hansen deserved a shot. I totally give him credit for that.
Cowan
Brown
Rypien (got 22 games that season. Correct me if I'm wrong though I think he got injured this season so I wouldn't count that against him but still an odd choice for your list.
Jaffrey
Ritchie
Isbister
Linden
Shannon
Raymond (Same as Hansen I give credit to Nonis for giving him a chance)

This might be the worst of all 3 years.

So in 05/06the bottom 6 had 142 points. That's the best of the 3 seasons. Nonis started with a much better bottom 6 than what he left the team with.

Bottom 6 11/12
Hansen 39
Hodgson/Kassian 33/3
Malhotra 18
Higgins 43
Lappiere 19
Raymond 20
Pahlson 6
Ebbett 6
Bitz 4
Duco 2
Volpatti 1


That's 224 points. I would have liked to have taken both GM's 3rd year but again Nonis best bottom 6 was in his first year so I thought I'd let that one speak out for him.


I know there's more than points to hockey and Nonis certainly seemed to love having agitators on the bottom 6 but it's just no contest here. You're list is lovely but Rypien has no business on it; Kesler was a good bottom 6 player but not even close to the same player he is now and Cooke was a very good player who went between the first and second line.

Sorry my meds are just fine.

Edited by EmployeeoftheMonth, 08 October 2012 - 10:15 PM.

  • 1
Posted Image
Posted Image

#344 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,008 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 09 October 2012 - 01:04 AM

In 07/08 Rypien took a leave of absence for personal reasons. Many here speculated a drug problem at the time.
  • 0
Posted Image

#345 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,418 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 09 October 2012 - 07:53 AM

In 07/08 Rypien took a leave of absence for personal reasons. Many here speculated a drug problem at the time.


That's right; for some reason I had thought that wasn't that long ago.

Am I mistaken in thinking that one season he broke his hand doing something completely harmless and then never ended up cracking the roster.
  • 0
Posted Image
Posted Image

#346 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,008 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 09 October 2012 - 08:57 AM

That's right; for some reason I had thought that wasn't that long ago.

Am I mistaken in thinking that one season he broke his hand doing something completely harmless and then never ended up cracking the roster.


He had a second personal leave in another season but it wasn't as long.

Edited by Baggins, 09 October 2012 - 08:59 AM.

  • 0
Posted Image

#347 gurn

gurn

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,284 posts
  • Joined: 25-September 11

Posted 09 October 2012 - 02:41 PM

That would seem pretty good but there's quite a bit more to it than that.

Cooke was mostly a bottom 6 player and was good. He was in fact the shining light of this teams bottom 6.
Kesler actually started playing second line duties in 2006/07 season but prior to that had that nickname "hands of stone" which while he would grow out of he was still an agitator with skill.
Ruutu was also a good player; can't argue with that at all. He was here for only one season under nonis and scored a grand total of 17 points. Scoring wasn't his role though he was really an agitator..just like Kesler until he developed.
Linden always was good no matter what role he had. He wasn't exactly providing a lot of scoring however even in a bottom 6 role.
Rypien wasn't very good. I'm sorry I know it's terrible to speak ill of the dead so that is where I will leave it I will say this though having a guy on a list you think is pretty good that played a total of 27 games and provided next to no offense shows how poor the bottom 6 really was. Here's a list of other bottom 6 players who played for Nonis. Most of which also played more than Rypien
Bottom 6 05/06
Rick Rypien
Tyler Bouck
Wade Brookbank
Lee Goren
Jash Green
ALex Burrows
Trevor Linden
Jarko Ruutu
Ryan Kesler
Richard Park
Ryan Kesler

Kesler and Burrows and Ruutu all agitators. Poor bottom 6 if you ask me.

06/07
No Rypien
Goren
Reid
Bouck
Moran
Chouinard
Santala
Burrows
Cowan
Linden
Kesler
Cooke/Pyatt (iirc kept going back and forth onto the second line)

Yeesh. Kesler not the player he is now so we're still looking at him and Burrows being agitators mostly but this was the season Kesler started really showing what he was going to develop into. Cowan had a nice streak for a few games...uhhh...that's about it.

07/08
Cooke/Pettinger
Hansen :Give credit where it's due. Nonis is the guy who saw that Hansen deserved a shot. I totally give him credit for that.
Cowan
Brown
Rypien (got 22 games that season. Correct me if I'm wrong though I think he got injured this season so I wouldn't count that against him but still an odd choice for your list.
Jaffrey
Ritchie
Isbister
Linden
Shannon
Raymond (Same as Hansen I give credit to Nonis for giving him a chance)

This might be the worst of all 3 years.

So in 05/06the bottom 6 had 142 points. That's the best of the 3 seasons. Nonis started with a much better bottom 6 than what he left the team with.

Bottom 6 11/12
Hansen 39
Hodgson/Kassian 33/3
Malhotra 18
Higgins 43
Lappiere 19
Raymond 20
Pahlson 6
Ebbett 6
Bitz 4
Duco 2
Volpatti 1


That's 224 points. I would have liked to have taken both GM's 3rd year but again Nonis best bottom 6 was in his first year so I thought I'd let that one speak out for him.


I know there's more than points to hockey and Nonis certainly seemed to love having agitators on the bottom 6 but it's just no contest here. You're list is lovely but Rypien has no business on it; Kesler was a good bottom 6 player but not even close to the same player he is now and Cooke was a very good player who went between the first and second line.

Sorry my meds are just fine.



So your meds are fine, but you still think I'm someone else?
  • 0

#348 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,418 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 09 October 2012 - 08:58 PM

So your meds are fine, but you still think I'm someone else?

How about that bottom 6?
  • 0
Posted Image
Posted Image

#349 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,418 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 11 October 2012 - 08:44 AM

Nothin huh...
  • 0
Posted Image
Posted Image

#350 gurn

gurn

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,284 posts
  • Joined: 25-September 11

Posted 11 October 2012 - 11:18 AM

"Nothin huh... "

Hey some of us work for a living.
Still think I'm somone else?

Linden was good on draws and very good at the shoot out, plus he provided veteran leadership with the ability to play on the top lines for short periods of time.
Rypien was a good forechecker and provided a physical element that has yet to be replaced.
Ruuttu and Cooke were difficult to play against and ensured the other team played with their heads up.

put them against:
Malhota is still the better face-off guy
Hansen has improved over the years as well
hodgson was a good playmaker

More scoring from the recent folk but as you pointed out stats aren't everything.

I'm not sure the new guys are better as much as they are just different.
  • 0




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.