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

#181 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 29 September 2012 - 10:49 AM

We gave Salo a fair offer.
TB gave him one he couldn't turn down.


Why couldn't he turn it down? Honestly - think about it.

Do you really think that Sami has a great financial need for an extra $3.75M? Especially knowing that Gillis (per his word) would continue to sign him to 1-year deals for as long as he wants?

Gillis could well have thrown forth a serious lowball, which insulted Salo, much like what supposedly happened with Willie Mitchell. It's very possible.
  • 0

#182 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,435 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 29 September 2012 - 10:51 AM

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

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

Is Mike Gillis required to choose to adhere to players demands?
  • 1
Posted Image
Posted Image

#183 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 29 September 2012 - 10:54 AM

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.


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

No it was a respectable deal it's just Tampa offered him a much better deal. You're right though that I'm right. Those two offers are apples and oranges but that doesn't mean one is disrespectful.


What it does do is reinforce my take that Mike Gillis didn't give a squirt of poop about bringing Sami Salo back.

So, again, the pressure is on, Jason Garrison. All you've got to do is replace a 9-season vet who owns a lot of this team's record books. Good luck.
  • 0

#184 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 29 September 2012 - 10:56 AM

Is Mike Gillis required to choose to adhere to players demands?


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.
  • 0

#185 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,435 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 29 September 2012 - 10:57 AM

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

Is Jason Garrison playing dressing for all 6 D positions every night? Also I didn't say Vancouver didn't need it what I said was tampa is in greater need of it. Try to keep up King.


What it does do is reinforce my take that Mike Gillis didn't give a squirt of poop about bringing Sami Salo back.

So, again, the pressure is on, Jason Garrison. All you've got to do is replace a 9-season vet who owns a lot of this team's record books. Good luck.

Nope it doesn't do that at all. To think that it does is silly and to be able to rationalize it shows a level of insanity or stubbornness. The pressure is not on Jason Garrison the pressure is on 20 men dressed each game. Garrison represents 1 of those 20. Simple concept...even simpler math.
  • 2
Posted Image
Posted Image

#186 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,435 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 29 September 2012 - 10:57 AM

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.

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.

Edited by EmployeeoftheMonth, 29 September 2012 - 10:58 AM.

  • 2
Posted Image
Posted Image

#187 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 29 September 2012 - 11:01 AM

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.


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.

Edited by King of the ES, 29 September 2012 - 11:03 AM.

  • 0

#188 MC Fatigue

MC Fatigue

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,568 posts
  • Joined: 13-March 12

Posted 29 September 2012 - 11:17 AM

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

Possibly, however I find myself silently agreeing with some of what he says and disagreeing with other points.
Which is fair.
But he doesn't seem to have the "must fire gillis and replace him with a monkey" mentality that nit has.
Sometimes I wonder if people like nit would only be happy if we had a gm such as Snow or Feaster since there would be no question of incompetence and their Debbie Downer b.s. would be par for the course.
Being a uber-homer and a Gillis cheerleader is doesn't help anyone be objective- but calling for MG's head for every move/aquisition/signing he's done is completely ludacris.

Edited by MC Fatigue, 29 September 2012 - 11:18 AM.

  • 0
" I don't understand, can somebody tell me what's going on? Why is there a drunk Chinese man doing push-ups on my front lawn?......and why's he wearing lipstick??"

#189 Peaches

Peaches

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,551 posts
  • Joined: 03-February 12

Posted 29 September 2012 - 11:19 AM

Is it really that big a deal?


Why not stop arguing.
  • 0

Feminism will be outlawed. Mostly because it's a backwards idiotic viewpoint that doesn't serve any real progressive purpose.


Nobody breaks from Mafia... Mafia breaks YOU!


CDCFL - Montreal Canadiens GM
CDCEHL - Winnipeg Jets AGM


#190 MC Fatigue

MC Fatigue

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,568 posts
  • Joined: 13-March 12

Posted 29 September 2012 - 11:29 AM

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.

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.

Should gm's succumb to every players wishes this league (as it seems to have headed) would be utter chaos.
The jury has not even been asked to deliberate on Garrison yet so we haven't a clue how the whole Salo/Garrison saga is going to pan out anyway.
Everybody loved(s) Sami but who knows, maybe he took the TB deal because he'd feel more comfortable among the seniors there?

Edited by MC Fatigue, 29 September 2012 - 11:30 AM.

  • 0
" I don't understand, can somebody tell me what's going on? Why is there a drunk Chinese man doing push-ups on my front lawn?......and why's he wearing lipstick??"

#191 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 29 September 2012 - 11:40 AM

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.


: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

#192 MC Fatigue

MC Fatigue

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,568 posts
  • Joined: 13-March 12

Posted 29 September 2012 - 11:55 AM

: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.

You're absolutely right.

Is Mike Gillis required to choose to adhere to players demands?

I missed the key word choose. I can admit when I'm wrong but thanks for the " :picard: "
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.
The idea of MG choosing to let guys walk works both ways, however. Since players can choose to move on.
Sometimes money and term just dont jive and I disagree with any notion that MG insulted Salo, we just don't know that.
Can't win 'em all.
  • 0
" I don't understand, can somebody tell me what's going on? Why is there a drunk Chinese man doing push-ups on my front lawn?......and why's he wearing lipstick??"

#193 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,092 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 29 September 2012 - 11:56 AM

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.

Edited by oldnews, 29 September 2012 - 12:01 PM.

  • 2

#194 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 29 September 2012 - 11:59 AM

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.


I agree with this. Gillis is betting on Garrison's breakout season to continue. I just don't understand the logic.

A 2-year deal to Salo would've been far less risky, IMO. Realistically, this team doesn't have much longer than 2 years to win a Stanley Cup, anyway. In 2014, D & H will be 34. Their production pulled back pretty significantly this past season, and the reality is that it's probably just the beginning.

Unless guys like Schroeder, Kassian, Jensen, or some other mystery people can step up very quickly, and provide some offense to offset the Sedin's unavoidable decline, this team's got 2 years, tops, before a serious rebuild will/should be undertaken.
  • 0

#195 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 29 September 2012 - 12:08 PM

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.


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?
  • 0

#196 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,092 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 29 September 2012 - 12:14 PM

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?


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)

Edited by oldnews, 29 September 2012 - 12:16 PM.

  • 1

#197 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 29 September 2012 - 12:24 PM

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)


So? Put him on LTIR, like what happened in 2011, which is something that actually helped us.

I understand the risk, and I still see the 6-year contract to an unknown hockey player at a $4.6M cap hit as much riskier than betting that a 9-year vet's going to suffer some sort of career-ending injury in the middle of a game.
  • 0

#198 MC Fatigue

MC Fatigue

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,568 posts
  • Joined: 13-March 12

Posted 29 September 2012 - 12:24 PM

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

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
" I don't understand, can somebody tell me what's going on? Why is there a drunk Chinese man doing push-ups on my front lawn?......and why's he wearing lipstick??"

#199 MC Fatigue

MC Fatigue

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,568 posts
  • Joined: 13-March 12

Posted 29 September 2012 - 12:26 PM

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


edit: k, on same page (sort of) ....moving on....

actual edit: meant to edit, not quote....when's that damn coffee maker going to finish?

Edited by MC Fatigue, 29 September 2012 - 12:26 PM.

  • 0
" I don't understand, can somebody tell me what's going on? Why is there a drunk Chinese man doing push-ups on my front lawn?......and why's he wearing lipstick??"

#200 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,092 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 29 September 2012 - 12:43 PM

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.

Edited by oldnews, 29 September 2012 - 12:47 PM.

  • 3

#201 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,435 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 29 September 2012 - 12:51 PM

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.

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.


No the answer is still no. There was no spinning; that's been your m.o.

Mike Gillis does not have to adhere to demands which means he can choose to or not to. The player ultimately makes the choice to stay or go. Salo got a good offer from the Canucks and a great offer from the Lightning. Just because he got a great offer doesn't suddenly make the Canucks offer s**t.

Still an extremely simple concept you've yet to grasp king. You said yes he has to choose to adhere to demands...the answer is actually no he doesn't have to choose to. We're both saying he has the choice to adhere or not, my question was if he had to choose to adhere to demands. (as in could only choose to) Subtle difference but perhaps you should pay closer attention and read things a little slower.

Edited by EmployeeoftheMonth, 29 September 2012 - 01:03 PM.

  • 0
Posted Image
Posted Image

#202 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 29 September 2012 - 12:59 PM

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.


Oh, so you're projecting Garrison to have the same career trajectory as Salo. OK. We'll see.

BTW, Keith Ballard was also acquired at 28.

Edited by King of the ES, 29 September 2012 - 01:02 PM.

  • 0

#203 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 29 September 2012 - 01:01 PM

No the answer is still no. There was no spinning; that's been your m.o.

Mike Gillis does not have to adhere to demands which means he can choose to or not to. The player ultimately makes the choice to stay or go. Salo got a good offer from the Canucks and a great offer from the Lightning. Just because he got a great offer doesn't suddenly make the Canucks offer s**t.

Still an extremely simple concept you've yet to grasp king.


YOUR question: Is Mike Gillis required to choose to adhere to players demands?

Please read it very sloooooowly. Yes, Mike Gillis is required to choose whether he will or will not adhere to their demands. I am not saying that he *MUST* adhere to their demands, I am saying that he must *CHOOSE* whether he will or he won't. Has it sunken in yet? Don't feel too bad, it took MC Fatigue a few times, too, but it was your own question, so I'd think that you'd maybe be a bit quicker.
  • 0

#204 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,435 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 29 September 2012 - 01:06 PM

YOUR question: Is Mike Gillis required to choose to adhere to players demands?

Please read it very sloooooowly. Yes, Mike Gillis is required to choose whether he will or will not adhere to their demands. I am not saying that he *MUST* adhere to their demands, I am saying that he must *CHOOSE* whether he will or he won't. Has it sunken in yet? Don't feel too bad, it took MC Fatigue a few times, too, but it was your own question, so I'd think that you'd maybe be a bit quicker.

You need to go back and read my edit. I figured I was going to have to be more descriptive for you. Careful King...you're starting to lose it a bit. Hate to lose you to a ban.

My question was if he had to choose to adhere not if he needed to make a choice to adhere or not. Simple concepts...whizzing over you skull.

The point is that Gillis doesn't have to adhere to demands King and thank you for agreeing although I fear you may only be agreeing because you thought you were disagreeing with me.

Ehrhoff made a demand and it was either going to give this club an awful contract or a huge cap hit. Gillis chose to trade his rights to a more desperate team. As it turns out...Ehrhoff wasn't that big of a loss, in fact I'm pretty sure more points from D last season as opposed to the previous year.

Edited by EmployeeoftheMonth, 29 September 2012 - 01:11 PM.

  • 1
Posted Image
Posted Image

#205 MC Fatigue

MC Fatigue

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,568 posts
  • Joined: 13-March 12

Posted 29 September 2012 - 01:06 PM

Don't feel too bad, it took MC Fatigue a few times, too,

It did....
:bigblush: <---- me & my paint chips.
  • 0
" I don't understand, can somebody tell me what's going on? Why is there a drunk Chinese man doing push-ups on my front lawn?......and why's he wearing lipstick??"

#206 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 29 September 2012 - 01:13 PM

The point is that Gillis doesn't have to adhere to demands King and thank you for agreeing although I fear you may only be agreeing because you thought you were disagreeing with me.


I never said that he did!

As I've stated this whole time - Gillis makes choices.

Ehrhoff made a demand and it was either going to give this club an awful contract or a huge cap hit. Gillis chose to trade his rights to a more desperate team. As it turns out...Ehrhoff wasn't that big of a loss.


Number 1, I'm glad that you're acknowledging (finally) that Gillis chose to let Ehrhoff walk/trade him.

Number 2, are you sure that he wasn't that big of a loss? Did you not have a chance to catch the 2012 playoffs?
  • 0

#207 MC Fatigue

MC Fatigue

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,568 posts
  • Joined: 13-March 12

Posted 29 September 2012 - 01:25 PM

Christian Ehrhoff:
Mar 2, 2012
"It was a business decision by [Canucks General Manager] Mike Gillis, and I moved on, I'm happy where I'm at right now. We'll see how the fans saw that transaction. That's going to determine if they boo me or cheer."
  • 0
" I don't understand, can somebody tell me what's going on? Why is there a drunk Chinese man doing push-ups on my front lawn?......and why's he wearing lipstick??"

#208 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,435 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 29 September 2012 - 01:26 PM

I never said that he did!

As I've stated this whole time - Gillis makes choices.

No you didn't you just say silly things like what I'm about to respond to next.

Number 1, I'm glad that you're acknowledging (finally) that Gillis chose to let Ehrhoff walk/trade him.

Number 2, are you sure that he wasn't that big of a loss? Did you not have a chance to catch the 2012 playoffs?


number 1. Gillis never chose to let him walk Gillis chose to not adhere to his demands and traded away his rights before he could walk.

Number 2. Yeah they ended the same way the 2011 playoffs did. However the D scored more points w/o ehrhoff last season iirc by a good margin too so yeah I'm sure. Seems to me Hoffs numbers took a bit of a dip as well but I don't think that takes away from him as a player. He did have a decent injury last season I believe. I like Ehrhoff and I'm glad he found the deal he wanted but I'm glad that deal isn't on the canucks books.
  • 1
Posted Image
Posted Image

#209 Dogbyte

Dogbyte

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,655 posts
  • Joined: 31-March 07

Posted 29 September 2012 - 01:39 PM

MayRay,Salo is the franchise leader in most every category for D men.
Get a clue ,bud.

Who freaking cares you nitwit. He's 38 freaking years old. Get that through your brain. TB needs defenceman, they would have taken Rome too. Good move for TB, horrible, horrible, horrible move for Vancouver, a cap team ... duh.

I'm getting sick of no one being allowed to leave this team because they are such great Canucks, it's a hockey team that's trying to win, not the f'n yacht club you meatballs.

Edited by Dogbyte, 29 September 2012 - 02:26 PM.

  • 0

"What players need is the right kind of strength and power. That includes learning to understand that leverage and positioning can be just as important as raw strength when it comes to winning battles in the game. It's more about timing and athleticism --and avoiding injury--than it is about how much you can bench press. I don't know how many times I've seen a guy with the physique of a defensive end line up a guy half his size, only to bounce off when he connects. Sure, there is room in the game for big guys who can throw their weight around. But for the most part, players are smart enough to see them coming--and strong enough to protect the puck when they arrive. There are trainers out there who know how to devlop hockey-specific strength--though a trainer can help only if a player follows the program. All too often, I've seen players sign up with the best trainer, but not show up for their workouts and never to reap the benefits."

 

Bobby Orr - ORR MY STORY Viking 2013


#210 Ossi Vaananen

Ossi Vaananen

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,844 posts
  • Joined: 25-April 12

Posted 29 September 2012 - 01:40 PM

Erhoff is not worth 40 mil, or 18 in the first 2 years even Garth Snow knew that when he first traded for Erhoff's rights. He's a great defenseman don't get me wrong but it was more a collection of circumstances, namely a shallow free agent pool that allowed Erhoff to clean up. Matt Carle, a similar defenseman in many respects managed 33 million this past year. Erhoff was asking too much, and I was pleased when Gillis walked away.

Garrison is a young defensive defenseman with a huge offensive outbreak last season. If you were to watch his highlights you would see he has a bomb of a shot that will score regardless of his defensive partner. Defenseman mature later that forwards, especially since Garrison was never drafted and played college for 4 years only making his professional career possible at 22.

I also liked that Gillis didn't sign Torres, or Bitz for the same matter. These are guys that took multi game suspensions in the playoffs, costly penalties in deciding games. The last thing any coach wants is to worry about refs making calls directed towards notorious offenders.
  • 0

2d7ye0p.jpg

 

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-





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.