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

#241 smokes

smokes

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 644 posts
  • Joined: 31-January 03

Posted 01 October 2012 - 09:36 AM

LOL!! Hammer dead weight? = joke. Hamhuis is the cornerstone of our d and an exemplary human being. Give your head a shake.
LOST out on Shultz? = joke. Guess every one of the other 29 gm's that 'lost out
on Shultz suck too huh?
Psssst!!!!!! Newsflash!! MG DIDN't trade Erhoff. Erhoff sniffed out the huge payday and left.
Hogson debacle?? Obvious Cody nut-hugger response. Reports are Cody wanted out because of ice time etc. If true....good riddance.
Gillis isn't perfect I agree but your post is full of troll, or fail. Depending on who's looking....


For arguments sake, Lets just say we kept Erhoff and passed on Ballard, would you say we would lose to LA so easily?
  • 0

#242 eretz canucks

eretz canucks

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 821 posts
  • Joined: 21-November 10

Posted 01 October 2012 - 10:49 AM

For all the grade schoolers out there who want to insult those of us who posted that Erhoff was traded, maybe go check the google machine again. Erhoff was traded by Van more than 24hrs ahead of July 1. Traded to NYI for a fourth round pick. He would not sign there, so NYI traded him to Buffalo for a fourth. Then Buffalo signed him to 4.0 mill for 10 yrs with a NTC.

Check it out!

Edited by eretz canucks, 01 October 2012 - 10:49 AM.

  • 0

#243 eretz canucks

eretz canucks

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 821 posts
  • Joined: 21-November 10

Posted 01 October 2012 - 10:50 AM

That means u, MC fatigue.
  • 0

#244 Gerbera

Gerbera

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 407 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 10

Posted 01 October 2012 - 11:47 AM

For arguments sake, Lets just say we kept Erhoff and passed on Ballard, would you say we would lose to LA so easily?


I seriously doubt Erhoff could win us the series by himself. That's just like saying if Keith didn't elbow Daniel in the face will we win the series? Who knows.
  • 0

#245 Gerbera

Gerbera

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 407 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 10

Posted 01 October 2012 - 11:49 AM

He signed a month and half or so after July 1, because he was cleared to play at that time by my memory. So the risk was future injury which does occur with head injuries.

But while your on the IR the cap hit is $0.

At our end, the risk was missing out on Hamhuis or (gulp) Ballard July 1 long before he was cleared to play. Ultimately we lost that risk, but I probably would have done the same as Gillis did at the time had opportunities been the same.


Yea I agree LA won the risk and good for them. But the thing is.. can Gillis persuade Aquillini to chip out 3.5 mil for someone that will just sit at the sidelines? I mean yea it will cost $0 for Cap Hit while he is on IR... but there is still financial risks for the team.
  • 0

#246 Red Light Racicot

Red Light Racicot

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,478 posts
  • Joined: 28-June 10

Posted 01 October 2012 - 12:26 PM

we have a strict payroll/guide line we put together. unlike other teams, we don't do things for certain reasons.


I hate it when he says this stuff. Its just another way of saying "Its not my fault dont blame me"

Edited by Red Light Racicot, 01 October 2012 - 12:26 PM.

  • 0

#247 MC Fatigue

MC Fatigue

    Canucks Rookie

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

Posted 01 October 2012 - 05:53 PM

That means u, MC fatigue.

you think gillis and the Ehrhoff camp weren't talking about $ and term before free agency opened up? if so, u're completely on glue. Ehrhoff et all were looking for a kings ransom which MG wouldn't pay out imo, so...rights traded. no sign on dotted line....free agent. field offers and go for the huuuuuge paycheque. simple enough for you?

edit: and looking back at my original post, yes I made a mistake. instead of reading "MG DIDN't trade Erhoff. Erhoff sniffed out the huge payday and left" it should have read "MG DIDN't trade Erhoff he traded his rights. Erhoff sniffed out the huge payday and would have left anyway" excuse me.

Edited by MC Fatigue, 01 October 2012 - 05:57 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??"

#248 MattJVD

MattJVD

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 304 posts
  • Joined: 24-January 11

Posted 01 October 2012 - 05:56 PM

Yea I agree LA won the risk and good for them. But the thing is.. can Gillis persuade Aquillini to chip out 3.5 mil for someone that will just sit at the sidelines? I mean yea it will cost $0 for Cap Hit while he is on IR... but there is still financial risks for the team.


If i remember correctly LA was more than 3.5 mil away from the cap ceilling, so they would recieve nothing. The cap is forgiven untill the team has cap space equal to the hit of the injured player.
  • 0

#249 MC Fatigue

MC Fatigue

    Canucks Rookie

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

Posted 01 October 2012 - 05:59 PM

For arguments sake, Lets just say we kept Erhoff and passed on Ballard, would you say we would lose to LA so easily?

Posted Image
  • 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??"

#250 gurn

gurn

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,294 posts
  • Joined: 25-September 11

Posted 01 October 2012 - 06:21 PM

"But the thing is.. can Gillis persuade Aquillini to chip out 3.5 mil for someone that will just sit at the sidelines? I mean yea it will cost $0 for Cap Hit while he is on IR... but there is still financial risks for the team.


odds are that the player is insured and while injured the owner is off the hook.
  • 0

#251 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,024 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 02 October 2012 - 01:54 AM

For arguments sake, Lets just say we kept Erhoff and passed on Ballard, would you say we would lose to LA so easily?


I doubt Ehrhoff would have saved the series for us. Our biggest drawback to winning were the injuries to Kesler and Daniel. Having Daniel from the beginning of the series, plus a healthy Kesler, would have made us far more difficult to beat.


I have to ask those believing Ehrhoff should have been retained. Do you think Ehrhoff was so key to the team that he deserved to be the highest paid player on the team not in net?
  • 0
Posted Image

#252 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,024 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 02 October 2012 - 02:04 AM

"But the thing is.. can Gillis persuade Aquillini to chip out 3.5 mil for someone that will just sit at the sidelines? I mean yea it will cost $0 for Cap Hit while he is on IR... but there is still financial risks for the team.


odds are that the player is insured and while injured the owner is off the hook.


I read an article on player insurance a couple of years ago and surprisingly very few players are insured by the club. Typically only the top 3 to 6 paid players on each team are insured. Even then there can be limitations from the insurer. In the case of a player that has had several knee injuries, or as in Mitchells case, a very severe concussion, insurance companies will cover that player with those particular injuries exempt from the coverage as they are too high risk to repeat. A player like Salo with a lengthy list of injuries would likely be too expensive to insure or even a player companies simply would decline to insure. I was really surprised at how few are actually insured.
  • 0
Posted Image

#253 Psycho_Path

Psycho_Path

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,724 posts
  • Joined: 18-September 06

Posted 02 October 2012 - 09:35 AM

What a crock; prior to Gilis landing here we weren't known as a team of divers. It is pretty obvious that part of his "thinking outside the box" strategy was to "draw" more power plays and what better way is there to do that than dive since almost nobody ever gets called for it. Unfortunately "the time to reign it in" was well before the series against Boston where the best refs in the league got so sick of watching us flop around that they simply put their whistles in their pockets. It will be a tough label for us to shake. Good luck on that MG.


I realize this post was made a while ago but I certainly don't blame Gillis for the diving this team has done. And saying the diving the Canucks did in the finals against Boston is why they didn't get calls is a load of crap. Did you watch ANY of the series against Chicago in that and the previous 2 years? No diving and yet we got SOOO many missed calls on our side vs Chicago's.
  • 1
Posted Image

#254 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 02 October 2012 - 02:59 PM

Clearly MG is a more conservative GM than his reputation would say.


$20M for Sundin, Hodgson (known) for Kassian (uknown), a King's ransom of youth for Keith Ballard, and a 6-year deal to a guy who's had one good NHL season might disagree.
  • 1

#255 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 02 October 2012 - 03:07 PM

I have to ask those believing Ehrhoff should have been retained. Do you think Ehrhoff was so key to the team that he deserved to be the highest paid player on the team not in net?


That'd only be on a cash basis, which is not relevant. Cap hit is all that matters as it relates to building a contender.
  • 2

#256 Snake Doctor

Snake Doctor

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,760 posts
  • Joined: 30-September 08

Posted 02 October 2012 - 03:32 PM

Nuck nit 100% correct

Gillis F'd up
What do u think Gargnani and then
Garrison were for-to replace Erhoff...
Gargnani = bust should have gotten Kassian and a first for Hodgson or Kassian and 2nd, 3rd

Gillis-idiot


LOL :picard:
  • 0
Posted Image


#257 MC Fatigue

MC Fatigue

    Canucks Rookie

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

Posted 02 October 2012 - 04:06 PM

LOL :picard:


edit: laughed a bit. love the response

Edited by MC Fatigue, 02 October 2012 - 04:07 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??"

#258 Hockey Fever

Hockey Fever

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,808 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 09

Posted 02 October 2012 - 04:24 PM

Sorry guys, on a side note did they ever have the Presidents Trophy ceremony last year ? I don't remember hearing anything about it and if we didn't then i guess we won't be having one till the season starts, which could be a while ?
  • 0

Posted Image

NHL Wikipedia : Operates Major Ice Hockey League known for predetermining Stanley Cup winners and rampant corrupt officiating

"I would love for (the Canucks) to win the Stanley Cup because that would put to bed all the talk about 1994", he says facetiously".
Nathan Lafayette on hitting the post in game seven of the Stanley Cup.


#259 Gerbera

Gerbera

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 407 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 10

Posted 02 October 2012 - 04:55 PM

That'd only be on a cash basis, which is not relevant. Cap hit is all that matters as it relates to building a contender.


So you suggest that we sign another 10 year contract for another player while we are still figuring out a way to trade Lu and his long contract?

Although Erhoff's cap hit is $4mil / year he is signed 10 years... 10 years.
  • 1

#260 MC Fatigue

MC Fatigue

    Canucks Rookie

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

Posted 02 October 2012 - 05:25 PM

So you suggest that we sign another 10 year contract for another player while we are still figuring out a way to trade Lu and his long contract?

Although Erhoff's cap hit is $4mil / year he is signed 10 years... 10 years.


agreed. although the cap hit, dollar amount may end up being insignificant another albatross contract in terms of term would not be in the best interset of the franchise. Garrisons deal is miniscule in comparison imo
  • 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??"

#261 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,436 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 02 October 2012 - 11:54 PM

$20M for Sundin, Hodgson (known) for Kassian (uknown), a King's ransom of youth for Keith Ballard, and a 6-year deal to a guy who's had one good NHL season might disagree.

$20M for Sundin, Hodgson (known) for Kassian (uknown), a King's ransom of youth for Keith Ballard, and a 6-year deal to a guy who's had one good NHL season might disagree.


So you're going to argue that Hodgson is a known commodity and trading him was a mistake while in the same breath say it was a mistake to sign a guy who in your opinion only had one good NHL season?

Seems like a pretty silly thing to say. Say how much did Sundin end up getting paid of that 20 mil?
  • 0
Posted Image
Posted Image

#262 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 03 October 2012 - 03:56 AM

So you suggest that we sign another 10 year contract for another player while we are still figuring out a way to trade Lu and his long contract?

Although Erhoff's cap hit is $4mil / year he is signed 10 years... 10 years.


Lu's contract isn't the problem. The problem is that he controls where he ends up. Because of that, we have very little leverage.

10 years isn't ideal, no, but give me Ehrhoff @ $4M per year for 10 years over Garrison @ $4.6M for 6 years, any day of the week.
  • 0

#263 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 03 October 2012 - 04:00 AM

So you're going to argue that Hodgson is a known commodity and trading him was a mistake while in the same breath say it was a mistake to sign a guy who in your opinion only had one good NHL season?


Hodgson was the 10th overall pick, the CHL Player of the Year, the Hockey News' Top Prospect, won all kinds of accolades as voted by the OHL coaches, was the top point-getter at the '09 WJC's, and I believe he was our team's 2nd or 3rd leading goal scorer at the time of being traded. In the context of a year where we could win a Cup, trading him for Zack Kassian, who watched us be eliminated by LA while eating a hotdog in the press box, was not a wise move.

Garrison was undrafted, got a spot on Florida because they stunk, and he was cheap, and then had a breakout season when Brian Campbell arrived.

Totally different.
  • 0

#264 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,024 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 03 October 2012 - 04:59 AM

That'd only be on a cash basis, which is not relevant. Cap hit is all that matters as it relates to building a contender.


Cash is relevant as it determines the cap hit. It still comes down to my question: Is Ehrhoff worth more than either Sedin?

You can keep telling yourself the cap hit is all that matters, but Ehrhoff wouldn't have got that "till death do us part deal" here. Which means a deal here would not have included cap reducers. We already had one of those mistakes in Lou's deal and he was an elite player. Ehrhoff on the other hand hasn't even been an all-star, never mind elite. It just shows how desperate Buffalo was. If he was given the money he wanted he would have been the highest paid player here with the cap hit to go with it.
  • 0
Posted Image

#265 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,024 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 03 October 2012 - 05:11 AM

Hodgson was the 10th overall pick, the CHL Player of the Year, the Hockey News' Top Prospect, won all kinds of accolades as voted by the OHL coaches, was the top point-getter at the '09 WJC's, and I believe he was our team's 2nd or 3rd leading goal scorer at the time of being traded. In the context of a year where we could win a Cup, trading him for Zack Kassian, who watched us be eliminated by LA while eating a hotdog in the press box, was not a wise move.

Garrison was undrafted, got a spot on Florida because they stunk, and he was cheap, and then had a breakout season when Brian Campbell arrived.

Totally different.


Ask Daige how much junior accolades mean. Ask Burrows how much not getting drafted means. Life doesn't come with guarantees.
  • 0
Posted Image

#266 MikeBossy

MikeBossy

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,803 posts
  • Joined: 27-July 05

Posted 03 October 2012 - 05:38 AM

Lu's contract isn't the problem. The problem is that he controls where he ends up. Because of that, we have very little leverage.

10 years isn't ideal, no, but give me Ehrhoff @ $4M per year for 10 years over Garrison @ $4.6M for 6 years, any day of the week.


Have to disagree here - Ehrhoff over Garrison? Sorry but I'll take the 6'2 218lb defenceman who had 127 hits at $4.6 mil over the 6'2 203lb defenceman who when he played a full season here had 54 hits any day of the week. Problem with the Canuck defence is we have to many defencemen who play the run and gun style like Ehrhoff and not enough physical D - its my biggest knock against Edler - he needs to use his size more often - maybe go to the Ulf Samuelson summer hockey school and learn to get nasty :D
  • 0


Thanks to R.Luongo. for the amazing sig

#267 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 03 October 2012 - 06:49 AM

Cash is relevant as it determines the cap hit. It still comes down to my question: Is Ehrhoff worth more than either Sedin?


Total cash determines the cap hit, over the life of the contract. Ehrhoff's cap hit is $4.0M, which is less than Sedin's of $6.1M.

A contract being front-loaded by nature is meaningless except that it's more valuable to Ehrhoff (and nobody else) by way of having more of the cash up front. Cap hit is all that anybody should care about.

You can keep telling yourself the cap hit is all that matters, but Ehrhoff wouldn't have got that "till death do us part deal" here. Which means a deal here would not have included cap reducers. We already had one of those mistakes in Lou's deal and he was an elite player. Ehrhoff on the other hand hasn't even been an all-star, never mind elite. It just shows how desperate Buffalo was. If he was given the money he wanted he would have been the highest paid player here with the cap hit to go with it.


Some guys just fit well in certain places, and Ehrhoff was one of those guys here. Basically from the moment he played his first game, he was an obvious fit.

And fine, don't give him a 10-year deal. Would $5M per year over 8 years really be all that damaging? Oh no, he'd be paid more than Kevin Bieksa; who cares? He's a better player and deserves it. Look at the numbers that he put up with us. Not a lot of 50-point defencemen around the NHL.
  • 0

#268 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 03 October 2012 - 06:51 AM

Ask Daige how much junior accolades mean. Ask Burrows how much not getting drafted means. Life doesn't come with guarantees.


Oh, OK, so you're using the two exceptions to the rules as basis to your argument. Odds need to be weighed. The vast majorty of 1st overall picks don't end up like Daigle, much like the vast majority of undrafted ECHLers don't end up like Burrows.
  • 0

#269 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 03 October 2012 - 06:53 AM

Have to disagree here - Ehrhoff over Garrison? Sorry but I'll take the 6'2 218lb defenceman who had 127 hits at $4.6 mil over the 6'2 203lb defenceman who when he played a full season here had 54 hits any day of the week. Problem with the Canuck defence is we have to many defencemen who play the run and gun style like Ehrhoff and not enough physical D - its my biggest knock against Edler - he needs to use his size more often - maybe go to the Ulf Samuelson summer hockey school and learn to get nasty :D


Not only is "hits" a totally unreliable statistic, you're saying that Garrison's more valuable because he hits more frequently? I guess that means that you'd rather have Andrew Alberts than Erik Karlsson, too?
  • 0

#270 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,436 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 03 October 2012 - 07:31 AM

Hodgson was the 10th overall pick, the CHL Player of the Year, the Hockey News' Top Prospect, won all kinds of accolades as voted by the OHL coaches, was the top point-getter at the '09 WJC's, and I believe he was our team's 2nd or 3rd leading goal scorer at the time of being traded. In the context of a year where we could win a Cup, trading him for Zack Kassian, who watched us be eliminated by LA while eating a hotdog in the press box, was not a wise move.

Garrison was undrafted, got a spot on Florida because they stunk, and he was cheap, and then had a breakout season when Brian Campbell arrived.

Totally different.

Burrows was undrafted.

Garrison also played 3 seasons improving each season; and the Brian Campbell crap is specious at best. When Campbell started playing with Garrison his play and stats improved quite a bit. You'd almost say they were a good team and fed off each other.

In any case and as per usual you're wrong and contradicting yourself to fit your argument. Hodgson had only proven himself over one year...at that one could make an argument that really he only proved himself for a little over a month. Making an argument that Hodgson is known and Garrison has only proven himself for 1 season is silly. Really you just never had much of an idea who Garrison was before he was signed.

Your arguments suck but your arguing is relentless. Not sure which of those is worse.
  • 1
Posted Image
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.