Smashian Kassian Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 Equally, there's no reason to believe Gillis offered the best he could to Schultz. Rest assured, if Edler walks and these questions arise, Gillis will tell us all about how Schultz' heart was not here, how he was a demanding brat that didn't want to earn his playing time and is not the kind of character the Canucks look for. Garrison is gonna be good though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 DP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onesmallleap Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 i guess in hindsight i should have picked different numbers for the 649..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 They weren't the greatest canucks d men of the last decade first off but I would really like to know what you think could have/should have been offered. In a world where this is a mistake then their must have been a better way in your eyes right? 12 years and captaincy bs doesn't matter. Trashing AV doesn't answer the question. Either it was a mistake and there was a solution or it wasn't a mistake at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmployeeoftheMonth Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 He doesn't care to argue his side, so why bother trying to argue the other side? It's like replying to KotBS. I'll put my hat in one time only on this one though despite the likely futility of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BenDrinkin Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 Yup, the sky is falling again! Listen, we got the Presidents trophy two years running and were just in the SCF. Maybe you need to up the dosage of your meds, to bring your anxiety down. Sit back and let Gillis do his job, he knows what he's doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFan66 Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 Shultz not signing here is not a mistake by Gillis. You cannot force someone to sign the deal. Gillis clearly made a strong pitch to Shultz or we would not have been in the running till the very end. Gillis also cannot gaurantee playing time to any player because that would undermine the coach. Plus how would you explain that to Bieksa/Hamhuis/Edler/ and the rest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 I ask because him not answering is an answer in itself. Sadly it's also the answer I expect but I always hope for the best because I'd much rather have a discussion than prove a point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamJamIam Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 I ask because him not answering is an answer in itself. Sadly it's also the answer I expect but I always hope for the best because I'd much rather have a discussion than prove a point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmployeeoftheMonth Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 I'm just gonna keep posting this picture until people stop replying to the trolls. The sooner you guys stop trying to argue with people who think any reply is a sign that their trolling is effective, the sooner they go away: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 The only thing that Gillis could have done differently, would be to lie to Schultz. He should have lied about the amount of ice time Schultz would get, and who his d-partner would have been. He should have lied about power play time that Schultz would get. He should have lied about the future of the organization. Instead, Gillis was honest with Schultz, and did not extend any guarantees or promises about ice time or anything else to do with Schultz and his potential future with the Canucks' organization. The question shouldn't be: what more could Gillis have done in order to get Schultz to sign here, but rather, what kind of things did Tambellini say to Schultz in order to get him to sign? regards, G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 I don't think nucknit is a troll. I think he simply dislikes Gillis (or Gillis.org, or lawyers, or management in general, or anyone who does ownership's bidding) so much that he tends to be dead set on finding fault in virtually everything he does. Every once in a while he seems to relent a little. I think he's actually a Canucks fan, but is stuck between a rock and a hard place because on some level he wants to see current management fail. I can relate to some extent - I remember when Mike Keenan was busy running a wrecking ball through the Canucks dressing room and imo being a general douche to Trevor Linden. I don't really relate to the complaints about Gillis however. I think the Hodgson matter has caused some folks like King, nucknit, etc to hate Gillis. I don't see it the way I did when it was Trevor Linden - I think the Hodgson camp played more than their share of the role in it all. So there's a general tendency that goes kind of like this: Gillis' signings suck Gillis' drafting sucks Gillis makes terrible trades Gillis signs people to terrible contracts Gillis medical staff sucks Gillis' coach isn't fair to rookies (read Hodgson) Gillis is a lawyer All credit is due to the former administrations Gillis innovations like sleep doctors, etc is just another form of making excuses. Etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmployeeoftheMonth Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 The only thing that Gillis could have done differently, would be to lie to Schultz. He should have lied about the amount of ice time Schultz would get, and who his d-partner would have been. He should have lied about power play time that Schultz would get. He should have lied about the future of the organization. Instead, Gillis was honest with Schultz, and did not extend any guarantees or promises about ice time or anything else to do with Schultz and his potential future with the Canucks' organization. The question shouldn't be: what more could Gillis have done in order to get Schultz to sign here, but rather, what kind of things did Tambellini say to Schultz in order to get him to sign? regards, G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 The only thing that Gillis could have done differently, would be to lie to Schultz. He should have lied about the amount of ice time Schultz would get, and who his d-partner would have been. He should have lied about power play time that Schultz would get. He should have lied about the future of the organization. Instead, Gillis was honest with Schultz, and did not extend any guarantees or promises about ice time or anything else to do with Schultz and his potential future with the Canucks' organization. The question shouldn't be: what more could Gillis have done in order to get Schultz to sign here, but rather, what kind of things did Tambellini say to Schultz in order to get him to sign? regards, G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamJamIam Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 I think the Hodgson matter has caused some folks like King, nucknit, etc to hate Gillis. I don't see it the way I did when it was Trevor Linden - I think the Hodgson camp played more than their share of the role in it all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baercheese Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 But haven't you heard? Hodgson was the next Linden! Flames fans are just bored IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 But haven't you heard? Hodgson was the next Linden! Flames fans are just bored IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmployeeoftheMonth Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 Haha, yeah how many times have we heard that one. Hard not to point out that by the time Linden was Hodgson's age (22), he had three 30 goal seasons, 255 NHL points, had been the Calder runner-up to Brian Leetch, was a natural leader and already named the Captain of the Canucks, had made the NHL all-star team... he was already a franchise player, was a point per game playoff player, he was a physical force, and he could play hockey in his own end of the ice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 but but but AV never gabe him a chance... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanucksSayEh Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 lol Cody wasn't the next Linden, but please don't act like he wouldn't have helped vs LA and we aren't in a worse place without him today. He was a big part of our team. Bashing him does not make the trade better, no matter how hard ya try. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.