Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

nitwitt

MG should be on thin ice...

213 posts in this topic

The opposite proves it? I see ..... nothing.

GM's have their media plants to spin their stories.They run the show.

You can move on.

Move on.

Hodgson will always have been a Canuck and the circumstances surrounding his being traded will always be debated.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.....so at the time the risk/reward on trading waiver eligible Grabner+ for Ballard was a lot different than it would have been had they had Hamhuis.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Grabner and a first,so two firsts for Ballard.

I actually think Ballard is undervalued and has not played enough following injuries to prove himself properly.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He. didn't. want. to. be. here.

It is really that simple, I just don't understand how people can't accept that.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know it is simple ,Smashian.

Can you give us the quote where Cody says he does not want to be a Canuck?

Many thanks.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every GM inherits the previous GMs players. It's actually a sign of a good GM when they don't get rid of players that are there for the sole purpose of "leaving their mark". I give credit to any GM who retains the core players over the course of 5 years. If Gillis won the cup in his first year here, with all of the Nonis/Burke era players, then credit goes to Burke and Nonis as well as Gillis. But instead the team has CONSISTENTLY been good. That is not an accident. Teams don't accidentally become good and stay good. If it's a fluke, then within a season or two they are thrown back to the basement. That has not happened to the Canucks.

Another annoying thing people post is that all our core was drafted by previous GMs, and that MGs draft picks have not panned out. Well duh. How many of those Burke/ Nonis draft picks panned out during those GMs time? The Sedins? The fact is that it takes time to develop players. We had a player who was raised and groomed right in Cody Hodgson, who we traded for another prospect in Zack Kassian. Within the next couple years we will see if players like Corrado, Lack, Schroeder, Jensen and co. will pan out. But it is too soon to say that our draft has been absolute failures. If you would have said that in 2005, you would have just as much of an argument. Kesler, Edler, Schneider, even the Sedins to a certain extant, had not panned out yet.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every post you put up with nonsense I will remind you Kassian,that Hodgson never,not once,is quoted to ask for a trade.

Agent: Never demanded ice time nor a trade:

winter.png?w=521&h=260

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every post you put up with nonsense I will remind you Kassian,that Hodgson never,not once,is quoted to ask for a trade.

Agent: Never demanded ice time nor a trade:

winter.png?w=521&h=260

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the whole Gillis has done more good for us than bad.

What is not often credited is he and AV changed our team from a Trap team to a Run-and-Gun with good defense team, THAT was the reason we won the Prez trophy twice and almost won the Cup.

The worst mistakes were the two trades involving Bernier. Getting him for a 2nd and a 3rd, then trading him, Grabner and pick away for Ballard and pick. While Ballard still has an upside, I still have to say that Bernier might've been more useful to us in the SCF then Ballard was.

I still think Booth was a good trade. Booth is a knight that we didn't have before, in World of Warcraft analogy. Samuelsson is an underrated man-at-arms, but he will retire soon.

While Burke's Leafs legacy was defined by the Kessel trade, Gillis' will be defined by the Kassian trade, more so than the soon to happen Luongo trade, I would bet.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the whole Gillis has done more good for us than bad.

What is not often credited is he and AV changed our team from a Trap team to a Run-and-Gun with good defense team, THAT was the reason we won the Prez trophy twice and almost won the Cup.

The worst mistakes were the two trades involving Bernier. Getting him for a 2nd and a 3rd, then trading him, Grabner and pick away for Ballard and pick. While Ballard still has an upside, I still have to say that Bernier might've been more useful to us in the SCF then Ballard was.

I still think Booth was a good trade. Booth is a knight that we didn't have before, in World of Warcraft analogy. Samuelsson is an underrated man-at-arms, but he will retire soon.

While Burke's Leafs legacy was defined by the Kessel trade, Gillis' will be defined by the Kassian trade, more so than the soon to happen Luongo trade, I would bet.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about signing of Luongo to a lengthy contract? Was that not one of Gillis' (mis)deeds?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MG could be accused of not doing a great job last season. Perhaps doing a great job by re-tooling on the fly without telling anyone? Too many un balanced moves; but the net result was still more assets.

But Gillis was not much short of stellar his first few seasons. And I'm very pleased with this off season (Garrison, Schneider, depth D and toughness). And when Kess is back we'll be competitive as we are. If he can cash Ballard, perhaps a LW for a couple of pieces we could easily be strong favorites?

Gillis ain't perfect, but he's far from on thin ice!

Too many newer fans on here that forget what its like to have horrible GMs.

Be thankful that we have Gillis. He's a great GM.

All Gms make mistakes. You don't fire them becuase they make one or two questionable trades. He's done enough other great things for this team that vastly outweigh those deals. His job is about as safe as they come.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really. Lu's cap hit is a bargain at 5.333M. Lu would be equally hard to move if his contract length is 7 years at a higher cap hit instead of 12 at 5.333M.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Corrections in red.

Find me another GM who signed to back to back Art Ross nominee's and scoring champs in the same UFA class?

Though I think he's doing an ok job, the table was pretty well set for him before he got here, and he hasn't done a whole lot to improve on that.

Burke/Nonis These 5 players, debatably (not very) 5 of our 7 best signed as unrestricted free agents!

Sedins

Burrows

Luongo

Bieksa

MG

Hamhuis

Ballard

Malhotra

Higgins

Booth

Barker

Vandermeer

Kassian

Schroeder

Ebbett

Lapierre

Volpatti

Weise

Alberts

Garrison

It can easily be argued that this is still, primarily, Nonis and Burke's team and that Gilli's only major contribution that have worked out have been Hamhuis, Lapierre, Higgins and, to some degree, Malhotra

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know it is simple ,Smashian.

Can you give us the quote where Cody says he does not want to be a Canuck?

Many thanks.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it is a situation where he was a "bad" pick but rather that he isn't as good a player as some Hodgson fans like to make him out to be.

I have/had no gripes against the kid, I just don't see him as being the second coming of Wayne Crosby or Sidney Gretzky.

regards,

G.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MG got lucky. He reaped the benefits of what The previous GMs built. When it's his time to shine, he messed it up with the Luongo deal.

Luongo could have gotten us a crapload of good prospects or picks or players but that contract is too much for other GMs to stay away.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.