Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
* - - - - 9 votes

MG should be on thin ice...


  • Please log in to reply
212 replies to this topic

#61 Primal Optimist

Primal Optimist

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,649 posts
  • Joined: 04-March 03

Posted 17 January 2013 - 02:42 PM

yes gillis is so over rated thats why he was named gm of the year 2011

and put together a team that won back to back top points in the league, has only lost in the playoffs to stanley cup championship winning teams three years in a row and one of those years made it to the stanley cup finals game 7!

Man, what a stinky GM.
  • 0

1286820874m_THUMB.jpg
CDC GM League small.png General Manager

Happy Hockey Fan!!!


#62 nuxforever

nuxforever

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,473 posts
  • Joined: 01-March 07

Posted 17 January 2013 - 02:47 PM

Gillis has had some good FA signings but as far as trades go, there have been more bad than good ones.
  • 0
Posted Image

waiting for the day to hear the announcer say........"As the clock winds down. They have done it! Ladies and Gentleman, Your Vancouver Canucks are STANLEY CUP CHAMPIONS!!!

#63 Primal Optimist

Primal Optimist

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,649 posts
  • Joined: 04-March 03

Posted 17 January 2013 - 02:47 PM

This! Gillis has been our best GM. Yes he's made some mistakes but name a GM that hasn't. A first round exit in the playoffs this year is unacceptable and somebody should pay for that..

I believe your looking for the office of Alain Vigneault
  • 0

1286820874m_THUMB.jpg
CDC GM League small.png General Manager

Happy Hockey Fan!!!


#64 Burnsey

Burnsey

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,806 posts
  • Joined: 08-July 08

Posted 17 January 2013 - 02:54 PM

Why bring up the Grabner trade? I mean sure in hindsight it doesn't look the best, but at the time Raymond has just come off a 50pts season and it looked like he was going to improve.

Trade's are much harder than people think, I mean at the time of a trade some will look good but then in the future it may look bad. Hodgson trade is a great example, bad trade at the moment? Yes, but in the future Kassian could be huge for the team and we may even win this trade :)


Also, I wouldn't say Gillis is on thin ice, I see you forget to mention some of his great moves like acquiring Higgins, and Lappy two of the hardest working players (at least last year) for this team. Also adding Tanev who has been a decent pick-up so far and will turn out to be a solid d-man.

Edited by Burnsey, 17 January 2013 - 02:57 PM.

  • 1

team-canada-jarome-iginla-photo.jpg


#65 D-Money

D-Money

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,875 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 06

Posted 17 January 2013 - 02:55 PM

Canucks have won five times more playoff series under Gillis than it did under Burke or Nonis.
  • 3
Posted Image

#66 TimberWolf

TimberWolf

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,377 posts
  • Joined: 28-February 04

Posted 17 January 2013 - 02:57 PM

Gillis has had some good FA signings but as far as trades go, there have been more bad than good ones.


List them, please.
  • 3

I was saying Lu-Urns...

star-wars-hockey-goal.gif?w=284

#67 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,745 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 17 January 2013 - 02:58 PM

Why bring up the Grabner trade? I mean sure in hindsight it doesn't look the best, but at the time Raymond has just come off a 50pts season and it looked like he was going to improve.


Indeed, and then he got that thumb/hand/wrist injury followed by the back issue from the Boston series. Those two things have put a damper on his career.

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

#68 JamesB

JamesB

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,774 posts
  • Joined: 28-March 10

Posted 17 January 2013 - 03:03 PM

MG is a good GM. Like all GMs he has made some mistakes. The Ballard and Oreskovich for Grabner and a first round pick (and Bernier) deal looks very bad. And, frankly, it always looked bad. One of those "what was he thinking" trades.
  • 0

#69 Salmonberries

Salmonberries

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,572 posts
  • Joined: 22-November 11

Posted 17 January 2013 - 03:07 PM

You have to be realistic. That contract is not gonna be easy to move, teams are probably not lining up to take that thing on.

No matter what Mike Gillis says.
  • 0

th_1435408476_c985b0ec75_zps489544ad.jpg


#70 Dogbyte

Dogbyte

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,664 posts
  • Joined: 31-March 07

Posted 17 January 2013 - 03:18 PM

The only reason they were 75% out the door was because he was incompetent. He has Burke and nonis to thank for his job and his gm of the year awars


Not sure how he was imcompetent. All I know is the year he took over we were slated to come in last place and it looked completely bleak. The Sedins were so so still, Kesler was a third liner at best, and Demitra was our coup de tant. We made it to the second round that year and layed the groundwork to become perenial favorites. But maybe you forget that time when Naslund left, Jovo was gone, Ohlund gone, etc.
  • 1

"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


#71 goal-ghost

goal-ghost

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 178 posts
  • Joined: 21-December 08

Posted 17 January 2013 - 03:23 PM

theres a bit more support for this notion than i would have expected.
turbulent times.
  • 0
Posted Image

#72 Kesler's Nose

Kesler's Nose

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 757 posts
  • Joined: 21-February 11

Posted 17 January 2013 - 03:29 PM

Good thing MG is more patient than you, otherwise our team would be nothing more than the Sedin twins. lol
  • 2

"It's an opportunity, we don't look at it as a last chance... We look at it as an opportunity to do something great. We are going to take it period by period, shift by shift. You just have to be better than the guy across from you... Every guy in this locker room I can say believes we can do this." - Ryan Kesler

Posted Image


#73 Dogbyte

Dogbyte

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,664 posts
  • Joined: 31-March 07

Posted 17 January 2013 - 03:31 PM

They also don't remember what it is like having a bad goalie. They just don't appreciate anything.

If they were here when Nonuts was in charge, completely unable to make any deal that might help the team they would know. Aside from the Luongo deal, which took a lot of people by surprise, most of his moves were complete failures.

Noronen, Smolinski, Carney, Weinrich...drafted PATRICK WHITE in the first round.

These newer posters probably became fans in the last few years when the Canucks were strong and so they just dont understand what it was like before, going from failure to failure with bad goalies. Constant playoff collapses nowhere near what has happened in the last few years. Granted the WCE days we played exciting hockey, we did not exactly keep goals out or win with much efficiency.

The team we have had the last few years is the best overall team I have ever seen on the Canucks, and yes I'm going back to the 80's when I say that, not to 2001 or 2002. You nitwits cant completely write off signings like Hamhuis or Garrison and then pine for Burke or Nonis when their signings were more often a Jan Bulis or Brian Smolinski than a Higgins, Lappierre, Malhotra, Hamhuis, Torres, Samuelsson, Ehrhoff, Garrison, etc etc. Gillis has done a LOT here, and going into a season nowadays is to be excited for the team and not just for some Nazzy/Bert plays or an end to end rush from Bure.

We should appreciate what we have here for God's sake because this type of team is rare, and any long term Canuck fan knows that down to their bones.


Yeah, we've been spoiled as fans by the last couple of years for sure. I agree a lot of these posters probably have only been following the team for several years and have no idea what futility is really like. No matter how you slice it MG has put together a great team here, one that Nonis wouldn't have been capable of.
  • 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


#74 disisdayear

disisdayear

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 528 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 17 January 2013 - 03:34 PM

I'm a MG fan, so my bias is favorable towards him.

General Managers and Presidents of any organization have multiple "key result areas" that they are responsible for. The most obvious is the assembly of players/talent that gives you you the best chance to win on a consistent basis. Yes, MG inherited the core that have done almost everything (but win the cup), but he's done a good job of keeping the core intact. He's also done a relatively good job of bringing in talent (i.e., Sundin, Demitra, Erhoff, Hamhuis, Ballard, Higgins, Lapierre, Tanev, Torres, Booth, Malhotra, Samuelsson, etc.) that has fit into his big picture objective of icing a team that is competitive year in and year out.

Could he have done better by bringing in guys like Weber, Parise, Schultz, Suter, Doan, etc.? Of course, but as someone has already mentioned, there are 29 other franchises that he is competing with. Like all businesses, decisions have to be made within the context of limitations that you are dealt and created by yourself, and I would say that given the framework that MG has been working within, he's done a very good job.

MG's drafting record to date is suspect, but we'll have answers to this over the next few years, when prospects that have been drafted under his watch will have to sh!t or get off the pot. I think players such as Jensen, Corrado, Cannata and Gaunce have a good chance of working their way onto the roster in the next 3-5 years. Schroeder probably has one more short term contract left, so if he doesn't deliver in the next 18 months, I see a bleak future for him. MG has had some junior/college FA signing success in Tanev, Lack and arguably Volpatti, but we'll have to see what McEneny can do. I don't think Sweatt is around after his contract expires.

I think MG has done a fantastic job of building a winning culture, a professional environment (but that could also be a function of the business-like attitude Sedins/Bieksa/Luongo/Schneider and others in the leadership group have...so is it chicken or egg?), being innovative with things like sleep management, nutrition, etc., and making Vancouver a desirable place to play. So high marks for this.

I personally like it that MG is very player-centric (having been a player and player agent himself) and has the confidence to delegate important matters such as cap management to competent guys like LG. I was around when the Canucks couldn't fill the Pacific Coliseum because the product on the ice was so p!$$ poor. Since the Quinn era, we've had consistent sell outs, which I think MG continues to build upon. So, I don't see the Aquillini's having any complaints about MG draining their bank accounts (though the Luongo deal has the potential to be very expensive to the Aquillini's IF...and that's a big IF...a buy out is contemplated). I think some people forget that in many cases, the challenges of sustaining and growing is greater and filled with more pressure than building, which is really, what MG is charged with doing.

So, when you factor all these things together, I don't see MG going anywhere fast unless the decision to pull the chute is his.

I've been wrong more times than I've been right, so who knows what the future really holds?
  • 0

#75 RAMBUTANS

RAMBUTANS

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,410 posts
  • Joined: 14-July 06

Posted 17 January 2013 - 03:34 PM

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.

Edited by Mr. Reputable, 17 January 2013 - 03:35 PM.

  • 1
Mr. Reputable of the HFBoards

#76 ice orca

ice orca

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,311 posts
  • Joined: 07-October 10

Posted 17 January 2013 - 04:05 PM

Yeah, we've been spoiled as fans by the last couple of years for sure. I agree a lot of these posters probably have only been following the team for several years and have no idea what futility is really like. No matter how you slice it MG has put together a great team here, one that Nonis wouldn't have been capable of.

Yeah i can remember the paper bag decades this franchise has gone through. Christ Gillis makes a trade now and every tin pot GM on this site wants his head.
  • 0

#77 apollo

apollo

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,976 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 10

Posted 17 January 2013 - 04:08 PM

My brain hurts.

Is your brain not capable of figuring out a small typo or figure out what n means?

I post here from my phone... sorry it makes typos
  • 0
WHATCHU GONNA DO WHEN MILLERMANIA RUNS WILDDDD ON YOU?!

#78 apollo

apollo

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,976 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 10

Posted 17 January 2013 - 04:16 PM

Ah yes, Hamhuis and Garrison are local guys who wanted to play for the Canucks and signed here as UFA's. Therefore Gillis is a failure, regardless of the club culture he created here, which was probably a significant part of why these two guys wanted to come here in the first place.

A guy like Schultz, who is also a local guy, had expressed an interest in signing here, but chose to go to Edmonton, and therefore Gillis is a failure.

Double standards abound.


regards,
G.


Doesn't matter who the gm was. Both guys wanted to come home.

Regarding shultz... I think Gillis failed big time. Didn't say he's a failure overall. Just overrated if u ask me.

At the end of the day... the BEST canucks were NOT acquired by him.

I'm talking about eddi burr kes twinz lui schneids kb3...

He hasn't drafted too well either... hopefully his recent picks pan out. Nonis and Burke have drafted our best players or in burrows case developed him.
  • 1
WHATCHU GONNA DO WHEN MILLERMANIA RUNS WILDDDD ON YOU?!

#79 DooBie604

DooBie604

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 516 posts
  • Joined: 22-October 09

Posted 17 January 2013 - 04:17 PM

Some of the negative arguments are ridiculous. To argue that most of the team was put together by Burke/Nonis is such a narrow-minded viewpoint. By that standard no GM will ever be good enough and the grass will always be greener on the other side. I can then argue that no matter who we get as the next GM, if the team does good than all the credit goes to Burke/Nonis/Gillis, if he fails then it's his fault and the cycle continues.

Gillis is far from perfect but no GM is. He makes mistakes but so does every other GM. It's so easy to nitpick all the mistakes with the power of hindsight to make yourself seem smarter.

Players re-sign here or players want to come here because of the environment which does have a lot to do with the GM. You can't just dismiss every argument saying the pieces were in place cause then no matter who takes over you can use that argument over and over again unless the new GM gets rid of every good player we have which will never happen.

So by your logic if Gillis got rid of the Sedins and Kes and every good player we have and then rebuilt the team with new players and won the Stanley Cup, only then is he good enough in your eyes beecause he didn't inherit any players? Or only the GM who wins a Stanley Cup is considered good and all the other 29 GMs in the league should lose their jobs?
  • 1

#80 ice orca

ice orca

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,311 posts
  • Joined: 07-October 10

Posted 17 January 2013 - 04:25 PM

Doesn't matter who the gm was. Both guys wanted to come home.

Regarding shultz... I think Gillis failed big time. Didn't say he's a failure overall. Just overrated if u ask me.

At the end of the day... the BEST canucks were NOT acquired by him.

I'm talking about eddi burr kes twinz lui schneids kb3...

He hasn't drafted too well either... hopefully his recent picks pan out. Nonis and Burke have drafted our best players or in burrows case developed him.

Gillis wanst here when those guys were drafted but he has kept them as Canucks and has given them a great opportunity to become the best they can be.
  • 1

#81 TotesMagotes

TotesMagotes

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,273 posts
  • Joined: 29-November 07

Posted 17 January 2013 - 04:26 PM

This is not a video game, if teams aren't willing to trade a top 6 forward in exchange for Luongo then we won't get a top 6 forward in exchange for Luongo. Which is probably the reason why he hasn't been traded yet.
  • 0
Posted Image

#82 apollo

apollo

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,976 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 10

Posted 17 January 2013 - 04:31 PM

Gillis wanst here when those guys were drafted but he has kept them as Canucks and has given them a great opportunity to become the best they can be.

I don't hate Gillis. Just think he hasn't done as much as everyone praises him for. He was an upgrade over nonis IMO.

Do u think it's easier to draft two sedins n a Kesler or resign them once they have kids and real estate in the city which they have come to love? Re signing is no where near as difficult as drafting. Burke set the foundation... went to Anaheim n won a cup which someone else had built the foundation for him. Gillis had a better foundation from Burke's picks but he failed to win a cup


Edit... I have faith he can still fix it all and win a cup this year. If he doesn't then I'm solely placing ALL the blame on him.

Edited by apollo, 17 January 2013 - 04:33 PM.

  • 0
WHATCHU GONNA DO WHEN MILLERMANIA RUNS WILDDDD ON YOU?!

#83 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,745 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 17 January 2013 - 04:45 PM

Doesn't matter who the gm was. Both guys wanted to come home.

Regarding shultz... I think Gillis failed big time. Didn't say he's a failure overall. Just overrated if u ask me.

At the end of the day... the BEST canucks were NOT acquired by him.

I'm talking about eddi burr kes twinz lui schneids kb3...

He hasn't drafted too well either... hopefully his recent picks pan out. Nonis and Burke have drafted our best players or in burrows case developed him.


Once again, one of the reasons Hamhuis and Garrison wanted to "come home" was because of the culture around this team which is due to Gillis. Do you believe that they would have been that eager to come here if this team was doing as poorly as the Blue Jackets and as poorly managed? I have some doubts that they would.

Okay, you believe he failed in not signing Schultz. Can you explain how he failed big time? What would you do that you believe would have caused Schultz to sign here? We know money wasn't a deciding factor. The best that I can come out with is that Schultz went to the team which he felt could best showcase his talents for his "next" contract, the one with the really big dollars. In Vancouver, Schultz was going to be, at best, a 2nd pairing d-man depending upon injuries and the like. In Edmonton he will likely be in the top pairing.

Just curious: what about Weber, or Suter or Parise? Did Gillis fail big time in not signing them?

As for drafting, I think Gaunce will be a good pick up, and Jensen has shown a lot of promise. I do not believe that any 1st rounder drafted by Gillis has been that bad, although they may have been a bit slow developing (Schroeder). And considering that the highest position he drafted from was 10th, I believe Gillis ahs done pretty well. The Burke/Nonis draft history has a lot more inconsistency to it from what I have seen.

At the end of the day, the best Canucks might not have been acquired by Gillis, but they were certainly KEPT by Gillis and for an extremely reasonable cap hit. I think that should count for something, no?


regards,
G.
  • 1
Following the Canucks since before Don Cherry played here.

#84 5minutesinthebox

5minutesinthebox

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,675 posts
  • Joined: 27-November 09

Posted 17 January 2013 - 04:50 PM

Gillis is just as over rated as Brian Burke when he took over the ducks. Ducks already had the pieces in place to win the cup.. burky made a couple deals and was hailed as all mighty.

Same as mg... except his team didn't win the cup. All theessential pieces where in place for mg to succeed


All the pieces were not here. Not even remotely. He brought in Malhotra, Hamhuis, Ehrhoff, Lappy, Garrison, Torres, Higgins, Ballard, Booth. Its was the depth we had that got us to the finals, make no mistake about that. Because without this depth the core that Burke left this team with was not getting it done. He also resigned half of that core to play for well under market value

And you cant cherry pick and say Malhotra and Hamhuis wanted to play in there home town and not give MG credit for signing them. Every one of the players mentioned were extremely highly sought after. If this team wasnt winning and offered them (what they percieved) to be their best chance of winning, do you really think they would have signed here? Please.

So you can blather on all you want about how Burke made this team, but Burke never got this team past the 2nd round. On top of that, when it became crucial to make moves to improve the team, he and his team did nothing.

Edited by 5minutesinthebox, 17 January 2013 - 04:51 PM.

  • 0

#85 SEAN HARNETT

SEAN HARNETT

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,100 posts
  • Joined: 27-July 05

Posted 17 January 2013 - 05:07 PM

Doesn't matter who the gm was. Both guys wanted to come home.

Regarding shultz... I think Gillis failed big time. Didn't say he's a failure overall. Just overrated if u ask me.

At the end of the day... the BEST canucks were NOT acquired by him.

I'm talking about eddi burr kes twinz lui schneids kb3...

He hasn't drafted too well either... hopefully his recent picks pan out. Nonis and Burke have drafted our best players or in burrows case developed him.


Higgins, Lappiere, Hamhuis, all great pick-up's. Garrison is probably going to be good for the canucks as well. Not to mention that most of the players who Burke and Nonis are responsible for were re-signed at cap freindly deals.

The real problem I see facing the Canucks is the scouting department. I'm sure they hit a home run with corrado, but not much else is happening with the canucks drafting. I say this excluding the obvious first rounders the canucks have selected. I would much prefer a drafting system in which they take the best possible player available instead of trying to hit home runs on projects. Detroit uses the best player available model, and it seems to work great for them.

Next is the trade's. Gillis gets feed back from the scouting department on players around the league when trades are being discussed with other teams. If the advice he gets from his scouting department is sub-par, then you end up with players who under achieve such as Ballard. I like Ballard, but the return for should of been much better for what the Canucks gave up. I feel the same for the kassian deal as well. Hodgsen has top 20 scoring ability and was drafted 10th overall, perhaps a larger package for Hodgsen should have come back.

Either way, I think Gillis needs to take a serious look at the scouting department if this franchise is to succeed in the future!
  • 0
:towel:

#86 playboi19

playboi19

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,379 posts
  • Joined: 15-August 08

Posted 17 January 2013 - 05:10 PM

Gillis is as safe as Sather.
  • 0

Subbancopy.jpg


#87 nuck nit

nuck nit

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,732 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 10

Posted 17 January 2013 - 05:25 PM

Gillis is on a performance contract ,which is a one year deal.
  • 0

#88 Neversummer

Neversummer

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,989 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 10

Posted 17 January 2013 - 05:31 PM

Gillis has had some good FA signings but as far as trades go, there have been more bad than good ones.

List them, please.


Did everyone forget Gillis' most spectacular signing in his 1st year as GM ... Sundin ??!! ... I mean #13 is in the HOF, right :lol: ??Originally offered him $20 mill for 2 years, Gillis' arse was saved when Sundin only chose to play 1 year ... I mean 1/2 year. Had Sundin taken Gillis up on his original offer, I'm pretty sure Gillis would be back to representing players again instead of GM of Canucks.
  • 1

#89 cdubuya

cdubuya

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Joined: 02-August 05

Posted 17 January 2013 - 05:48 PM

yes gillis is so over rated thats why he was named gm of the year 2011

Oh because someone wins an award they cant be overrated? Maybe the fact that he won the award is definitive proof hes overrated... He didnt build this team. Hes made some good, average and terrible moves. Hes given out way too many ntcs. Hes had some great signings but also some ones that havent worked out. His drafting is still too early to call. The Ballard trade was awful. This Luongo situation will help shape his canucks legacy. I dont know what he did to win execuive of the regular season award other than inherit a great team that has authorization to spend millions of dollars more than most other teams. Is he overrated? Yes. Does he still have a chance to be a good/great gm in our history? Yes.

and put together a team that won back to back top points in the league, has only lost in the playoffs to stanley cup championship winning teams three years in a row and one of those years made it to the stanley cup finals game 7!

Man, what a stinky GM.


He didnt put the team together. He helped keep it together but thats way easier to do. Almost every contract he signed has come with a hefty price of a ntc which makes all our assets a lot less valuable. The only big good moves hes made were bringing in Hamhuis, Ehrhoff, Samuelsson and Garrison (two of whom are hoemtown kids who want to be here). Ehrhoff and Samuelsson are gone now.

His extensions aside from the ntcs look great but it was a lot easier to get those guys to take discounts with a great team in place.

Edited by cdubuya, 17 January 2013 - 05:57 PM.

  • 1
Posted Image

#90 nuck nit

nuck nit

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,732 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 10

Posted 17 January 2013 - 06:11 PM

CDUBUYA,finally the voice of reason speaks.

Noted are the words of one Mikael Samuelsson,the most decent second liner this MGGM team has had and was an integral member of the Canuck's Swedish family:
"I liked it a lot in Florida, but it was tough leaving the Sedins, Edler and the other guys up in Vancouver. I didn’t think very highly of management, so in that way I didn’t mind."
  • 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.