Gillis is a "man of his word"

[Mookie Wilson]

I am a Gillis supporter and voted for him based on results. He has been the leader of this franchise through its most successful period, and team success is the surest way to evaluate a GM's record.

But I do want to point out some of his mistakes. Of course, he shouldn't be expected to have a perfect record. But perhaps the following will make interesting fodder for discussion:

1) Keith Ballard trade: traded away valuable commodities for a guy who has been an overpaid fifth defenseman, and subsequently let Willie Mitchell walk in free agency, who could've been re-signed probably for 2 years and $6M. Our defense fell apart in the 2011 Finals, and Ballard was a healthy scratch. Grabner is doing well in NYI. Mitchell won a cup in LA. Quinton Howden (drafted by Florida with the pick from the Ballard trade) would be a nice prospect to have.

2) Luongo: at the very least, not a hometown discount, and thus an exception to the Canucks model of having core players sign for less to stay. Supporters of the contract will say the cap hit is reasonable for a goalie of his calibre. I say the either the cap hit should be lower, or the contract length should be shorter. The first 8 years of that contract made Luongo the highest paid goalie at the time, and no other goalie had a contract of 8 years or longer (except Dipietro, lol). A better contract would increase Luongo's trade value.

3) Steve Bernier: wasted a 2nd and 3rd round draft choice to poach him as an RFA.

4) Booth trade: too soon to write this one off. But Booth certainly didn't impress in his first year here. And he seems like a weird dude. Will his contract set us back, and prevent Gillis from being able to afford the scorer needed for the second line?

5) Mats Sundin offer: if Sundin had signed the two-year, $20M contract, it would've put the Canucks in a cap crunch at the time of the Sedins' free agency. Henrik could've succeeded Mats as the Leafs' captain.

6) Too old? The Canucks have only two regulars under the age of 25 (Kassian and Tanev). And the prospect pool is lacking in both depth and top end talent. Of course, the Canucks have had the disadvantage of drafting in the mid-20s in recent years. But the failed Bernier and Ballard acquisitions didn't help. And Gillis' draft record can be critiqued. Only one of his draft picks, Hodgson, has yet made much of a contribution at the NHL level. It's too soon to tell on most of the guys, but does Gillis lack an eye for young talent?

[pwnstar]

How many years has he been with the organization?

[Bodee]

I don't like looking back, it doesn't do any good.

I admire a lot of the things MG does and I wouldn't want to see him replaced.

However, along with MG'S many fine traits there is one which I can't admire. He seems to lose focus. I think there are times that he is in no doubt what the team needs but then his vision seems to be obscured by convenience or a "project"

After the battering we got during our journey through the playoffs and into the Finals it was obvious to most that we had too many players who were of a similar type. This imo put too much onus on the more physical players in our team to carry the burden of physicality.

We have a great team ...............when it comes to the regular season when the opposition get neither the opportunity to organise against us or to wear us down. That all changes in a best of 7 tournament where you meet the cream and the cream is usually more physical but not always, bigger.

He has had two years to remedy this, meanwhile our window is closing. He has given us a fine young player who fits the bill, in young Kassian but can we really expect him to carry all the weight over a season and then into the playoffs? He wasn't ready last year when we need someone who was but MG told us he was. Will he be ready this year? time will tell.

The other player he brought in supposedly to boost the D in its Playoff "time of need" may well turn out to be a fine player but he does not have the physicality or pushback in his locker (going by his stats) In short he was more of the same.

He also brought in Barker as another "project" who might pan out well but even at his extra height and weight doesn't seem to possess the nasty push back element you need in the SC.

One player I have not mentioned is Vandermeer. Now he is interesting, not particularly big but with pushback in abundance......if only he could play in the top 2 lines.

[Ghostsof1915]

Whomever is the GM when the Canucks win the Stanley Cup gets my vote.

[Clinch16]

Burke and Nonis deserve zero credit for the current overall success of the team and the franchise. This is Mike Gillis' team and all credit (or discredit) goes to him (Nonis' attempt at leading the team ended on the golf course with no post season action, remember?).

Even the captain of the "unsinkable" Titanic managed to put 'er on the bottom of the Atlantic so to say someone has gift wrapped this 'winning, successful' team for MG is misguided.