Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
- - - - -

Malhotra Speaks With Media, Opens Up

Discussion

  • Please log in to reply
116 replies to this topic

#91 RyanKeslord17

RyanKeslord17

    Canucks First-Line

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,895 posts
  • Joined: 22-January 11

Posted 28 February 2013 - 12:41 PM

Man I'm gonna miss Malhotra. One of the genuine guys and one who deserves the most respect I feel in the organization. With the Sedinsofcourse
  • 0
Posted Image

#92 rb4u

rb4u

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 297 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 11

Posted 28 February 2013 - 01:35 PM

Anyone notice how bad we have been playing defensively since Manny's forced retirement? :picard:
  • 0

#93 Dasein

Dasein

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,304 posts
  • Joined: 28-April 10

Posted 28 February 2013 - 03:06 PM

Well, whatever the reason, I can tell you this: Manny with one eye is still a better option than Andrew Ebbett.

He is still the best faceoff man we have, and can kill penalties better than Ebbett, and is a bigger body presence and has the leadership and intangibles.

Look. Hockey is a contact sport and it is dangerous out there - especially if you can't see out of one eye. I get that. But to shut a player down because of it? Hockey is his life - that's what he put his entire life towards. I think Manny wants to leave it all on the ice even if that means he may get seriously injured again.

There are always risks, and Manny has a slightly higher risk than other players because of his eye. But to shut him down because of that? I don't believe in that.

At the same time, because the Canucks have the ample cap space and because Manny is still a more viable option than some of our depth players, it doesn't make sense for the Canucks to shut him down other than for the actual best intentions for Manny's long term health. If anything, they could have made him the 13th forward because he is still valuable.

So I don't buy any of the conspiracy crap that people are spewing that Gillis is doing this for some sick selfish reason for his team. Although I don't agree with the decision, this is 100% for Manny, not for Gillis' own benefits.

Edited by Dasein, 28 February 2013 - 03:12 PM.

  • 0

Athletes today are scared to make Muhammad Ali Statements.


#94 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,239 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 28 February 2013 - 03:13 PM

Malhotra to speak to media shortly
  • 0

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

Tanev is going to EDM. I can put my life savings down on it

 


#95 UFTcan

UFTcan

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 324 posts
  • Joined: 23-February 13

Posted 28 February 2013 - 04:02 PM

Watch management decide Malhotra is indeed cleared to play now that Kesler is injured.


We threw Manny under the bus and Karma caught up to ya MG, now we need a center, and not cap space.
  • 0

#96 CookieCrumbs

CookieCrumbs

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,049 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 11

Posted 28 February 2013 - 04:10 PM

Don't know if anybody has brought it up yet, but Malhotra can't get traded even if he wanted to. Gillis completely sewered his career. Why not keep it within the organization? Or at least as best you can. I mean, who the hell is going to sign him now? Gillis goes to the press and says Manny isn't fit to play hockey? Great guy.
  • 0

#97 WeatherWise

WeatherWise

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,902 posts
  • Joined: 20-September 11

Posted 01 March 2013 - 02:24 PM

One has to recall that this is the fourth time Gillis has clashed with a player. We remember when Brendan Morrison wasn't offered a contract and Peter Schaefer was chosen instead. Everyone except Gillis and AV knew which was the more rational signing to make, yet despite Morrison's tremendous play that preseason and his connections to this organization, Gillis decided to sever those ties and create animosity between the team and the player. It was then deemed a 'sentimental tryout.'

That same season, Gillis assumed Willie Mitchell's career was done and decided not to re-sign him despite Mitchell's clear interest in remaining a part of the team. He practiced with the Canucks during training camp and was assumed to re-sign with the team except Gillis only wanted to sign him to a one-year contract. Of course, he looks foolish for doing that now as well.

He cut ties with Sergei Shirokov and Michael Grabner despite both being our top prospects prior to being removed from the team. The same happened with Cody Hodgson, and of course Gillis was the first to make a private matter public by criticizing Cody. The city, of course, sided with his side of the story and turned Hodgson into the villain.

Gillis' relationship with Pavel Bure is also well-documented. Gillis has never spoken in public about Bure's relationship with the team despite being heavily involved in the entire fiasco. When the team apparently offered Bure a spot in the "ring of honour," it was a complete slap in the face; Bure undoubtedly deserves more than a mere five-minute ceremony for his homecoming after such hostility between himself and the team.

Now we're seeing how he has dealt with Manny Malhotra, placing him on the IR as soon as Ryan Kesler is healthy and ready to play. Whether he was genuinely concerned for Manny's health or merely used it as an excuse to bench him for his poor play, Gillis used Manny's situation to take him out of the lineup. Manny is saying the right things, but he clearly disagrees with how the team has handled his situation.

Gillis has proven himself to be quite slimy in the way he has conducted business over the course of the last few seasons. Though he appears to still have the trust of the fans and the organization, we can see he has deceived players and manipulated situations to his advantage. He is disloyal to his players and has backstabbed them a number of times. As a GM he may be contributing to the team's success, but the way he has reached that point has been quite shady and slanderous. It reminds me quite of how Pavel was treated by the organization in the early 1990s and how the team manipulated him. The team appeared to be quite respectable to the public, but we now know the team did some terrible things back then.

Edited by WeatherWise, 01 March 2013 - 02:28 PM.

  • 4
The greatest segue into a weather segment.

#98 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,239 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 01 March 2013 - 03:35 PM

*
POPULAR

One has to recall that this is the fourth time Gillis has clashed with a player.
...

Wow. These have all been rehashed before, but let me go through them one last time.
  • Morrison had publicly said he would only accept a one way deal, and the Canucks couldn't offer that as they were looking for a temporary replacement while Burrows was out. Schaeffer accepted a 2 way deal in his place for the opportunity to give the Canucks flexibility for when Burrows came back.
  • Mitchell didn't want to take a short term deal with reduced money so the Canucks could make sure he would recover from the concussion that had just kept him out half the season. Instead, he signed a deal with the Kings for the same cap hit he had prior with multiple years.
  • Grabner had a history of not being ready at training camps and was going to be waiver eligible and competing for spots against players who were coming off career years, like Raymond. Gillis may have said public statements about the Cody situation, but it's still reason enough to have made the trade and he had no reason to hold loyalty to a player that bought his own ticket out of town. Shirokov, you can have your opinion on that as we know very little for why he was moved, but it ended up being a deal for a different player and Shirokov still didn't play in the NHL afterwards.
  • Bure and the ring of honour 'snub' is hardly anywhere near than the reasons why Bure was moved from Vancouver in the first place, and Gillis didn't have to do anything so it was at least a gesture on his part when not everyone may have approved of retiring Bure's number because of how both Bure and the management in the past handled the situation previously.
  • Manny himself has said he has no doubts that Gillis is genuinely concerned for his health as a person first before his career as a hockey player. He can believe that and also believe he can still play, it doesn't make Gillis or Manny wrong in how they handled it.
I see no deceit or disloyalty, no slimy, shady or slanderous manipulations, nor any backstabbing as you've perceived it. You can have your opinions, but you'll likely be in a minority when you ignore facts to form those opinions.

Edited by elvis15, 01 March 2013 - 03:37 PM.

  • 6

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

Tanev is going to EDM. I can put my life savings down on it

 


#99 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,591 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 01 March 2013 - 03:48 PM

Ah, Elvis. You constant source of actual information and informed opinions. How do they still let you visit this forum? :lol:
  • 2
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#100 WeatherWise

WeatherWise

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,902 posts
  • Joined: 20-September 11

Posted 01 March 2013 - 04:38 PM

Wow. These have all been rehashed before, but let me go through them one last time.

I see no deceit or disloyalty, no slimy, shady or slanderous manipulations, nor any backstabbing as you've perceived it. You can have your opinions, but you'll likely be in a minority when you ignore facts to form those opinions.


Thats certainly one way to spin it. I don't think it was Schaefer's intention to be sent down when Burrows returned, as he announced his retirement from the NHL soon after. If that was Gillis' tactic, that in itself is deceitful to Schaefer. The team had proven they could sign their depth players to one-way contracts, i.e. Joel Perreault. AV cites wanting "younger players" as the reason they didn't sign Morrison, yet they signed Schaefer. A bit of a hypocrital move in that sense. Morrison, meanwhile, was not offered a contract of any kind, not even a two-way deal to consider:

http://blogs.theprov...canucks-roster/

Morrison seeks closure, surprised he didn't crack Canucks roster
October 4, 2010. 1:42 am
...
“There was a perception that there were huge odds to overcome, but I firmly believe I could have made the team,” said Morrison, who was never offered a contract. “My versatility would have been a huge bonus. It just boiled down to what the team wanted — what was their identity — and I’m a little surprised at the outcome.

“I told them at the beginning that I didn’t want this to be a sentimental invite. They assured me that it wasn’t, but until I actually talk to them and find out exactly why they went this route, it’s a tough question for me to answer. I want a little closure.”

Morrison thought his ability to win draws, aid an ailing penalty kill and be good insurance against injury to the top six mix would be a good fit. However, true to their word, the Canucks have opted for size and sandpaper and will probably open their regular-season schedule Saturday with Alex Bolduc between Tanner Glass and Guillaume Desbiens, because Rick Rypien is nursing a hairline fracture in his upper rib cage and won’t practise for another week. The Canucks didn’t see Morrison playing a role similar to that of the departed Ryan Johnson.

“After we evaluated everything Brendan brings to the table and what we have here, we just thought it would be better for us to go in a different direction,” said Canucks coach Alain Vigneault. “Younger players, bigger size and they bring sometthing than Brendan doesn’t. They give us a bigger and grittier line. But I’m confident he’ll be able to find a job somewhere in the league.


We can recall two other instances of Gillis offering players "sentimental tryouts:" Dan Cloutier (who declined), and Todd Fedoruk.

Mitchell, meanwhile, was reported to have been symptom-free in July 2010:

http://prohockeytalk...ssion-problems/

Dan Murphy tweeted a little while ago that Willie Mitchell has been training and skating for 18 days and is symptom-free of his nasty concussion. Murphy says that Mitchell has narrowed his choice destination from 12 interested teams down to 4. Vancouver is most likely in the mix. I am glad for Mitchell. For the Canucks to retain his services though, they are going to have to move more than just a Kevin Bieksa. On top of that, Mike Gillis still needs to shore up the Canucks’ bottom 6.


Gillis subsequently spoke with Mitchell:

http://prohockeytalk...illie-mitchell/

Willie Mitchell’s free agent status is gaining some attention in the last week. Yesterday, I discussed his improving health while Guts McTavish points out that Gillis stated that “he fully intends to talk to Willie Mitchell about his future with the team” and that the cap won’t be an issue on the radio today. While I find it difficult to believe that the cap won’t be an issue, this has to be music to the ears of Canucks fans. We’ll see if that’s just good PR on Gillis’s part or if there’s some credence to his comments.


Ultimately, when Mitchell was asked why he signed with the Kings, this was his response:

http://frozenroyalty...for-big-payoff/

“I just thought the LA Kings was a good fit, to be honest with you,” said Mitchell. “I felt there was a lot of excitement among the staff that I met down in LA. I really felt they believed in me and that’s where you want to be as a player, somewhere where you feel they believe in you.”

“I got the feeling they thought I would be a really good fit,” added Mitchell. “For me, it was a chance to be a part of a young, up-and-coming team that has a lot of great things going. Hopefully, I can fit in that and with my experience in the league and help get the team to another level.”

Despite being courted by several teams, the Kings made a very strong impression and, obviously, won him over.

“There were a lot of moving parts in all directions, with general managers wanting to know about my health, and everyone involved,” he explained. “I went down to LA and had a good sit-down with them for the day. We talked about a lot of things. We talked about the fit and, to be honest with you, when I went down there, I walked away and you just have a feeling that it’s right, a feeling that is genuine, that they feel you can come in and make a difference and help the team. That, to me, was exciting. I like that, I like that challenge, I like that opportunity. Those kind of things bring the best out of my game. So that’s why I chose the direction that I did.”


Mitchell wanted stability and wanted to sign with a team that trusted him. Gillis did not display that level of trust. Signing a one-year deal to "recover" would have not made any sense for him. Signing a two-year deal gave him the flexibility to spend time in his first year recovering if need be, then play at his former value in his second season. Gillis tried to lowball him by signing a one-year deal, and demonstrated he did not want to give Mitchell any leeway in his recovery.

The way Gillis handled the Cody Hodgson situation with the press was unprofessional; in contrast, Bure and Pat Quinn have never spoken about their differences though we know such tensions existed. Shirokov was not given a chance by AV, nor was Grabner. That's a coaching decision, though Gillis should have recognized his prospects were not being given a chance to succeed. Again, this is hypocrital of AV's claim that they wanted "younger players." Shirokov left the NHL because he had committed to CSKA Moscow prior to his rights being traded to Florida; the Canucks had not given him a proper chance to play. Despite this, they gave him a qualifying offer and prevented him from becoming a free agent though it was clear they did not want him in the lineup:

https://twitter.com/...846300460982272

Farhan Lalji@FarhanLaljiTSN
Yes @QuakerOatsCDC Farhan, can you confirm if the Canucks' Sergei Shirokov received a qualifying offer yesterday? No news on that yet.
4:05 p.m. - Jun 28, 2011 · Details


Now, in discussing Manny, he is remaining politically correct by not accusing Gillis of anything. We can not say for sure whether Gillis was genuine, but seeing as how Gillis lowballed both Morrison and Mitchell, mishandled the Hodgson scenario, prevented Shirokov from having a chance in the NHL, and perhaps, as you suggest, used Schaefer simply as a temporary fill-in, one can see Gillis has a tendency to conduct business in less than respectable ways.

Edited by WeatherWise, 01 March 2013 - 04:42 PM.

  • 1
The greatest segue into a weather segment.

#101 rb4u

rb4u

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 297 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 11

Posted 02 March 2013 - 12:59 AM

Now we're seeing how he has dealt with Manny Malhotra, placing him on the IR as soon as Ryan Kesler is healthy and ready to play. Whether he was genuinely concerned for Manny's health or merely used it as an excuse to bench him for his poor play, Gillis used Manny's situation to take him out of the lineup. Manny is saying the right things, but he clearly disagrees with how the team has handled his situation.


So let me get this straight... Instead of treating Manny like a piece of meat by either trading or exposing him on waivers, MG decided to place him on LTIR and still pay out his full salary (thus costing his owners millions). By your definition, this act is considered slimmy? Seriously?

  • 0

#102 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,239 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 02 March 2013 - 01:34 AM

Ah, Elvis. You constant source of actual information and informed opinions. How do they still let you visit this forum? :lol:

How have we both not been banned yet - they wrote that rule about logic and common sense in invisible ink, didn't they?
  • 0

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

Tanev is going to EDM. I can put my life savings down on it

 


#103 Vancanwincup

Vancanwincup

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 541 posts
  • Joined: 02-March 12

Posted 02 March 2013 - 01:37 AM

The complete opposite.

A player whom nobody can deny had dropped significantly in on ice performance after a major injury, was not nearly as effective as before his injury. I believe Manny to be very classy, what does that have to do with him playing hockey ?

He was not contributing enough all while having an issue with his vision not improving and as was stated before this could be a major safety concern moving forward.

Not only was Manny given the opportunity by the team to rehab, and get into game form, the player and team alsready discussed the potential and options which unfolded as the Canucks placing him on the IR.

I don't see how a team going out of their way to accomodate a player and try and keep him playing for them is in any way pushing said player into early retirement ?

There is zero reason for a team to work with a player as much as they had with Manny, they would have been well within their right to buy him out or whatever options they could be afforded in Manny's situation.

It;s too bad for Manny, but Vancouver did nothing but go out of their way for him.

Thank you for being the first poster to make any sense to the situation.
If the NHL felt the Canucks were unfair or out of place in handling the situation then they would have step in and did something about it.
If Manny felt there was no bearing at all to the situation he would have demanded the NHL do something about it or forced a buyout.
If other GMs and owners felt something fishy was going on they would demand the league do something about it.
If the players union felt there was something wrong with the situation they would be doing something about it.
If Manny's agent thought this was unjust he would be causing a storm of trouble for the Canucks.
  • 0

#104 Lockhart

Lockhart

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,436 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 09

Posted 02 March 2013 - 01:52 AM

Does Manny not realize even disregarding his "safety" that he still sucks post-injury.
  • 0

#105 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,239 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 02 March 2013 - 02:04 AM

Thats certainly one way to spin it. I don't think it was Schaefer's intention to be sent down when Burrows returned, as he announced his retirement from the NHL soon after. If that was Gillis' tactic, that in itself is deceitful to Schaefer. The team had proven they could sign their depth players to one-way contracts, i.e. Joel Perreault. AV cites wanting "younger players" as the reason they didn't sign Morrison, yet they signed Schaefer. A bit of a hypocrital move in that sense. Morrison, meanwhile, was not offered a contract of any kind, not even a two-way deal to consider

As I mentioned Morrison said he wouldn't accept a two-way deal. Perhaps lets move away from one-way or two-way deals and speak to what he really meant - he wouldn't accept a demotion to the AHL if it came to it. It would have meant being shipped to Manitoba and playing there when his family lived here. Even taking the contract in Calgary, if they demoted him, he'd be playing Abbotsford and he'd be close to home.

Schaefer knew full well someone would be going down when Burrows returned - nothing was promised to him or anyone else. Schaefer decided when it came time for him to be dropped (which was deserved, he wasn't playing great at the time) he'd rather retire and spend time with his family as I think his wife had just had a baby or there was something similar where he didn't want to leave the Vancouver area. That was his choice contrary to what he'd agreed to earlier by signing the contract and Gillis still accepted it and put him on unconditional waivers to allow him to be releases from his contract.

That's seems pretty respectful of Schaefer.

We can recall two other instances of Gillis offering players "sentimental tryouts:" Dan Cloutier (who declined), and Todd Fedoruk.

Sentimental tryouts? Teams often bring in a player on a tryout and may not intend to sign them. It fosters competition while the core players rest and helps showcase the players on PTOs in case another team picks them up (as with Morrison getting signed by Calgary after camp).

PTOs help a player out even if they don't sign with the team that offered them. Signing a PTO is just that, a tryout, and there is no guarantee you'll see a contract out of it from the team you signed it with, or even another team. That's not disrespectful when you don't automatically get a deal.

Mitchell, meanwhile, was reported to have been symptom-free in July 2010:
Gillis subsequently spoke with Mitchell:
Ultimately, when Mitchell was asked why he signed with the Kings, this was his response:

Mitchell wanted stability and wanted to sign with a team that trusted him. Gillis did not display that level of trust. Signing a one-year deal to "recover" would have not made any sense for him. Signing a two-year deal gave him the flexibility to spend time in his first year recovering if need be, then play at his former value in his second season. Gillis tried to lowball him by signing a one-year deal, and demonstrated he did not want to give Mitchell any leeway in his recovery.

Ah, yes. Mitchell was cleared from his concussion symptoms so that meant there could be a 100% guarantee he'd be right back to his old self. Sorry, you actually state he'd possibly have to spend the first year of the contract he did sign with the Kings 'recovering' so there was actually a risk he might not play well. Yet Mitchell felt he couldn't trust a GM that would protect his team and it's chances by offering a shorter term deal?

It's great you used Manny later on in this example, since I wonder what you'd do if Manny had sustained the eye injury at the end of his contract but was cleared to play once free agency rolled around? Would you say, "Manny, we'll offer you another 2-3 year deal at $2.5M because we trust you and we want you to trust us regardless of if your performance is affected and it might not work out. We don't care about this as a business so even if it might hamper us as a team that spends to the cap we'll do it for you."

Did I mention yet the Kings weren't a team spending to the cap at that point and could better afford the gamble? No? Well, I did now.

The way Gillis handled the Cody Hodgson situation with the press was unprofessional; in contrast, Bure and Pat Quinn have never spoken about their differences though we know such tensions existed. Shirokov was not given a chance by AV, nor was Grabner. That's a coaching decision, though Gillis should have recognized his prospects were not being given a chance to succeed. Again, this is hypocrital of AV's claim that they wanted "younger players." Shirokov left the NHL because he had committed to CSKA Moscow prior to his rights being traded to Florida; the Canucks had not given him a proper chance to play. Despite this, they gave him a qualifying offer and prevented him from becoming a free agent though it was clear they did not want him in the lineup:

Why am I still discussing this? Gillis is disrespectful for qualifying Shirokov and then trading him, or for being honest about Hodgson asking for more ice time, or for not giving a young prospect as many chances as it took to pay in the NHL despite him having turned up to camp out of shape and not performing?

Now, in discussing Manny, he is remaining politically correct by not accusing Gillis of anything. We can not say for sure whether Gillis was genuine, but seeing as how Gillis lowballed both Morrison and Mitchell, mishandled the Hodgson scenario, prevented Shirokov from having a chance in the NHL, and perhaps, as you suggest, used Schaefer simply as a temporary fill-in, one can see Gillis has a tendency to conduct business in less than respectable ways.

And back to Manny again. So he's being politically correct by not accusing Gillis of anything, as in he's saying nothing definitive about the situation that would lead someone to believe Gillis wasn't being truthful in concern for Manny's health? So when he specifically said Gillis has his best interests as a person, a father even, in mind, he was being "politically correct by not accusing Gillis of anything"?

If he does believe Gillis is using this deceitfully then he's lying by saying he believes Gillis has his best interests in mind. So what are you saying about Manny, that he's being politically correct but a liar? Or that he's honest but disappointed?

Since I can assume you aren't calling Malhotra a liar, we can say for sure that Gillis is being genuine. That would also lead us to believe he didn't lowball Morrison (?!) and Mitchell, he didn't mishandle the Hodgson scenario (whatever you think of his honest comments), he didn't prevent Shirokov (or Grabner) from having a chance in the NHL and he didn't use Schaefer as a temporary fill-in.

Most of all, it shows how Gillis is respectful of his players, along with all the other examples of how he does that with other players you ignore. Gillis conducts this club like a business, but one with real people involved that deserve to be treated like they have earned.

Anyway, it's pretty clear you have no interest in seeing facts, so I'l let you go on believing what you want about him since it's only your opinion and not based in reality.

Edited by elvis15, 02 March 2013 - 02:11 AM.

  • 0

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

Tanev is going to EDM. I can put my life savings down on it

 


#106 WeatherWise

WeatherWise

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,902 posts
  • Joined: 20-September 11

Posted 02 March 2013 - 04:36 AM

So let me get this straight... Instead of treating Manny like a piece of meat by either trading or exposing him on waivers, MG decided to place him on LTIR and still pay out his full salary (thus costing his owners millions). By your definition, this act is considered slimmy? Seriously?


If the player is capable of playing, then yes. In that case, Gillis placing him on LTIR is the equivalent of benching him. There's no question his performance was declining, and in the interest of the team Gillis took him out of the lineup. His "10 games to test the eye" story seems sketchy -- benching him coincided with the return of Kesler. If Manny's safety had been a concern for Gillis, I suppose it was rational to allow him to play an entire season (2011-12) partially blind and at risk of being injured? Was one full season not enough to assess Manny as "endangering himself"? He could have been shut down at any point in the last two years, and other players could have filled his role.

Even if the team had wanted to 'give him the full off season to recover', Manny played nearly a full month of hockey at the start of the year before being assessed as "in danger." That's a peculiarily long time to make a decision like that, especially considering the 'risks' would have been apparent from the very first time he stepped on to the ice this season. Why wait until Kesler's return? Manny's party feels he can play even if the team has stated they don't believe he'll ever play again. Gillis is using this as a way to take Manny out of the lineup. Owners don't have problems with spending money on a player in said player's contract year: see buyouts, for example.

As I mentioned Morrison said he wouldn't accept a two-way deal. Perhaps lets move away from one-way or two-way deals and speak to what he really meant - he wouldn't accept a demotion to the AHL if it came to it. It would have meant being shipped to Manitoba and playing there when his family lived here. Even taking the contract in Calgary, if they demoted him, he'd be playing Abbotsford and he'd be close to home.


Find me a quote of him saying he wouldn't accept a two-way deal. I provided a quote of him saying he was not offered a contract at all. You make assumptions about what he meant, yet can't rationalize that what Gillis says isn't always as literal as it appears. He was a lawyer and an agent; he's completely capable of twisting stories. I don't think playing in a city far from Vancouver was a factor. He had played for Dallas, Anaheim, and Washington most recently before the tryout. Playing in a city "near" his family hadn't been a concern for him for two years.

Schaefer knew full well someone would be going down when Burrows returned - nothing was promised to him or anyone else. Schaefer decided when it came time for him to be dropped (which was deserved, he wasn't playing great at the time) he'd rather retire and spend time with his family as I think his wife had just had a baby or there was something similar where he didn't want to leave the Vancouver area. That was his choice contrary to what he'd agreed to earlier by signing the contract and Gillis still accepted it and put him on unconditional waivers to allow him to be releases from his contract.

That's seems pretty respectful of Schaefer.


That doesn't take away from why Gillis offered him a two-way contract -- clearly with the intention to send him down. If Gillis had known he would retire and not be sent down, a one-way deal would have had no impact on the amount of money he would have made in the NHL. Schaefer believed he could stay with the big club; Gillis made sure it was a two-way deal specifically to make it easier to send him down upon signing him. Regardless of the aftermath, the initial agreement assumed Schaefer would report to the minors -- as you've said, his choice to stay in Vancouver was contrary to what he'd agreed to with the club. Gillis' decision to offer him a two-way contract had nothing to do with it.

Only three months after Schaefer "announced his retirement" from the NHL, and immediately after the birth of his child in December, he signed in the German Elite League. His intention was to play hockey, and ideally it would have been for the Canucks.

Sentimental tryouts? Teams often bring in a player on a tryout and may not intend to sign them. It fosters competition while the core players rest and helps showcase the players on PTOs in case another team picks them up (as with Morrison getting signed by Calgary after camp).

PTOs help a player out even if they don't sign with the team that offered them. Signing a PTO is just that, a tryout, and there is no guarantee you'll see a contract out of it from the team you signed it with, or even another team. That's not disrespectful when you don't automatically get a deal.


When a team does not believe in signing the player, and signs specifically as a gesture, that's a "sentimental contract." See: Theoren Fleury in Calgary. Cloutier had only played 46 NHL games in six seasons (think of Rick DiPietro), had battled several injuries, and was a fringe AHL goaltender at that point, having played only 3 AHL games (and no NHL games) in the two years prior to being offered a PTO. Todd Fedoruk, meanwhile, was a recovering cocaine addict and had little chance of making the team:

http://www.cbc.ca/sp...edoruk-nhl.html

As rain washed over him, Todd Fedoruk stumbled on the streets of Tampa in his latest haze, this one ignited by a concoction of booze and cocaine.

His secret, reckless lifestyle had fueled his transformation from NHL enforcer to a junkie hooked on cocaine and marijuana that threw his life and career into jeopardy. Fedoruk had been in this dark place before, believing he beat his addiction the first time with the same steely will he needed to scrape with the baddest bullies in the league to earn his keep in the NHL.

Yet here he was, back socializing with the wrong crowds, patronizing the seedy part of towns, hustling for whatever type of drugs he could abuse. On a rainy pre-dawn trip after the 2010 season, a disgraced Fedoruk had nowhere to hide.

"I didn't want to drive anywhere because I was loaded," he said. "I couldn't stay in the house because I was paranoid. All the insanity came back.

"I knew everything was coming to an end. I didn't care about hockey anymore. I didn't care about my family. I was struck with this feeling of, how the hell did I get back here after everything I've been though? How the hell did I get back in this position again?"


That's a "sentimental tryout" -- when the player you sign has no chance in hell of making the team and the contract is merely a gesture. Morrison coined the term "sentimental tryout," as seen a quote in my previous post.

Edited by WeatherWise, 02 March 2013 - 11:59 AM.

  • 0
The greatest segue into a weather segment.

#107 WeatherWise

WeatherWise

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,902 posts
  • Joined: 20-September 11

Posted 02 March 2013 - 05:10 AM

Ah, yes. Mitchell was cleared from his concussion symptoms so that meant there could be a 100% guarantee he'd be right back to his old self. Sorry, you actually state he'd possibly have to spend the first year of the contract he did sign with the Kings 'recovering' so there was actually a risk he might not play well. Yet Mitchell felt he couldn't trust a GM that would protect his team and it's chances by offering a shorter term deal?

It's great you used Manny later on in this example, since I wonder what you'd do if Manny had sustained the eye injury at the end of his contract but was cleared to play once free agency rolled around? Would you say, "Manny, we'll offer you another 2-3 year deal at $2.5M because we trust you and we want you to trust us regardless of if your performance is affected and it might not work out. We don't care about this as a business so even if it might hamper us as a team that spends to the cap we'll do it for you."

Did I mention yet the Kings weren't a team spending to the cap at that point and could better afford the gamble? No? Well, I did now.


No, I implied that would be the ideal situation for Mitchell if Gillis cared about his health and longevity. What would offering him a one-year contract at a lower price mean for Mitchell? He would have had to prove he was worth more than that in such a short period of time before signing his next contract, thus forcing him to rush back. If Gillis intended to keep Mitchell over a longer period of time, he could have signed a more balanced deal where Mitchell made less in his first year then made $3.5 million in his second year, thereby lowering the overall cap hit. Gillis did not trust Mitchell; signing him to a one-year deal would not have been about "helping Willie recover." It would have been a way to pay him as little as possible -- to lowball him -- in the interest of the team, and reduce his value as much as possible. Gillis did not trust Mitchell, and the latter felt another organization had expressed more faith in him.

Why am I still discussing this? Gillis is disrespectful for qualifying Shirokov and then trading him, or for being honest about Hodgson asking for more ice time, or for not giving a young prospect as many chances as it took to pay in the NHL despite him having turned up to camp out of shape and not performing?


What reason does Gillis have for saying this to the press except to piss people off? Not to mention this is only one side of the story, and it would be mistaken to assume only one side of the story to be the unquestionable truth. Hodgson's party did not speak out until Gillis made these remarks, the truth of which we can not fully know. How you and certain others can so adamently criticize Hodgson for being "untruthful" and "acting like a politician," while claiming Gillis to be saintly and completely genuine is quite baffling.

http://www.vancouver...2641/story.html

"There clearly were issues that were ongoing," Gillis said of Hodgson. "I spent more time on Cody's issues than every other player combined on our team the last three years."Gillis made the comments while defending the trade deadline day deal that sent Hodgson to the Buffalo Sabres for winger Zack Kassian and defenceman Marc-Andre Gragnani.

"We made a determination that he didn't want to be here, we built him into something we could move," Gillis said. "There were six young players that I would have traded him for if any of them were ever made available. One was made available at the trade deadline and it was Zack."

Later in his 30-minute session with the media, Gillis alluded to Hodgson's defensive deficiencies and suggested he was not up to the tasks that normally come with being a third-line centre in the playoffs. The Canucks acquired veteran Sammy Pahlsson in a separate trade that same day to replace Hodgson.

"We put Cody on the ice in every offensive situation we possibly could," Gillis said. "I don't think he took more than five or six defensive zone faceoffs and that was by design. And like I said earlier, I don't regret that move. I'd do it again. I'd do it today."


Edited by WeatherWise, 02 March 2013 - 11:53 AM.

  • 0
The greatest segue into a weather segment.

#108 WeatherWise

WeatherWise

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,902 posts
  • Joined: 20-September 11

Posted 02 March 2013 - 05:11 AM

Shirokov, meanwhile, was not going to be given a chance with this team. After playing well in his 1.5 games with the big club in the 2010-11 season (and scoring a goal), he was sent down. His coaches in Manitoba had praised him for his determination to constantly improve his game to achieve his goal of making the NHL, and he had set a franchise record for longest point streak. The big club had not paid attention to him throughout his two years in Vancouver; throughout those two years, he had sacrificed time and money to be a part of the Manitoba Moose in the AHL.

http://canucksarmy.c...zy-canucks-fans

VS: What can you buy with a good AHL player’s salary?
Shirokov: I wasn’t making a lot of money but I can't complain. I rented an apartment and a car. It depends on how you spend the money. If you waste your money on nothing, no salary is ever going to cover it. I think young AHL players are pretty satisfied with how much they make.


If the Canucks weren't going to give him a chance, the most admirable thing for them to do would have been to allow him to make money elsewhere. They instead were going to sign him to another two-way contract with the potential of keeping in the AHL where he would continue to make peanuts. They could have traded him beforehand or allowed him to become a free agent. When they signed him to a qualifying offer, that appeared not to be the case and he signed with CSKA Moscow. The team traded his rights afterwards in reaction to him signing in the KHL.

http://canucksarmy.c...sergei-shirokov

AO: Right before the 1st of July the Canucks qualified you. Were you offered a new contract?
SS: Yes. They made me a qualifying offer – a two-way contract. But I didn’t want to sign it. So they traded my negotiation rights to the Panthers.


And back to Manny again. So he's being politically correct by not accusing Gillis of anything, as in he's saying nothing definitive about the situation that would lead someone to believe Gillis wasn't being truthful in concern for Manny's health? So when he specifically said Gillis has his best interests as a person, a father even, in mind, he was being "politically correct by not accusing Gillis of anything"?


If Manny weren't as respectable an individual as he is, he could do what Morrison did and criticize Gillis. Perhaps not even Manny knows if Gillis was entirely truthful about his reasons for taking him out of the lineup. The most rational, least confrontational way to allow this to unfold, however, would be to say the right things and move on at the end of the season. This is what Malhotra is doing.

Most of all, it shows how Gillis is respectful of his players, along with all the other examples of how he does that with other players you ignore. Gillis conducts this club like a business, but one with real people involved that deserve to be treated like they have earned.

Anyway, it's pretty clear you have no interest in seeing facts, so I'l let you go on believing what you want about him since it's only your opinion and not based in reality.


Not only are Gillis' decisions irrational when you try to justify them in the ways you've suggested, but you seem to want to slander those who have publicly clashed with him: i.e. Morrison, Hodgson. Gillis is by no means a saint, though it seems you'd like to assume everything he says and does is genuine. He has been a player agent, a lawyer, realizes how business works, and has clashed with multiple players on different issues. If anything, your insistence that his side of the story is the "only truth" and that he is incapable of manipulating situations in his favor makes your assessment completely unrealistic.

Edited by WeatherWise, 02 March 2013 - 11:52 AM.

  • 1
The greatest segue into a weather segment.

#109 Bodee

Bodee

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,257 posts
  • Joined: 26-May 11

Posted 02 March 2013 - 09:40 AM

Well, whatever the reason, I can tell you this: Manny with one eye is still a better option than Andrew Ebbett.

He is still the best faceoff man we have, and can kill penalties better than Ebbett, and is a bigger body presence and has the leadership and intangibles.

Look. Hockey is a contact sport and it is dangerous out there - especially if you can't see out of one eye. I get that. But to shut a player down because of it? Hockey is his life - that's what he put his entire life towards. I think Manny wants to leave it all on the ice even if that means he may get seriously injured again.

There are always risks, and Manny has a slightly higher risk than other players because of his eye. But to shut him down because of that? I don't believe in that.

At the same time, because the Canucks have the ample cap space and because Manny is still a more viable option than some of our depth players, it doesn't make sense for the Canucks to shut him down other than for the actual best intentions for Manny's long term health. If anything, they could have made him the 13th forward because he is still valuable.

So I don't buy any of the conspiracy crap that people are spewing that Gillis is doing this for some sick selfish reason for his team. Although I don't agree with the decision, this is 100% for Manny, not for Gillis' own benefits.



The tragic irony here is if Manny was being ditched by another team for all the same reasons.............MG would be right on the phone to him saying "Manny I like to rehab players careers, come here and I'll give you a chance at a spot on the Canucks"
  • 0
Kevin.jpg

#110 CookieCrumbs

CookieCrumbs

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,049 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 11

Posted 02 March 2013 - 10:39 AM

MG is slimy. He's very good with his words though.
  • 1

#111 Kassian's Face

Kassian's Face

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 682 posts
  • Joined: 08-April 11

Posted 02 March 2013 - 10:42 AM

I hope they trade Manny so he can continue to play in the NHL. I really lioke the guy and although I would want him to remain as a part of the management here, I respect him too much to be that selfish.
  • 0

#112 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,239 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 02 March 2013 - 11:31 AM

I hope they trade Manny so he can continue to play in the NHL. I really lioke the guy and although I would want him to remain as a part of the management here, I respect him too much to be that selfish.

That'd be counter to Gillis' concern over letting him play as is. If he doesn't feel it's safe for him to play for us, then to allow him to be traded without at least saying that to the teams that are interested is irresponsible. Not to many GM's are about to trade for someone who has the disclaimer of reduced vision in one eye that his current GM feels is unsafe.

Since Gillis actually cares about Manny, he won't allow him to play for any team this year unless something can be done to further improve his vision. While he's contracted to the Canucks, they're going to protect him from an unsafe situation of playing on the ice and risking injury. Once Manny's a UFA, if he doesn't want to retire then that's his own decision and he can do tryouts with other teams and look over all his medial history on the eye and decide if they feel he's ok to play.
  • 0

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

Tanev is going to EDM. I can put my life savings down on it

 


#113 TimberWolf

TimberWolf

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,946 posts
  • Joined: 28-February 04

Posted 02 March 2013 - 11:43 AM

If Gillis could trade our Cody, he certainly could have orchestrated 9/11
  • 0

I was saying Lu-Urns...

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

#114 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,591 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 02 March 2013 - 02:10 PM

How have we both not been banned yet - they wrote that rule about logic and common sense in invisible ink, didn't they?


Nah, they just put it in an appropriately titled thread called "Common Sense" so almost no one read it. :lol:
  • 1
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#115 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,591 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 02 March 2013 - 02:15 PM

I hope they trade Manny so he can continue to play in the NHL. I really lioke the guy and although I would want him to remain as a part of the management here, I respect him too much to be that selfish.


I think that's the point many are trying to make. It's actually the opposite of selfish to not trade him given what they believe to be true about his safety. They would rather not get anything from him, either on-ice or as a part of a trade, than see him risk injuring himself further in a way that might diminish the quality of his life after hockey more than it already has been. The very fact that they are trying to find a place for him within the organization proves that they respect him as a person and player, and certainly more than simply shoving him out the door the second he was no longer able to perform as a player would have.
  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#116 Tearloch7

Tearloch7

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,070 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 02 March 2013 - 02:23 PM

THe MG hate and general idiocy displayed in this thread is so typical of folk who know little about the NHL .. it would be funny if it were not purposefully negative and misguided .. where does all the angst come from? .. the Missus won't let you have the remote? .. :rolleyes:
  • 0

"To Thine Own Self Be True"

 

"Always tell the Truth. That way, you don’t have to remember what you said"  ~ Mark Twain ~
 


#117 TimberWolf

TimberWolf

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,946 posts
  • Joined: 28-February 04

Posted 02 March 2013 - 02:24 PM

THe MG hate and general idiocy displayed in this thread is so typical of folk who know little about the NHL .. it would be funny if it were not purposefully negative and misguided .. where does all the angst come from? .. the Missus won't let you have the remote? .. :rolleyes:


Heh, you know where a lot it comes from. The animosity for GMMG was never this big previous to a year ago.
  • 0

I was saying Lu-Urns...

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





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.