Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Mike Gillis. Pros Cons what has he really done?


nitti999

Recommended Posts

Cons:

Ballard trade

Sundin contract

Luongo contract

Letting Torres go

Pros:

Hamhuis signing

Lapierre trade

Higgins trade

Re-signing Sedins

Drafting Jensen at 29th and Corrado in 7th round

Things like sleep doctors

Tanev signing

It would be unfair to say Garrison (give him a bit of time), Booth (injured a majority of time), Hodgson trade (only time will tell), and Malhotra (eye injury) are cons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who cares what he's done? It will be this trade deadline and draft that will define MG's tenure here... he scores some homeruns this year and his mistakes will be forgiven... he strikesout and any wins he has had will be erased and said mistakes will be magnified.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While normally I'd make fun of your inability to spell, I was kind of interested in looking at this a bit as well.

Notable Net Losses:

  • Grabner - Trade

  • Mitchell - UFA

  • Morrison - UFA

  • Naslund - UFA

  • Linden - Retired

  • O'Brien - Trade for Parent (aka nothing)

  • Shannon - Trade for nothing

  • Pyatt - UFA

  • 2010 1st rounder (Ballard)

  • 2010 2nd (Bernier)

  • 2009 3rd (Bernier)

  • 2010 3rd (Alberts

  • 2011 3rd (Higgins)

  • 2012 4th (Pahlsson)

  • misc 5th+ rounders

  • Rypien(RIP)

  • Bourdon(RIP)

  • Mike Brown - Trade (for nothing)

  • Hodgson - Trade

  • Salo - UFA

  • Ohlund - UFA

Notable Net Gain:

  • Booth - Trade

  • Garrison - FA

  • Hamhuis - FA

  • Tanev - College UFA

  • Ballard - Trade

  • Barker - FA

  • Alberts - Trade

  • Kassian - Trade

  • Ebbett - FA

  • Pinizotto - FA

  • Higgins - Trade

  • Lapierre - Trade

  • Schroeder - Draft

  • Weise - Waiver Claim

Notable Draft Picks:

Cody Hodgson - 2008 1st

Yann Sauve - 2008 2nd

Jordan Schroeder - 2009 1st

Kevin Connauton - 2009 3rd

Joe Cannata - 2009 6th

Alex Friesen - 2010 6th

Nicklas Jensen - 2011 1st

Alexander Grenier - 2011 3rd

Frank Corrado - 2011 5th

Brendan Gaunce - 2012 1st

Alexandre Mallet - 2012 2nd

Ben Hutton - 2012 3rd

-----------------------

In the end we lost (bold aren't playing in NHL anymore):

  • THREE top 4 D men (2 shut down and 1 two way) (1 not playing)

  • A #5 or 6 big body D man

  • A 2nd line center, 2nd line winger

  • Two 3rd line wingers (1 not playing)

  • Two 4th line wingers

  • A depth forward

  • An elite young defense prospect (1st rounder)

  • An elite young center prospect (1st rounder)

  • A top winger prospect (1st rounder)

  • SIX picks 4th round or higher (excluding 3rd/4th picks received and then re-traded away)

in exchange we got:

  • THREE top 4 two-way defensemen AND a prospect top 4 defenseman

  • Two depth defensemen

  • A 3rd line winger and a 2nd/3rd line winger

  • A 4th line center, a 4th line winger

  • 2 depth forwards

  • An elite young power forward prospect

Plus:

  • The core of our team re-signed to contracts that are manageable and stable.

  • Stable management group, changes as Gillis saw fit

  • A "no stone left unturned" ethos when it comes to supporting the players and giving them the best chance possible to win on the ice, with their preparation and planning off the ice

-------------

You can go through it transaction by transaction and see that he wins some undisputed-ly (e.g. Higgins/Lappy/Hamhuis/Samuelsson) and loses some (e.g. losing Grabner/1st/Bernier for Ballard). There were lots of transactions in the middle, as the team evolved and different things were tried (e.g. Sundin, Demitra) - but in the end, looking at what we had compared to where we are now as a result of the changes he's made is probably most important.

In general he's allowed our previous younger players grow into larger roles, and has surrounded them with better role players than in the past - with the exception of defense, which only has Bieksa/Edler from before Gillis. Still, both of these players were signed to deals to keep them here because they were identified as valuable to the future (v.s. Ohlund/Salo due to age, Mitchell due to potential concussion issues... even though he won a cup 2 years later)

*may have missed someone you think is notable. either its a mistake or i just didn't think it was a big enough deal, mike weaver!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cons:

Ballard trade

Sundin contract

Luongo contract

Letting Torres go

Pros:

Hamhuis signing

Lapierre trade

Higgins trade

Re-signing Sedins

Drafting Jensen at 29th and Corrado in 7th round

Things like sleep doctors

Tanev signing

It would be unfair to say Garrison (give him a bit of time), Booth (injured a majority of time), Hodgson trade (only time will tell), and Malhotra (eye injury) are cons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly people many people on this board sometimes! A few small spelling mistakes, big deal. I posted this from my iPhone and did not proof it correctly and so many complaints. Did I not get my question across? I have been a member on this site for what ten years. So annoying it makes me want to stop posting

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He built the most skilled team the NHL has seen in about 3 or 4 decades which really should of won a Cup. It didn't, he learned from this mistake (hardly his fault) and is now adapting the Canucks to a team that is more likely to win a Cup in today's NHL - a bigger, stronger, more physical team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far a losing Grabner, I don't think Grabner is the calibre of player every Gillis-critic wants to paint him as. Yeah he scored a bunch of goals one season, but he's pretty one dimensional, and was playing on a team that no other team took seriously. Booth scored 30 in Florida too. 30 goals on a last place club is like scoring 15 on a club that every other team is gunning for. Notice Grabner scored 30, and since then teams took notice and started putting better pairings out against him. But again, people want to blow it up like Gillis traded a 8 time 40 goal guy for Keith Ballard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, the iPhone pass...

And now i'll break into a song (think Marley)...

Honestly people

Gotta make dem hurt

So many people

But buy my album first

So many

Wanna think

Dat

Evry little things

Gonna be alright

But it's not not not

As long as we iPhone to you-oo-oo

iPhone soldier

In the heart of cdc

Gots no spellcheck

Grammar makes no sense to me

Is this lol

Is this lol

Is this lol

Is this lol that we're seein?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gillis has not only created a mini-dynasty that has strongly contended for the Cup every year for the last handful of seasons, but has developed the Vancouver Canucks into a world-class organization. His tenure in Vancouver coincided with the new facilities, stadium improvements and so much more. The things MG has done for this team goes far beyond what we see on the ice and even off it - he has created a winning reputation in Vancouver similar to that of the Red Wings which is applaudable in itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Overall I'd say Gillis had done a good job but he needs to make bold moves moving forward. I think Gillis made a huge mistake by not getting a coach who totally shares his philosophy and letting that trickle down to getting the wrong type of players.

If I'm building a team I'd build in this order:

- good to great goaltending

- pure offensively talented forwards who make others better

- elite D men

- depth

The Sedins have pure offensive talent but need players to play with them rather than making other players better. Kesler just does his own thing and needs complementary pieces for himself rather than make others better. Hodgson made players better but now he's gone.

With the good to great goaltending the Canucks have both a trapping style or an offensive style would work. The key is whatever style they play the forwards should primarily carry the attack and the D primarily think defense first. When you have those fundamentals down then you build by getting the forwards to tighten up on D and the D to carry the attack more but only as a secondary option to mix things up or if it naturally presents itself. The Canucks do the opposite of emphasizing defense for the forwards and consistently having the D carry the attack which leads to low percentage shooting and high risk turnovers.

To me the key to a winning team is when they work hard, the goaltending keeps you in the game but offense makes the difference. I'd pick a team over the Canucks in the playoffs that has solid enough goaltending and D but gamebreaking offensive players. As long as the Canucks make bad turnovers and stay on the perimeter, there's your easy goals against them expending minimal effort while they usually have bust themselves for an ugly deflected goal after 40 attempts.

The philosophy which trickles down to the coach and players is what's killing the Canucks. However, I think Gillis can change and AV won't change but it's put up or shut up time for the Canucks management.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far a losing Grabner, I don't think Grabner is the calibre of player every Gillis-critic wants to paint him as. Yeah he scored a bunch of goals one season, but he's pretty one dimensional, and was playing on a team that no other team took seriously. Booth scored 30 in Florida too. 30 goals on a last place club is like scoring 15 on a club that every other team is gunning for. Notice Grabner scored 30, and since then teams took notice and started putting better pairings out against him. But again, people want to blow it up like Gillis traded a 8 time 40 goal guy for Keith Ballard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He has done a good job and has made some good decisions. However the lack of depth is scary. If they can start winning(similar to what Ottawa is doing) then things will be okay. If not, then the lack of depth will clearly lay on the GM's shoulders.

If, for example, the Luongo for Kadri trade rumor was true, well Kadri sure would look good right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Overall I'd say Gillis had done a good job but he needs to make bold moves moving forward.

How many years have we been saying this............and all that happens is we tend to lose a player who was doing well

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meh. I'm not sold on Kadri just yet. And he'll be after megabucks like Hodgson.

He has done a good job and has made some good decisions. However the lack of depth is scary. If they can start winning(similar to what Ottawa is doing) then things will be okay. If not, then the lack of depth will clearly lay on the GM's shoulders.

If, for example, the Luongo for Kadri trade rumor was true, well Kadri sure would look good right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...