thad Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 I agree and thats my point, he's allowed his players to age, has no depth and if people can't see this team is on the precipice of a major decline they are blind. His job was 1. To win a cup 2. To continue to stay competitive by building depth in the organization If you look at that, clearly he's done neither and has moved further away from 1 because of 2. So to that extent I agree...he is failing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuretoMogilny Posted March 27, 2013 Author Share Posted March 27, 2013 OP... why don't you have a GM job yet? Or at least an assistant GM job. Surely you would be a shoe in for a minor league team at least? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
etsen3 Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Idk every time Gillis makes a bold move everyone complains we gave up too much and we are wasting cap space. To gain big players you need to give up a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuretoMogilny Posted March 27, 2013 Author Share Posted March 27, 2013 We're in the playoffs consistently. I don't see how you can say he he hasn't iced a competitive team every year. We got 4th line depth guys taking us on a winning streak right now. If you expect him to be able to ice the 2011 juggernaut every single year then stop watching hockey. No team can do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c-a-n-u-c-k-s Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 OP.You're swayed way out of line by your own thoughts only. All those hallucinations you're having about Gillis. 1 or 2 good trades and your back on the bandwagon. It's not a guess. I'm telling you that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BananaMash Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 1. Henrik, Kesler, Malholtra, Lapierre, Schroede - you call that depth? MG knew Kesler was out for a significant portion of the season. And anyone knows a player stepping in mid season often gets injured that year because he's competing against guys in mid year form. His last injury was fluke but players get groin injuries, shoulders etc from taking the hard pounding coming in midstream. MG also stated he was concerned with Manny in the offseason and was CONVINCED to give him some games to see if he was healed. So. He had 1 real #1 center, a #4 and a rookie. That's depth? At the most important position next to goaltender on the team? COMEON MAN! Wow! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THERETOOL Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 I would be gun shy if i were Mike .. Hes made some really stinky deals .. I think hes a good man whos trying his best , but I can only imagine how frustrated he has been with the way his moves have turned out . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c-a-n-u-c-k-s Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 The only thing wrong with this team, if anything, is the coach. NOTICE HOW WHEN INJURIES MAKE US CHANGE FROM AV'S SET LINES.... WE WIN - It's been that way for a few years..... surely you notice this? His attachement to certain "lines" and certain "players" cloud his better coaching vision. It seems so obvious and the PROOF IS IN THE PUDDING. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thad Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Fair points and well articulated. My issue is Pitts has won a cup. We haven't and many of the issues I raise are not 'new' so to speak, and just a result of injuries, they are 'systemic' / have been around since he got here. Thats the concern. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuretoMogilny Posted March 27, 2013 Author Share Posted March 27, 2013 Idk every time Gillis makes a bold move everyone complains we gave up too much and we are wasting cap space. To gain big players you need to give up a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuretoMogilny Posted March 27, 2013 Author Share Posted March 27, 2013 OP.You're swayed way out of line by your own thoughts only. All those hallucinations you're having about Gillis. 1 or 2 good trades and your back on the bandwagon. It's not a guess. I'm telling you that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thad Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 @b2m I'm not saying I'm right and your wrong or anything, I just think your expecting too much. I get to the do something gillis point all the time. What he has done is build a contract structure to be able to keep all this Nonis players. Added lappy Torres Higgins erhoff that were instrumental to our run.. He knows how to load up He did go for it with Sundin.. He brought in a veteran star but it didnt do much. Timing was off so he better be careful next time Letting erhoff walk.. Was smart, giving him 6 was too much, if we are going to have one high priced guy I'd rather have eddy. Torres walking.. Okay in hindsight we should have kept him but guys like him are replaceable Hodgson timings as off but the jury is still out on the trade Ballard trade was exactly what we needed at the time and he showed balls paying what he did for him.. It didnt work out and we upgraded later. That trade would have looked alot better had AV made an attempt to get him going and not playing less skilled safe guys ahead of him. Booth seemed like a genius move at the time. We needed a 2nd line winger bad and he traded 2 aging ufas for a 26yr old power forward.. Bad injury luck and at the same time the rest of the 2nd line had bad injury luck.. No GM gets a slam dunk in every trade. IMO were very fortunate to have gillis. His moves aren't complete head scratchers except for the hodgson trade. He makes calculated decisions that have a high chance of paying dividends and they almost always seem like the right move at the time. The fact he's not doing much isn't a reflection of him being timid, it's a reflection of it not being the right time to do so... That being said, a goalie trade would help us now but I'll reserve judgement for when it finally goes down and what comes out that was a confirmed former deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canucksnihilist Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 it's always the same. before getting some success - think you have to make good smart decisions and bold moves after getting some success - hold on to what you have, forget smart or bold. you think you can make it again without risk. smart and bold get compromised by safety. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuretoMogilny Posted March 27, 2013 Author Share Posted March 27, 2013 @b2m I'm not saying I'm right and your wrong or anything, I just think your expecting too much. I get to the do something gillis point all the time. What he has done is build a contract structure to be able to keep all this Nonis players. Added lappy Torres Higgins erhoff that were instrumental to our run.. He knows how to load up He did go for it with Sundin.. He brought in a veteran star but it didnt do much. Timing was off so he better be careful next time Letting erhoff walk.. Was smart, giving him 6 was too much, if we are going to have one high priced guy I'd rather have eddy. Torres walking.. Okay in hindsight we should have kept him but guys like him are replaceable Hodgson timings as off but the jury is still out on the trade Ballard trade was exactly what we needed at the time and he showed balls paying what he did for him.. It didnt work out and we upgraded later. That trade would have looked alot better had AV made an attempt to get him going and not playing less skilled safe guys ahead of him. Booth seemed like a genius move at the time. We needed a 2nd line winger bad and he traded 2 aging ufas for a 26yr old power forward.. Bad injury luck and at the same time the rest of the 2nd line had bad injury luck.. No GM gets a slam dunk in every trade. IMO were very fortunate to have gillis. His moves aren't complete head scratchers except for the hodgson trade. He makes calculated decisions that have a high chance of paying dividends and they almost always seem like the right move at the time. The fact he's not doing much isn't a reflection of him being timid, it's a reflection of it not being the right time to do so... That being said, a goalie trade would help us now but I'll reserve judgement for when it finally goes down and what comes out that was a confirmed former deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuretoMogilny Posted March 27, 2013 Author Share Posted March 27, 2013 it's always the same. before getting some success - think you have to make good smart decisions and bold moves after getting some success - hold on to what you have, forget smart or bold. you think you can make it again without risk. smart and bold get compromised by safety. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foop Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 People always point to the holes in the lineup as examples of where MG has failed. True, we may be lacking a 1st/2nd line winger, organizational depth, etc. But the thing is, to fill those holes, we need to give SOMETHING JUST AS IF NOT MORE VALUABLE. Why would another team's GM accept anything less? Where are those pieces going to come from? Combining all our junk as a package deal doesn't make said package valuable enough to land any of these pieces. Giving something truly valuable up will just create another hole in the organization. In short, show me who we can trade without creating a hole in the lineup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuretoMogilny Posted March 27, 2013 Author Share Posted March 27, 2013 People always point to the holes in the lineup as examples of where MG has failed. True, we may be lacking a 1st/2nd line winger, organizational depth, etc. But the thing is, to fill those holes, we need to give SOMETHING JUST AS IF NOT MORE VALUABLE. Why would another team's GM accept anything less? Where are those pieces going to come from? Combining all our junk as a package deal doesn't make said package valuable enough to land any of these pieces. Giving something truly valuable up will just create another hole in the organization. In short, show me who we can trade without creating a hole in the lineup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thad Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Agree to disagree I guess.. but I think you will be pleased with the way things unfold over the next 2 years. At least I hope so lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuretoMogilny Posted March 27, 2013 Author Share Posted March 27, 2013 Agree to disagree I guess.. but I think you will be pleased with the way things unfold over the next 2 years. At least I hope so lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BananaMash Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 What will you say about this if he makes a splash at the trade deadline? Don't get me wrong, I don't think he will this year. Jut hypothetically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.