[Trade] Canucks trade Hunter Shinkaruk to Flames for Markus Granlund

[EastVanCanuck]

Lol!  Whoever bumped this thread, you Rock! 

[RRypien37]

Boy was I wrong...

[Caknuckle Puck]

I think people just liked his name more then him self haha XD
same with Tkachuk 

[Ghostsof1915]

Just goes to show maybe don't panic over trades. I'm pretty sure Benning has his input from other folks in the organization too. 

[D-Money]

11 hours ago, Canuck Surfer said:

Gillis wasn't good. He was great early! To me anyway.

 

Still made some questionable moves.  ie Mitchell, Ballard. No GM has a perfect track record.

 

But zero question He had his hand firmly on the pulse. Dimitra & Sundin deals may not have been completely worth it? But each had its place and advanced our cause. Sundin's pact announced to the world we were ''players!" It set the tone for us to be aggressive, and other opportunities surfaced, and players bought in. Deals like Ehrhoff, Malhotra, Torres were as, if not more spot on than Higgins? Hamhuis... Malhotra and Torres added such an added presence of size, speed and defensive thrift up front to Burrows, Kes & Hansen. It was trend-setting at the time.

 

Did he keep his hand on the pulse? It is hard to make a case that he did. Dunno? Maybe it was the rumored, ''he wanted to rebuild'' but was not allowed? Rumoured Aqua intervened & hired numbskull Torts? Even if those rumors are true? He was still no longer firmly at the wheel.

Not to mention strong rumors that he had a deal worked out with Anaheim for Kesler that involved pure futures, but that was quashed by ownership. He knew it was time for a full rebuild, but simply wasn't allowed.

 

Gillis was likely the best GM we've ever had. That was despite a lot of horrible luck, particularly with prospects:

 

- Top prospect dies right after taking job

- First draft pick Hodgson looks phenomenal in his draft+1 season, but screws his back in a strange way in his own training. 

- Second draft pick them gets hit by a car, has development derailed.

- Correctly evaluated Rodin's talent, but no one could foresee the amount of injury trouble he'd have.

- Traded first pick for a similar aged prospect in Kassian, who ended up being an alcoholic. We all saw what he was capable of at times, could have been something special.

- Not prospect-related, but the league introducing the cap-recapture stuff retroactively to Luongo's contract was a major setback.

 

His teams always picked late, and (correctly) traded lots of picks for current help. Add in all of the above, and yeah, it's not surprising he didn't get many hits (Horvat + Hutton look great though).

[Sean Monahan]

2 hours ago, D-Money said:

Traded first pick for a similar aged prospect in Kassian

Didn't he shop Hodgson exclusively to Buffalo? He could've got a better deal if he'd broadcasted it better. 

[riffraff]

Jordan Subban.  The hunter shinkaruk of dmen.

[Darius]

6 hours ago, RRypien37 said:

Boy was I wrong...

I think a lot of us were wrong but at the same time it was easy to see why the fans were excited about Shinkaruk...he was having a pretty good year in the AHL and up to that year how many offensively skilled draft picks/prospects did the Canucks have that we could really get excited about?  It was ugly drafting for a better part of a decade since Kesler was drafted. The 2013 draft offered fans some hope.

 

Many sources - see the Hockey News - even had Shinkaruk ranked ahead of Bo Horvat in the draft rankings that year.  Fans were excited about him and excited to watch him develop. In light of many draft rankings he was a 'steal' at 24.  Trading him to one of our worst enemies while he was having a great year in Utica motivated a lot of the bad feelings.

 

In the end I suspect that management and coaching saw that his style would not translate well in the NHL, and they made the move for a more complete player.  Sometimes we gotta trust the guys  making hundreds of thousands of dollars to assess these things I suppose :-)

 

[Warhippy]

Look.  9 out of 10 posters here was wrong.  I still don't like our depth at LW  in regards to quality or capable call ups but it;s a long way from where it was.

 

Shinkaruk didn't make it, Granlund appears to have.  No big deal at all.

 

Now the Hodgson thread, boy THAT was a fun one

[Pears]

9 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

Look.  9 out of 10 posters here was wrong.  I still don't like our depth at LW  in regards to quality or capable call ups but it;s a long way from where it was.

 

Shinkaruk didn't make it, Granlund appears to have.  No big deal at all.

 

Now the Hodgson thread, boy THAT was a fun one

Don't forget the Luongo threads!

[butters]

I don't know that people fully understand what they were wrong about. It doesn't matter if you misjudged a player. Its judging a trade when it goes down, rather than a couple years later, that is wrong. Especially when its accompanied by nerd rage. 

[Boudrias]

5 hours ago, Darius71 said:

I think a lot of us were wrong but at the same time it was easy to see why the fans were excited about Shinkaruk...he was having a pretty good year in the AHL and up to that year how many offensively skilled draft picks/prospects did the Canucks have that we could really get excited about?  It was ugly drafting for a better part of a decade since Kesler was drafted. The 2013 draft offered fans some hope.

 

Many sources - see the Hockey News - even had Shinkaruk ranked ahead of Bo Horvat in the draft rankings that year.  Fans were excited about him and excited to watch him develop. In light of many draft rankings he was a 'steal' at 24.  Trading him to one of our worst enemies while he was having a great year in Utica motivated a lot of the bad feelings.

 

In the end I suspect that management and coaching saw that his style would not translate well in the NHL, and they made the move for a more complete player.  Sometimes we gotta trust the guys  making hundreds of thousands of dollars to assess these things I suppose :-)

 

Green's finger prints are all over that deal!

[Lancaster]

8 hours ago, D-Money said:

Not to mention strong rumors that he had a deal worked out with Anaheim for Kesler that involved pure futures, but that was quashed by ownership. He knew it was time for a full rebuild, but simply wasn't allowed.

 

Gillis was likely the best GM we've ever had. That was despite a lot of horrible luck, particularly with prospects:

 

- Top prospect dies right after taking job

- First draft pick Hodgson looks phenomenal in his draft+1 season, but screws his back in a strange way in his own training. 

- Second draft pick them gets hit by a car, has development derailed.

- Correctly evaluated Rodin's talent, but no one could foresee the amount of injury trouble he'd have.

- Traded first pick for a similar aged prospect in Kassian, who ended up being an alcoholic. We all saw what he was capable of at times, could have been something special.

- Not prospect-related, but the league introducing the cap-recapture stuff retroactively to Luongo's contract was a major setback.

 

His teams always picked late, and (correctly) traded lots of picks for current help. Add in all of the above, and yeah, it's not surprising he didn't get many hits (Horvat + Hutton look great though).

I think MG mentioned how it felt like goal posts were always moving.  

 

He builds a team to surround Luongo.... then only to have the NHL allow players to literally run him over without any recourse.  

He then tweak it a bit to have a skills + PP team.... only for the NHL to put away their whistle.  

MG then realize he needs more grit.... but the NHL suddenly started penalizing the Canucks a bit more.  

[Gollumpus]

7 hours ago, Sean Monahan said:

Didn't he shop Hodgson exclusively to Buffalo? He could've got a better deal if he'd broadcasted it better. 

As I recall, it wasn't just Buffalo but rather 4 - 5 teams who had the type of asset that Gillis wanted (ie. a power forward). The only team that bit on Hodgson was Buffalo. Maybe one of the other selected teams may have taken the Canucks up on the offer, but maybe they wanted assets beyond just Hodgson, or perhaps they were just weren't interested.

 

As to shopping Hodgson all over the NHL, yeah the Canucks might have had greater success going that route (20/20 hindsight), but the feeling at the time (once again based on my recollection) is that the team wanted a young forward who was just coming into his own, rather than an older player (cap reasons) or an asset for which the team did not have a current need (eg. d-man prospect) or a pick. Why waste time talking to other teams who didn't have what you wanted? As a more current example, if Edmonton wanted a d-man for Hall, why would they spend a lot of time talking to teams who were only offering forwards?

 

                                                         regards,  G.

[GreyHatnDart]

On 2017-09-27 at 3:49 PM, oldnews said:

I dunno.  Shinkaruk was a late round pick - low percentage odds from the get-go.

Expecting that he made much of guys like Shinkaruk, Jensen, etc is perhaps a stretch.

Still though, he did have a few hits - one still with us in Hutton, and imo Gaunce was a good pick that stands to be a solid NHLer.  Cassels, if not seriously hampered by injuries, could be a different player today, Subban still has a shot - really, his drafting improved as his hold on the franchise deepened.

And where he may not have drafted very well, he hit some home runs in the undrafted free agent market - Tanev, Lack.

But what's more important imo were the tweaks he made that put the Canucks into contention - deals like the Higgins trade, Ehrhoff deal, Hammer signing - Gillis definitely batted at a very acceptable average - and really, he wasn't bad.

 

He was excellent with most of his trades and bargaining, I'll give him that. His long-term background as a player agent allowed him to understand the nuances of contract evaluation. 

 

I however firmly believe that the most a GM can do for their team is continue to build towards the future, be it through thoughtful signings and excellent drafting.  The excuse that Gillis "always picked late" is not an excuse at all imo, as many many great NHLers are found all over the place in the first round and beyond. 

 

He left his legacy behind with old players on unmovable/poor return contracts and a completely barren prospect pool, which is unforgivable in my eyes. 

[oldnews]

1 hour ago, ThaShady1 said:

He was excellent with most of his trades and bargaining, I'll give him that. His long-term background as a player agent allowed him to understand the nuances of contract evaluation. 

 

I however firmly believe that the most a GM can do for their team is continue to build towards the future, be it through thoughtful signings and excellent drafting.  The excuse that Gillis "always picked late" is not an excuse at all imo, as many many great NHLers are found all over the place in the first round and beyond. 

 

He left his legacy behind with old players on unmovable/poor return contracts and a completely barren prospect pool, which is unforgivable in my eyes. 

Well - to his credit he left the team with Horvat, Tanev, Markstrom - pretty much their key/most important players at each position.

I think it was a tough time - the expectation was to continue to contend, but Gillis did realize that he was going to have to split his priorities at the very least, and may have wanted to do so more than it appears.

[GreyHatnDart]

14 minutes ago, oldnews said:

Well - to his credit he left the team with Horvat, Tanev, Markstrom - pretty much their key/most important players at each position.

I think it was a tough time - the expectation was to continue to contend, but Gillis did realize that he was going to have to split his priorities at the very least, and may have wanted to do so more than it appears.

Perhaps, but that's speculative. Unless I'm missing something from that point in time at his exit interview or something.

 

I believe he was very good at building a team for the right now, and more than likely would've been successful had injuries/officiating gone more our way. However, he traded two of the most premier goaltenders this team has ever seen, for a 1B replacement at best and a 9th OA draft pick. Luckily, it turned out to be Bo. I say luckily, because his drafting up to that point was was absolutely horrendous and I give him zero credit for that pick until someone can prove to me otherwise. 

 

Tanev, yes, was a great signing, but then, even a broken clock is accurate twice a day. 

 

Anyhow I was just weighing in on this. I've made my stance regarding Gillis pretty clear around these boards. I've given him credit where it's due but to say he's the best GM this franchise has ever had as was said in this thread... :/ 

[kenhodgejr]

Granlund is the real deal! I wish we could trade for his brother. 

[5nothincanucksohno]

On September 28, 2017 at 6:35 PM, ThaShady1 said:

Perhaps, but that's speculative. Unless I'm missing something from that point in time at his exit interview or something.

 

I believe he was very good at building a team for the right now, and more than likely would've been successful had injuries/officiating gone more our way. However, he traded two of the most premier goaltenders this team has ever seen, for a 1B replacement at best and a 9th OA draft pick. Luckily, it turned out to be Bo. I say luckily, because his drafting up to that point was was absolutely horrendous and I give him zero credit for that pick until someone can prove to me otherwise. 

 

Tanev, yes, was a great signing, but then, even a broken clock is accurate twice a day. 

 

Anyhow I was just weighing in on this. I've made my stance regarding Gillis pretty clear around these boards. I've given him credit where it's due but to say he's the best GM this franchise has ever had as was said in this thread... :/ 

Gillis's main downfall was as you say his drafting. The second main issue (as I see it) was his ability to assess good role players (especially forwards). He nailed it the year they went to the cup (Higgins, Laps, Torres, etc.) but failed otherwise. Those two things combined ensured the Twins did not have the support they needed to make another run.

[Podz92]

8 minutes ago, 5nothincanucksohno said:

Gillis's main downfall was as you say his drafting. The second main issue (as I see it) was his ability to assess good role players (especially forwards). He nailed it the year they went to the cup (Higgins, Laps, Torres, etc.) but failed otherwise. Those two things combined ensured the Twins did not have the support they needed to make another run.

Have to agree, he brought in guys that were obviously finished in hopes they could make one more run...bringing in guys like Sammy Pahlson and Derek Roy. Both huge disappointments here...