Sign in to follow this  
aqua59

Lets open this to discussion Mike Gillis returning President

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, aqua59 said:

https://vancouversun.com/category/sports/hockey/nhl/vancouver-canucks

I personally have mixed feelings on this however the more i think about it the more I like the idea of Gillis returning in this capacity. 

That said I wonder if Mike would even want to come back. 

I keep getting the feeling that the front office is weak and could use a boost in a big way. 

 

Well what do you think? Lets hear it. 

No Thank You

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This could be posturing by the Aquilini's because MG did say he would sue the league if they punished the Canucks for signing Luongo to that long term deal. Also, he did a lot of good in non-GM roles for the team like getting rid of paper view.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That old saying "You can't go home again" is true and applies here.

 

No reason for Gillis to come back to Vancouver. Get some other qualified, experienced, successful (as in has already proven they can have success at the NHL level) hockey person. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think its a smoke screen. Aqulini is really after Ralph Krueger. 

  • Hydration 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Kanukfanatic said:

That old saying "You can't go home again" is true and applies here.

 

No reason for Gillis to come back to Vancouver. Get some other qualified, experienced, successful (as in has already proven they can have success at the NHL level) hockey person. 

What are you talking about?

Gillis is the most successful GM in Canucks history.

 

He was a forward thinker. The Canucks won 2 President's Trophies and got to game 7 of the 2011 Stanley Cup finals. He brought sleep science to the club, was the first guy to head to the NHL offices every year to make sure the Canucks got the best schedule possible, he actually hired Judd Brackett as a scout, etc. Sure, he did come into his role as a rookie BUT he's not a rookie anymore and he was very successful when he was with the Canucks, and he brought Ian Clark into the organization THE FIRST TIME among other things too... Sure, the Goalie Controversy (which, in hindsight, he did make the better call as Luongo was the better goalie then and oddly now and we got Horvat because of that deal), Tortorella (Apparently that wasn't Gillis's call, it was an Aquillini call), and his drafting record (it was BAD) but if you pair Gillis as the President (and his forward thinking approach to sports management) with Benning as GM and Judd Brackett as head of scouting... it could be interesting.

 

I'm not sure Gillis would return but I don't really understand why he's been blacklisted from the NHL to this point. He was good at his job for the most part. I'd be happy if he returned. Just not as GM.

 

If not Gillis... I could see Ralph Kreuger being a candidate. He's really done well as President of Southhampton, would probably do a spectacular job here too.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, naslund.is.king said:

Whats the fascination with a team president.

it makes sense depending on how the responsibilities are organized. Let Jim focus on drafting and GM to GM discussions, let the president set the organizational culture and goals. But it could also be done by one guy if he can delegate properly. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Provost said:

The facscination is that we are one of the richest teams in the league and have one of the smallest management organizations.

 

President, Senior advisor, more scouts, more player development, etc.  More minds and more hands to get a handle on things is better.  Benning was too busy to go to Utica even once this season.  That is unforgivable for a team that is in our staff of rebuilding... especially considering players were leaving there due to how they felt they were being treated.

thanks for your prespective and insight

Im sure lots of people like me out of province don't hear about the innerworkings and debate surrounding it

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever you think of Gillis, he's not coming back under this ownership.  His recent interviews that link the Torts hire to ownership and allude to other issues like the vetoed Kessler trade to Pittsburg pretty much burn that bridge.  Personally, I think he's a forward-thinking guy who has done some soul searching since getting fired, and could do a really good job somewhere, but not in Vancouver.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Erhoff

Hamhuis

Alberts

Tanev

Malhotra

Torres

Samuelsson

Higgins

Lapierre

All these guys were Gillis additions that made us the best team we ever witnessed on ice.

He also got the core guys to resign at below market value.

He knows how to build a team. Plus im sure hes learned alot since he was fired. Ill take a more experienced gillis anyday.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the most salient question is what are the duties of the President? What is his relationship to the GM? What responsibilities does he have?

I think those questions need to be addressed before determining who the right guy for the job is. Don't put the cart before the horse.

 

Second issue is that it always seemed like Benning and Linden were tripping over each other. I don't think their roles were clearly defined and the result was the two of them contradicted each other on a nearly weekly basis. Would like to see that issue resolved before going out and hiring another President.

 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gillis sounds miserable all the time. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tom Sestito said:

Why? Gillis was an objectively better manager over his tenure than Benning was.

Not really 'objective', more apples and oranges. They both have their strengths and weaknesses for a club that has been in wildly different places during both their respective regimes.

 

One nicely put the finishing touches on a core ready to contend while bringing in lots of valuable, innovative new ideas and got us an AHL franchise but in the process also emptied the cupboards and saddled us with a bunch of difficult contract clauses and basically no prospect pool/poor-mediocre drafting/development. The other is steadily and nicely refilling those cupboards and hasn't had the luxury of putting finishing touches on anything. He arguably isn't as 'innovative' or business savvy (and I do mean business, ie: not player contracts) but IMO, he's a far better 'hockey mind'.

 

I'd far rather have the latter running the hockey team (GM) but by all means the Aqualini's might be better served with someone from a business background to handle the actual 'Canucks Sports & Entertainment' business entity. That said, they do already have a full team of COO's, CFO's etc on staff for just that. They're just not household names.

 

Also, I HIGHLY doubt Gillis has any desire to come back.

  • Hydration 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally would be for it I feel like he was a better Prez than GM. I really liked a lot of the things he implemented with the medical staff and the sleep regiment. I feel like the team gets injured more often now than it did back then also this team has been taking a steep nose dive at the end of each season. Now that could be by design (intentional tanking) or it could be because there firkun gassed. MG did many good things he managed the cap well and signed players to smart contracts. 

 

Now it wasn't all rainbows and bubbles other GM's wouldnt deal with him his name was tarnished around the league during his time as a player agent. He pushed the envelope too far when it came to exploiting loopholes (luongo rule). He at times went fishing when he should have been working but he also looked like he was going to die of a heart attack or some stress related aneurysm most of the time so he probably needed those fishing trips.

 

The Major potential flaw here is that JB and MG are just too fundamentally different in their philosophy of running a team. I feel like JB is the type of guy you want laying the foundation of a house doing the framing and plumbing and such. MG is more of a finishing carpenter to work on the fine details. And I'm not sure there is room for both of them in the house at the same time.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, fanfor42 said:

I think the most salient question is what are the duties of the President? What is his relationship to the GM? What responsibilities does he have?

I think those questions need to be addressed before determining who the right guy for the job is. Don't put the cart before the horse.

 

Second issue is that it always seemed like Benning and Linden were tripping over each other. I don't think their roles were clearly defined and the result was the two of them contradicted each other on a nearly weekly basis. Would like to see that issue resolved before going out and hiring another President.

 

 

President is supposed to be the veto power and oversight of the whole organization, from the lowest level employees to the highest level business relationships.  He is supposed to make sure the best person is in every position, and that the big decisions are properly parsed out.  If we have a prez, Jim can get down to JUST HOCKEY, and not have to worry about all the drama in Utica, or the minutiae of dealing with the media, and all of the social aspects.  Let Jim focus on putting players on the ice.

 

I can't remember where I read this, but Trevor Linden was allegedly disgusted that Jim Benning was able to, as per his contract, communicate directly with ownership on dealings and details of the organization without the input of the president (Linden).  Is this true?  Might have more to say about Trevor than it does Jim, if so.  We don't know what role Trev had in any of the terrible UFA signings.  But in the end, as president, he signed off on them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

smoke another one. just   no to gillis , why on earth would we bring him back for ?  we are  just starting to recover from the mess gillis left us  and you want to bring him back , talk about taking steps backwards , there is no way aquaman  is going to bring him back  you might  as well in  bring messier  for president   See the source image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Curmudgeon said:

I can't remember who I heard talking about this, but whoever it was made a couple of salient points about paying big bucks to players on a team (Toronto) that hasn't made it out of the first round in, well, forever. The basic idea was "Why would you pay these young stars as if they had won three or four Stanley Cups when they haven't won anything? And what will you do if they happen to actually win the Cup, since there is no room for more players to make big money?" If Vancouver is prudent, they will keep salaries at the reasonable end UNTIL the team has had legitimate success. In that vein, I'd offer Boeser no more than $6 million over three years, then make it clear that he has an opportunity to make really big money IF a) he turns into a reliable 40 goal guy and b) the team makes a couple of long playoff runs. My battle cry: No big dollars until we see big results.

I hear you Curm, and I don't disagree about paying after they earn it not before - but just for arguments sake (not that I fall into this belief) I think the other side of that debate is that you'll never even reach the stage of 'legitimate success' (either for the player or the team) if you don't pony up and pay these players right away - they'll all just take their RFA offers and turn UFA leaving you high and dry and never able to get to that next level as an organization. 

 

I'm old school and it's taken me a LONG time to come to accept the fact we live in a day and age where people in all professions (not just pro sports) expect to be compensated right away, not after 5 years of 'proving' it to the franchise. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Curmudgeon said:

I can't remember who I heard talking about this, but whoever it was made a couple of salient points about paying big bucks to players on a team (Toronto) that hasn't made it out of the first round in, well, forever. The basic idea was "Why would you pay these young stars as if they had won three or four Stanley Cups when they haven't won anything? And what will you do if they happen to actually win the Cup, since there is no room for more players to make big money?" If Vancouver is prudent, they will keep salaries at the reasonable end UNTIL the team has had legitimate success. In that vein, I'd offer Boeser no more than $6 million over three years, then make it clear that he has an opportunity to make really big money IF a) he turns into a reliable 40 goal guy and b) the team makes a couple of long playoff runs. My battle cry: No big dollars until we see big results.

I don't disagree with this idea, but the problem is say we do get the results a few years down the road. Our guys will be that much older. We give them the big deals at that point and our team starts to dwindle. Now we are stuck with a bunch of high capped guys that are no longer as effective as they once were. I would argue that is what had happened in our last spike up. Burrows was on a phenomenal deal and we paid him well for the next contract and he wasn't quite the same player anymore for example. There were a few other players in the same situation. It doesn't set the team up to transition well unless the players can keep up their level through that next contract.

 

With that said though, I think Benning has been doing a fine job handling the RFAs so far. The biggest one so far is the Horvat one where it's looking like a steal at this point already and there's 4 years left on the deal. I expected Virtanen to sign a bridge, but I thought it would be a higher dollar amount than he ended up signing for. Demko another reasonable deal. We have kept the likes of Pouliot and Granlund at market value dollars. The Boeser one could set the tone for Petey and Hughes, so hopefully Benning and Boeser come to an agreement on another reasonable contract. I'd like to see Boeser sign for about 6.5 million for 5-6 years or more if he chooses. If he wants 4 years or less, then I would hope 5.5 (Bo's dollars) is the max. Many are worried about Petey getting a 10 million dollar contract when his ELC ends. If he gets to that point, then he would be quite an amazing player in the league as it would put him at this point in the top 10 players (money-wise) in the game which is a bonus if he gets to that playing level, but I think we are more likely to see him in the 7.5-8 million dollar range long term although it's too early to gauge. I bring up an example of Nicklas Backstrom who has signed long term for 6.7 million dollars a year coming off a 100 point season as a hopeful comparable to EP when it comes time to extend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Make Marky the captain and sign retiring formers stars to 2 yr deals. 

 

No. But keep the sleep drs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Couldn’t see mike and Jim working together. Mikes to organized and sticks to what he says Jim just tells everyone what they want to hear then does the opposite just like FA. 

 

Couldnt see mike working for FA I don’t think many quality hockey people would work for FA. Hence why it’s always controllable rookies. As soon as they start to stand up for what they want there gone. 

Burke, Gillis Linden.... soon as they get there Own opinion equals pack your bags when working with FA so Jim might be here a while he seems like a good dog and doesn’t bark and does what he told. Could be why the farms garbage (still) and we sign so many redundant worthless vets that get over paid. 

FA should just man up and make himself president since he’s the one calling the shots anyway....but then again who would be the scapegoat..better hire a rookie. 

If he stayed out of hockey ops and let GOOD SMART hockey people that have PROVEN they can BUILD a team he would be a great owner but he’s a hands on disaster and the reason good smart hockey people won’t come here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.