Lemieux Posted February 5, 2012 Author Share Posted February 5, 2012 Mitchell is NOT the answer .. ANOTHER left side defenseman .. JUST what we need .. coming off a consussion .. if MG had signed Willie and Willie had crumpled at the first head shot, Lemieux and the rest of his ilk would have been calling for MG's head .. furter waste of ink .. :D David Booth had had TWO concussions and Gillis had him for much more than what he would have had to pay Mitchell. Your argument is dead on arrival. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tearloch7 Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 Booth is NOT a left side defenseman .. and Mitchell is a pylon .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLT Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 Just too much fail in the OP to address with specifics. I hope that it was sarcastic, otherwise there MIGHT be certain mental issues that need to be addressed. Cheers. TOML Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lemieux Posted February 5, 2012 Author Share Posted February 5, 2012 Well, Chris Tanev, Aaron Rome and Andrew Alberts were no better than Mitchell. They lost the finals on the backend. Gillis' failure to address DEFENSE was evident. And then he went out and added more soft forwards. I think your arguments do not add much to the discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-DLC- Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 I was also a big Mitchell fan, until he ran at Raymond in practice... Something about "team" that didn't translate for me. And Tanev? How are you even assessing him at this point or comparing him to others?? The best is yet to come for him....just wait and see... and I'm patiently waiting for you to address re-signing the Sedins.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diesel_3 Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 If Luongo is still playing good hockey into his late 30's early 40's when he is only making 1 million a year, then Gillis looks like a genius. I'd say give it a few more years to see how the Canucks do in the playoffs to REALLY critisize the contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Down by the River Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 CDC's meme thread is proving its weight in gold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-DLC- Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 Sometimes teams HAVE to decide between future and present, they don't have the luxury of doing both.....teams that feel they have a significant shot sometimes have to "go for it". Others, who are dwelling in the basement, will think about the future and how to climb out. A good team tries to just balance out the two... So, re the Sedins?...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 If this is about Mitchell... Didn't Gillis give Mitchell an offer? He got a better one from LA. 'nuff said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goal:thecup Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 Sundin signing put the team on the map; free agents were interested in playing here and the twins and Kes got valuable leadership. Luongo and the Sedins signing was protection of player assets; we would have received nothing if they had signed elsewhere. Gillis does not waste assets; he develops and maintains them. Ahh, what the heck; this was just a troll anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rain Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 Last year Gillis was GM of the year in the NHL. I guess they just didn't know the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRAVEMAN91 Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 This guy is grossly overrated. He has come up with bad contracts after bad contracts. Overpaying Ballard, Booth, Sundin (thank goodness he did not take the 2-year $20mil contract), Demitra (RIP), and Luongo. These are good players, but definitely not at the salary that they are making. Now they are really stuck with Luongo, an older goalie with more and more mileage. This guy was overused in Florida, and you just don't see him playing at the same level 2 or 3 years down the road. This situation has caused the whole Schneider thing. Schneider looks like a young solid number one that could carry the Canucks into the next decade. He has solid moves, unlike the Sieve Cloutier. He's a calming presence. Because of the no-trade clause to Luongo, Schneider has to be moved. People defend Gillis and say that he had got the Canucks into the finals. The main pieces, i.e. Kesler, Sedins, Edler, Bieksa, Salo, Burrows were all pieces from the past regimes. The only guy that Gillis could truly claim to be a valuable asset was ehrhoff. Gillis is really sacrifing the future of the team for immediate gains. It's really sad to see. Tell us this in the next 10 years.. Schneider is the model of what a good eventual successor should be to Luongo. If Gillis has not developed that guy by the time Lu's contract expires then we have a problem. Gillis is trying to copy a succesful model in Detroit and add his touch to it. While still keeping his head in the present with Stanley Cup aspirations, He should keep improving his scouting dept, keeping the team on pace with the Edmontons of the world who will try to knock the older Canucks off they're perch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilbur Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 It was obvious that the Canucks needed DEFENSIVE help. If he had been offered 6mil for 2 years I am sure Mitchell would've stayed. It wasn't that big of a risk considering he was only 32 and the contract was for only two years. Instead, he went for an undersized Ballard who was making more than 4+ for multiple years, never having played a playoff game. This to me, is a bad decision. Ballard was sitting in the box in the playoffs. Mitchell would've been at least a top four, along with Ehrhoff, Edler, Hamhuis (and when healthy, Salo). It was obvious though, that Salo couldn't keep the Bruins out of the dirty area. You're forgetting the context of that time. The Canucks DESPERATELY needed defensemen. Bieksa was coming off an awful year and nobody knew how (or even if) Mitchell would come back from his injuries. The Canucks needed reliable defensemen that had a history of staying healthy. Mitchell only met half that criteria, the 1.5 M offer reflected that. The Canucks could not afford to take any chances with the players they got for the back end (which makes the Booth situation a little different, as they could take that chance up front). As for the state of the defense now? That just goes to show you the market for defense. Teams don't give up healthy top 4 defensemen for nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-DLC- Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 (Still waiting for your reply......) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YEGCanuck Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 Sounds a little like you are suggesting Burke is a better GM, good luck with that. I think the greatest contribution Gillis has made was to develop a solid, positive environment for the team to suceed. Not just the on-ice product, but throughout the organization. Other clubs are now attempting to follow the lead Vancouver has created as a winning formula. Players come and go over time, a strong foundation as an organization is a key to consistent performance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fall0ff Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 I'm more shocked with this idiot getting "plus 3" for opening this thread. I think this guy is overrated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lemieux Posted February 5, 2012 Author Share Posted February 5, 2012 Mitchell averaged 72 games in the 3 years before the concussion year, so I don't see how he wasn't reliable. That's a pretty good number for a defensive d who plays a physical game. One concussion and you treat him like sh*t? That's not a good move. The Canucks made an average of $2-3mil cash per playoff home game. Sources say that they made 40-50mil in playoff receipts alone last year. If they were concerned about the cap, they would've been able to bury his contract in the AHL. It would've been a good insurance policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugemanskost Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 It was obvious that the Canucks needed DEFENSIVE help. If he had been offered 6mil for 2 years I am sure Mitchell would've stayed. It wasn't that big of a risk considering he was only 32 and the contract was for only two years. Instead, he went for an undersized Ballard who was making more than 4+ for multiple years, never having played a playoff game. This to me, is a bad decision. Ballard was sitting in the box in the playoffs. Mitchell would've been at least a top four, along with Ehrhoff, Edler, Hamhuis (and when healthy, Salo). It was obvious though, that Salo couldn't keep the Bruins out of the dirty area. I bet you are right about Willie staying for $6M over 2 years but, MG wouldn't take that risk. Signing Ballard was meant to be DEFENSIVE help. It's easy, in hindsight, to criticize the signing. When he was inked, I was ecstatic. I thought that he and Hammer would have put us over the top. It hasn't panned out that way although KB4 is starting to play better recently. Also, Lu's signing at a cap hit of $5.3 is a steal for a top 5 goalie. The term is steep, but there are clauses in the contract for both parties to opt out before full term. Salary only matters to the player, the owner and fans who like to bitch and moan (myself included!). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuck luck Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 Hamhuis? or Max... or Higgy. I guess we shouldn't look at players that he re-signed...or for that matter, lets not even consider how he changed the whole image of the team? There was a time that Vancouver was not known to be a choice destination for players... All of his minor adjustments, excluding player moves, might not mean a lot on a individual basis, but when you combine them all together, it makes a formidable difference. One that means nothing to you and me...but it has meant the difference for players that benefit from them.What about the Canucks record BEFORE and AFTER his arrival?I wouldn't consider acquiring Ballard a bad thing... don't forget that he was a coveted player in the offseason and EVERY GM wanted him. I give him credit to be able to sign him before the other GM's...only proves he's got some skills as GM. I think that he hasn't been used the proper way...right side, pp, partners, lines, etc...... I don't fault MG for this.How can you consider Booth a failure??? That is what makes your points ridiculous! Do you not remember how this all came about? Granted that Sturm was a failure...but at least he was able to recognize this and didn't hesitate to move him. We lost an often injured Sammy that has been on a steady decline that was becoming a FA, I love Sammy and hated to see him go, but I have to say that Booth is a pretty good rebound. Not only this...but Reinprecht is lighting it up on the Wolves and the only reason we haven't seen him on the Nucks is because of the cap, come playoffs, we will see how lopsided this trade really was when we can play Reinprecht. We are a better team with JUST Booth in the lineup than we were without him. MG just acquired a top 6 PF and still kept the rest of the team intact....how is this a fail?Oh... and we got a 3rd round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.