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

MG should be on thin ice...


Recommended Posts

Why bring up the Grabner trade? I mean sure in hindsight it doesn't look the best, but at the time Raymond has just come off a 50pts season and it looked like he was going to improve.

Trade's are much harder than people think, I mean at the time of a trade some will look good but then in the future it may look bad. Hodgson trade is a great example, bad trade at the moment? Yes, but in the future Kassian could be huge for the team and we may even win this trade :)

Also, I wouldn't say Gillis is on thin ice, I see you forget to mention some of his great moves like acquiring Higgins, and Lappy two of the hardest working players (at least last year) for this team. Also adding Tanev who has been a decent pick-up so far and will turn out to be a solid d-man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They also don't remember what it is like having a bad goalie. They just don't appreciate anything.

If they were here when Nonuts was in charge, completely unable to make any deal that might help the team they would know. Aside from the Luongo deal, which took a lot of people by surprise, most of his moves were complete failures.

Noronen, Smolinski, Carney, Weinrich...drafted PATRICK WHITE in the first round.

These newer posters probably became fans in the last few years when the Canucks were strong and so they just dont understand what it was like before, going from failure to failure with bad goalies. Constant playoff collapses nowhere near what has happened in the last few years. Granted the WCE days we played exciting hockey, we did not exactly keep goals out or win with much efficiency.

The team we have had the last few years is the best overall team I have ever seen on the Canucks, and yes I'm going back to the 80's when I say that, not to 2001 or 2002. You nitwits cant completely write off signings like Hamhuis or Garrison and then pine for Burke or Nonis when their signings were more often a Jan Bulis or Brian Smolinski than a Higgins, Lappierre, Malhotra, Hamhuis, Torres, Samuelsson, Ehrhoff, Garrison, etc etc. Gillis has done a LOT here, and going into a season nowadays is to be excited for the team and not just for some Nazzy/Bert plays or an end to end rush from Bure.

We should appreciate what we have here for God's sake because this type of team is rare, and any long term Canuck fan knows that down to their bones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a MG fan, so my bias is favorable towards him.

General Managers and Presidents of any organization have multiple "key result areas" that they are responsible for. The most obvious is the assembly of players/talent that gives you you the best chance to win on a consistent basis. Yes, MG inherited the core that have done almost everything (but win the cup), but he's done a good job of keeping the core intact. He's also done a relatively good job of bringing in talent (i.e., Sundin, Demitra, Erhoff, Hamhuis, Ballard, Higgins, Lapierre, Tanev, Torres, Booth, Malhotra, Samuelsson, etc.) that has fit into his big picture objective of icing a team that is competitive year in and year out.

Could he have done better by bringing in guys like Weber, Parise, Schultz, Suter, Doan, etc.? Of course, but as someone has already mentioned, there are 29 other franchises that he is competing with. Like all businesses, decisions have to be made within the context of limitations that you are dealt and created by yourself, and I would say that given the framework that MG has been working within, he's done a very good job.

MG's drafting record to date is suspect, but we'll have answers to this over the next few years, when prospects that have been drafted under his watch will have to sh!t or get off the pot. I think players such as Jensen, Corrado, Cannata and Gaunce have a good chance of working their way onto the roster in the next 3-5 years. Schroeder probably has one more short term contract left, so if he doesn't deliver in the next 18 months, I see a bleak future for him. MG has had some junior/college FA signing success in Tanev, Lack and arguably Volpatti, but we'll have to see what McEneny can do. I don't think Sweatt is around after his contract expires.

I think MG has done a fantastic job of building a winning culture, a professional environment (but that could also be a function of the business-like attitude Sedins/Bieksa/Luongo/Schneider and others in the leadership group have...so is it chicken or egg?), being innovative with things like sleep management, nutrition, etc., and making Vancouver a desirable place to play. So high marks for this.

I personally like it that MG is very player-centric (having been a player and player agent himself) and has the confidence to delegate important matters such as cap management to competent guys like LG. I was around when the Canucks couldn't fill the Pacific Coliseum because the product on the ice was so p!$$ poor. Since the Quinn era, we've had consistent sell outs, which I think MG continues to build upon. So, I don't see the Aquillini's having any complaints about MG draining their bank accounts (though the Luongo deal has the potential to be very expensive to the Aquillini's IF...and that's a big IF...a buy out is contemplated). I think some people forget that in many cases, the challenges of sustaining and growing is greater and filled with more pressure than building, which is really, what MG is charged with doing.

So, when you factor all these things together, I don't see MG going anywhere fast unless the decision to pull the chute is his.

I've been wrong more times than I've been right, so who knows what the future really holds?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MG got lucky. He reaped the benefits of what The previous GMs built. When it's his time to shine, he messed it up with the Luongo deal.

Luongo could have gotten us a crapload of good prospects or picks or players but that contract is too much for other GMs to stay away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, we've been spoiled as fans by the last couple of years for sure. I agree a lot of these posters probably have only been following the team for several years and have no idea what futility is really like. No matter how you slice it MG has put together a great team here, one that Nonis wouldn't have been capable of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah yes, Hamhuis and Garrison are local guys who wanted to play for the Canucks and signed here as UFA's. Therefore Gillis is a failure, regardless of the club culture he created here, which was probably a significant part of why these two guys wanted to come here in the first place.

A guy like Schultz, who is also a local guy, had expressed an interest in signing here, but chose to go to Edmonton, and therefore Gillis is a failure.

Double standards abound.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of the negative arguments are ridiculous. To argue that most of the team was put together by Burke/Nonis is such a narrow-minded viewpoint. By that standard no GM will ever be good enough and the grass will always be greener on the other side. I can then argue that no matter who we get as the next GM, if the team does good than all the credit goes to Burke/Nonis/Gillis, if he fails then it's his fault and the cycle continues.

Gillis is far from perfect but no GM is. He makes mistakes but so does every other GM. It's so easy to nitpick all the mistakes with the power of hindsight to make yourself seem smarter.

Players re-sign here or players want to come here because of the environment which does have a lot to do with the GM. You can't just dismiss every argument saying the pieces were in place cause then no matter who takes over you can use that argument over and over again unless the new GM gets rid of every good player we have which will never happen.

So by your logic if Gillis got rid of the Sedins and Kes and every good player we have and then rebuilt the team with new players and won the Stanley Cup, only then is he good enough in your eyes beecause he didn't inherit any players? Or only the GM who wins a Stanley Cup is considered good and all the other 29 GMs in the league should lose their jobs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't matter who the gm was. Both guys wanted to come home.

Regarding shultz... I think Gillis failed big time. Didn't say he's a failure overall. Just overrated if u ask me.

At the end of the day... the BEST canucks were NOT acquired by him.

I'm talking about eddi burr kes twinz lui schneids kb3...

He hasn't drafted too well either... hopefully his recent picks pan out. Nonis and Burke have drafted our best players or in burrows case developed him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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