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

Gillis To Meet Lu Next Week


TheRussianRocket.

Recommended Posts

"Character assassination"? lol

You've got a few non-starters in your commentary -

No one, myself included, has suggested Gillis is not the Canucks GM or that as such he does not have to make "tough" decisions. But yes, he does - as we all do - have the advantage of hindsight (looking backward). Perhaps, however you meant to say that he doesn't have the advantage of a "crystal ball" (reading the future)? If so, no worries there either, I would never presume to imagine Gillis has such prophetic talents, or that he ought to have.

So that leaves us with your other sentences -

Um, okay. Your opinion appears to differ from that of the other poster (who actually named those player names). You did read what *I* actually wrote, right? For example, the part about how those players "may possibly have been screwed over" - hint: I was only attempting to convey how the other poster's comment may have been misinterpreted...

That said, your opinion does also appears to differ from mine. I've less insight into the Mitchell situation (having not followed it at the time), but every reason to conclude that the likes of Naslund, Malholtra, Morrison, Hodgson and maybe Schneider in a sense, were, in their respective ways "screwed" by Gillis (btw, screwed" is actually the other poster's word, not the one I'd choose, but I guess we're going with it here).

I'm not certain what you mean by "strictly hockey related", but from the sentence that followed the whole of your comment reads like you figure it's possible to screw over a good player by trading him away? I'm inserting words there in my effort to guess why you see these two guys (the only ones from the list who were traded away) as possibly screwed over, and none of the others. Please clarify/correct me if you're in the mood.

For my own part, I don't base my conclusions strictly on the basis of whether or not a player as has "serious potential" or whether they're traded away either (that's the business after all), but rather on how the player in question has been, or appears to have been, treated all around.

Each one of those players, excluding Mitchell who I can't comment on, and Schneider, experienced the dubious opportunity of having Gillis deflect responsibility for his own "tough" decision onto them -

Gillis claimed that mgmt decided Naslund didn't want to re-sign with the Canucks, when Naslund said he didn't even get a call. Gillis claimed that mgmt decided Malholtra was a health risk to himself, when Malholtra (and presumably the doctors who gave him clearance to play the next two seasons after the injury) said that wasn't the case. Gillis claimed that mgmt decided Morrison wanted too much (after his tryout), when Morrison said that wasn't the case but in fact there was never even a conversation on the topic. Gillis claimed mgmt decided Hodgson wanted a trade, when Hodgson said he never asked for a trade and the trade was a total shock to him. Gillis must truly have ESP powers (or a crystal ball, after all), or he simply makes his "tough" decisions by arbitrarily decides what other people must be thinking rather than by giving them enough to respect to at least ask.

Going back to my so-called "ongoing character assassination of Gillis", whatever. I don't like the guy, mostly because of his own comments to the media when addressing questions that challenge his decisions. Making decisions isn't the problem, IMO anyway, nor is making the odd decision that only in retrospect might be questionable (he doesn't have the benefit of prophetic talents, after all ;-) ), or decisions that aren't popular (like trading Schneider, for one example). It's how he deflects fault onto the players for his decision that I see as being a 'screw over' tactic.

But also like i said elsewhere (MM thread) - "Gillis simply has a record of doing what GM's do - playing the numbers and rationalizing decisions in a way that protects their own butts first and foremost. It's rather a human thing to do too, and even I can't fault Gillis for being human."

So yeah, "character assassination", okay, whatever :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Retirement contract.

Noun

A contract in which a player who has already made millions from fulfilling a "regular" contract is offered a contarct that is extra lucrative due to years of exemplary service.

Synonym: Bad Business

With all due respect, the NHL is a business and no one deserves a retirement contract. Nazzy is a Canuck, his bloody jersey hangs in the rafters. The players change year after year, they come, they go, it's the team that is the only constant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He is playing here, agreed.

I remember in his exit interview him saying that he wants to be number one. I also remember him saying that we will wait and see what happens in the off season. It also sounded like he knew this was going to happen. Because he has class he never let on, I am sure Cory knew it was coming well before the draft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even though I tried to trade you for 15 months,let the media rip you apart,.let you sit at the end of the bench for most of the season despite being the superior goalie and instructed AV to hang you out to dry as often as possible to dump you and your contract.

Sorry for the ten times I told you that you were gone and Cory was #1.

Geez,I look like a doofus but I get paid millions and you are under contract to be my little slave thingy on ice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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