xereau Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 I think Mike "The Process" Gillis meant: a. see b. b. old moves. Vinnie Prospal you are our only hope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gradin-23 Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 True, but he is under fire about words he said years ago. (context is worth mention) More than worth mention, it should be mandatory reading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chalky Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 one fluke run to the SCF in 6 years. we're no different than the 04 flames and the 06 oilers. all his talk about bold moves and changing the history of this team has amounted to nothing. it will take decades for his successor to clean up his mess. Minus 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 True, but he is under fire about words he said years ago. (context is worth mention) I agree with this. I don't know if it's in the context you mean it, but making a statement in a different climate 5-6 years ago doesn't mean he should be held to statement every year thereafter. It's not the same NHL it was then, and we aren't in the same position now either. EDIT: I think we're arguing similar things for the most part. This isn't a new topic, and even in this thread I've discussed a lot of the concerns people have to show how they aren't really concerns. Could this team look to improve? Absolutely. How that happens is a tougher question, and Gillis is better equipped than a lot of the previous GMs we've had to deal with it. There are certainly worse options out there right now even (people suggesting we just hire Linden and it'll automatically be better? c'mon...) and while Gillis did a very good job while things were on the upswing, we'll have to see how capable he is at dealing with the downswing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salmonberries Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 Forgive the redundancy, but again, "this year" is not the sample size that prompted this thread title. You will find little opposition to newspaper-facts cited here concerning our CURRENT state. The way we got here might be more fun to discuss. Gillis thought bold moves were inorder when he took over a dissapointing team. Defining the word BOLD should be the next thread on the subject. 'Bold' doesn't necessarily equate with 'good,' though does it? For example, I thought the twelve year anchor contract and captaincy to Luongo was a 'bold' move. Stupid, sure, but definitely bold. I find a careful and calculated approach more desirable in my GM than a bold approach. Wise moves, not necessary bold moves, will get us where we all want to be. And focusing on a six year old soundbite strikes me as rather petty, mean spirited, you know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peaches5 Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 'Bold' doesn't necessarily equate with 'good,' though does it? For example, I thought the twelve year anchor contract and captaincy to Luongo was a 'bold' move. Stupid, sure, but definitely bold. I find a careful and calculated approach more desirable in my GM than a bold approach. Wise moves, not necessary bold moves, will get us where we all want to be. And focusing on a six year old soundbite strikes me as rather petty, mean spirited, you know. Bold would be 20 million for Sundin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salmonberries Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 What would really impress me would be if Gillis had the gumption to tell the truth about the current state of the team; that is that we're currently an aging, mid-level team in serious need of retooling with some good drafts and careful, conservative player development so that we don't wind up bottoming Alberta style. A little bit of truth-telling, to the owners and the fan base, would elevate Gillis to near rock star status with me. But I'm not holding my breath. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peaches5 Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 It's a tough world and someone in Gillis's position gets paid to make things happen, not produce reasons why things haven't happend/. Gillis has had 3 years since the SCF run to make moves to improve this team and the opposite has happened. During that same time-fram Chicago was able to re-build and win a cup and most of the western teams were able to make moves that have made them all much better than three years ago. This is a results business and excuses don't cut it. Gillis has failed to read the signs effectively and has painted the organization and himself into a corner. The buck stops with Gillis for what we are seeing on the ice and have seen in the last 2 years of early, embarrassing exits in the playoffs. Chicago never traded away any of their core and they have a great core that is very young and much better than Vancouver's. On top of that the NHL gave them a gift when they were able to "loan" Huet out to a european team so they wouldn't have his horrid 5 million dollar cap hit and then the NHL gave the Black Hawks another gift with the Hossa deal when it should of been voided and they should of been fined and had draft picks taken but it didn't even get investigated until the after they won the stanley cup and Luongo was signed to his long term deal which is no where near as bad Hossa's. What I mean by bad is Hossa's contract starts at 7.9 million and continues to pay him that for 7 years and then after that it drops to 4 million for 1 year and after it drops to 1 million for 4 more years. There are 5 clear years on his contract that are not meant to be played and are purely there to bring down his overall cap hit which should be 7.9. If the league would of done what it did to NJ to Chicago, like it should of, Luongo wouldn't have his horrible contract; he would likely be getting 5.5 to 7 million a year. They didn't though because punishing chicago, one of its poster boys, would of ruined its image and likely prevented them from winning any of their cups of late. What MG should of done that many people here are completely against, they believe that a player needs to stay with an organization for life regardless of whether he is an all star or not, is trade away the core he didn't draft and get younger players back and rebuild a team of his vision on the fly. What he did instead was play it very safe and try to keep all the players happy and give them whatever they asked for and only asked they signed at a reduce cap hit in return. Kesler had an unbelievable season that he will never replicate again MG should of seen that and traded him that summer and gotten a kings ransom for him. I remember that summer there was huge talks about Corey Perry being traded and the way Kesler played that year a Kesler for Perry trade would of been very plausible and he is the perfect player for the Sedins. MG then should of traded Burrows who had a very cap friendly contract and has hugely inflated stats due to the Sedins so he could of gotten a pretty decent return. I can go on and on but I've made my point and now that MG has handed out all his NTC's to undeserving players he can virtually do nothing but watch the team fail and then wait some more for players to ask to be traded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hsedin33 Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 What would really impress me would be if Gillis had the gumption to tell the truth about the current state of the team; that is that we're currently an aging, mid-level team in serious need of retooling with some good drafts and careful, conservative player development so that we don't wind up bottoming Alberta style. A little bit of truth-telling, to the owners and the fan base, would elevate Gillis to near rock star status with me. But I'm not holding my breath. It would not impress me much at this point, it's his whole mindset that is the problem. Continuously looking for moneyball players has given this team nothing but third liners, its like he is scared to make any sort of trade or risk. He has dulled this team down to where its painful to watch, even worse is most of these players took a pay cut to stay here long term, with all the extra savings, what did he do? Nothing, absolutely nothing. Not to mention the players probably get analysed to death through the management's intense stat hoarding. Nothing destroys creativity more then control and intense over-analysis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morrissex95 Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 Trading young players would absolutely destroy this team. We need to deal in roster players and right now there aren't many players to move. The value of Edler, Burrows and Bieksa has absolutely tanked, we needed to get good value for those guys in the offseason. Dreger reported that there was a lot of interest in Edler and Burrows, with some intermittent interest from Eastern Conference teams in Bieksa. Mike Gillis should've kept Keith Ballard and thrown him out there with Chris Tanev. I don't think Gillis is in over his head, I think he believes that we're still a playoff team, that we can squeak in, get bounced in the 1st round and reload in the offseason Detroit style. There's no need to sacrifice young talent for older roster players when we can just wait to spend our cap space on those same players in the offseason. Either we win the cup next season or we become a playoff bubble team until young players start to take over the offence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peaches5 Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 Trading young players would absolutely destroy this team. We need to deal in roster players and right now there aren't many players to move. The value of Edler, Burrows and Bieksa has absolutely tanked, we needed to get good value for those guys in the offseason. Dreger reported that there was a lot of interest in Edler and Burrows, with some intermittent interest from Eastern Conference teams in Bieksa. Mike Gillis should've kept Keith Ballard and thrown him out there with Chris Tanev. I don't think Gillis is in over his head, I think he believes that we're still a playoff team, that we can squeak in, get bounced in the 1st round and reload in the offseason Detroit style. There's no need to sacrifice young talent for older roster players when we can just wait to spend our cap space on those same players in the offseason. Either we win the cup next season or we become a playoff bubble team until young players start to take over the offence. Those players are going no where you know why because they have FULL NTC's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mispelled Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 Gillis is keeping the team competitive and profitable. He is not building a winner. As long as the dollars are pouring in, nothing will change. I have watched the slow decay of the skill and once called for some muscle to insulate the skill with. It was too late when the roster finally was tough enough to max out the crest of career years being had by many Canucks. Since then, we have watched the changes come behind the trends of physicality and size. We have watched the Sedins get B-slaped and our push back to include such antics as biting, hair-pulling and face-making. Currently, we have the muscle, but employ a system that does not finish checks with Torts. Torts is also dismantling the roster one blocked-shot at a time. Forcing the Sedins to play a complete game has them retarding in every stat. On a positive note, a fluke, perhaps, Luongo is focused and dertermined despite Gillis's blunders, on all things, Lu. The roster is doomed to be injured with the small defense exploited nightly and the top 6 playing 90% of the game, blocking shots. The future is not a bright one, unless you think that the farm has top line skill to replace the crippled, aged, skilled core. If so, you'd be mistaken. The writing is on the wall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mispelled Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 'Bold' doesn't necessarily equate with 'good,' though does it? For example, I thought the twelve year anchor contract and captaincy to Luongo was a 'bold' move. Stupid, sure, but definitely bold. I find a careful and calculated approach more desirable in my GM than a bold approach. Wise moves, not necessary bold moves, will get us where we all want to be. And focusing on a six year old soundbite strikes me as rather petty, mean spirited, you know. Mean spirited? Okay, so... If I moved to manage a new business and the very premise of my business direction hinged on my statements, that I would deliver "bold moves", where they, in contrast, must be lacking, and proceeded to deliver very little in ways to change the culture or resourses; to change organizational behavior, would that be cited as a mere sound-bite? No. In the real world, where I work, there is a thing called accountability. Our words try to, but our actions, most definately, define us. Also, when delivering a quasi-mission statement like he did, it should be a measurable absolute, not an internet debate on cdc, years later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Provost Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 Yep... I can't believe Gillis has missed out on all those blockbuster trades that have been made this season.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoneypuckOverlord Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 how many times have we made a deep run since gillis got here and we were only shot away from a first round elimination on that occasion. so much for the Detroit model he said he would bring here. how many deep runs did Dave Nonis or let alone Brian Burke have? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoneypuckOverlord Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 the problem is, these monkeys on Canucks.com are attacking Mike Gillis for not making a bold move, but they a lot are refusing to give up anything to get one. A bold move will be Horvat OR Shinkaruk along with 1st round pick, and a good roster out of our roster for a star player. At least. But most of us are unwilling to give up Or Horvat or Shinkaruk, I do not want to give those guys up, that said' Im not the one whinning for a bold move. You want bold move? Then your Arm chair trade offers better include a Shinkaruk and a Horvat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoneypuckOverlord Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 Gillis is keeping the team competitive and profitable. He is not building a winner. As long as the dollars are pouring in, nothing will change. I have watched the slow decay of the skill and once called for some muscle to insulate the skill with. It was too late when the roster finally was tough enough to max out the crest of career years being had by many Canucks. Since then, we have watched the changes come behind the trends of physicality and size. We have watched the Sedins get B-slaped and our push back to include such antics as biting, hair-pulling and face-making. Currently, we have the muscle, but employ a system that does not finish checks with Torts. Torts is also dismantling the roster one blocked-shot at a time. Forcing the Sedins to play a complete game has them retarding in every stat. On a positive note, a fluke, perhaps, Luongo is focused and dertermined despite Gillis's blunders, on all things, Lu. The roster is doomed to be injured with the small defense exploited nightly and the top 6 playing 90% of the game, blocking shots. The future is not a bright one, unless you think that the farm has top line skill to replace the crippled, aged, skilled core. If so, you'd be mistaken. The writing is on the wall. Wrong. MIke Gillis is buying time, and is hoping the "right" player comes a long. A good gm will be patient, thank god you guys are gm's of the Vancouver Canucks! "Bold bold moves! It will cost ya? What????? NO WAAAAAAY. Fire mike Gillis for not convincing other gm to give us their all star for our 7th round pick!" Sincerely Clown on Canucks.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dogbyte Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 It would not impress me much at this point, it's his whole mindset that is the problem. Continuously looking for moneyball players has given this team nothing but third liners, its like he is scared to make any sort of trade or risk. He has dulled this team down to where its painful to watch, even worse is most of these players took a pay cut to stay here long term, with all the extra savings, what did he do? Nothing, absolutely nothing. Not to mention the players probably get analysed to death through the management's intense stat hoarding. Nothing destroys creativity more then control and intense over-analysis. Money, I've been trying to point this out for awhile. The guy can't do anyting unless it's a good deal. Like he's some kind of super garage sailer, or Wal-Mart shopper. It's really not as complicated as he makes it out to be. You get a certain amount of money, you assemble the best team you can, not the best team for your buck. Hey asswipe you get $70m a year you don't have to be a cheap funk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mispelled Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 Wrong. MIke Gillis is buying time, and is hoping the "right" player comes a long. A good gm will be patient, thank god you guys are gm's of the Vancouver Canucks! "Bold bold moves! It will cost ya? What????? NO WAAAAAAY. Fire mike Gillis for not convincing other gm to give us their all star for our 7th round pick!" Sincerely Clown on Canucks.com Great delivery! Are you a fine arts student, by chance? Drama, I'm guessing.*I look at the body of work. I don't see a trade helping this team this year. I can't see how they can get that impact player without giving up the future. We've missed the window. That window included the pre-NTC hand-cuffing, as it were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonMexico Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 He said the words 'bold and agressive' over 5 years ago. Get over it. It doesn't have to apply to every single trade/signing from that point forward. Talk about taking something completely out of context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.