Mike Gillis Re: Canucks "We're Going to be all Right"; Aquilini "2014 Canucks are NOT the REAL Canucks"

[PhillipBlunt]

It's just a game.

[CanucksJay]

Nothing.

We have nothing to sell (pending ufa's), and a rental isn't going to put us over the top. Unless it's an actual trade, as opposed to a rental, there's no point in wasting assets this year. Just let it play out.

Little to nothing. Maybe a depth hockey trade to shore up some spots that don't touch our top prospect depth/picks. Player for player (my guess would be Weber and maybe a guy like Dalpe for an upgrade on 3/4C with Santo out)

Even if we're doing decently at the deadline I wouldn't be shocked at all to see us deal redundancy for prospects/picks (though IMO that likely happens more so in the summer).

Any of the following players can/will be shopped IMO this spring and/or summer:

Lu (if he still wants out), Hansen, Schroeder, Tanev and Weber (with Edler having an outside chance as well).

None of those guys (short of Lu and Edler) would net a huge return on their own but a team would pay handsomely for a package of Hansen, Schroeder and Tanev me thinks... and none of their current salaries are remotely prohibitive to the cap.

So the general concensus is DO NOTHING.

Do you think this will net better results next year? Our players turn one year older while our rivals get better yet you want to stand pat?

Ok so I guess we are not like the Flames because they bought when they shouldn't have.

But we dont want to sell either?

Schroeder, Hansen? You think that would get a decent return? No with those guys we will end up with either a 2nd rd pick (which we usually throw in the garbage) OR an equivalent 3rd or 4th liner...

How would you expect different results without changing anything?

If the plan is to let it play out and let our team fizzle for the next 3 years creeping up the draft picks yearly so we draft around 10ish this year, 6 next year and then 3 the following year, wouldn't it be better to speed up that transition if we know we are going to fizzle?

Or by chance do you think we will all of a sudden be contender for the cup next year? Because THAT should be the ultimate goal. Not a division title or a plauyoff spot. We want a team that has a legitimate shot at winning the cup

[DarthMelvin]

It's just a game.

Said no Canuck fan EVER! lol

[aGENT]

So the general concensus is DO NOTHING.

Do you think this will net better results next year? Our players turn one year older while our rivals get better yet you want to stand pat?

Ok so I guess we are not like the Flames because they bought when they shouldn't have.

But we dont want to sell either?

Schroeder, Hansen? You think that would get a decent return? No with those guys we will end up with either a 2nd rd pick (which we usually throw in the garbage) OR an equivalent 3rd or 4th liner...

How would you expect different results without changing anything?

If the plan is to let it play out and let our team fizzle for the next 3 years creeping up the draft picks yearly so we draft around 10ish this year, 6 next year and then 3 the following year, wouldn't it be better to speed up that transition if we know we are going to fizzle?

Or by chance do you think we will all of a sudden be contender for the cup next year? Because THAT should be the ultimate goal. Not a division title or a plauyoff spot. We want a team that has a legitimate shot at winning the cup

Nope, try reading my post again.

[dragon4401]

So the general concensus is DO NOTHING.

Do you think this will net better results next year? Our players turn one year older while our rivals get better yet you want to stand pat?

Ok so I guess we are not like the Flames because they bought when they shouldn't have.

But we dont want to sell either?

Schroeder, Hansen? You think that would get a decent return? No with those guys we will end up with either a 2nd rd pick (which we usually throw in the garbage) OR an equivalent 3rd or 4th liner...

How would you expect different results without changing anything?

If the plan is to let it play out and let our team fizzle for the next 3 years creeping up the draft picks yearly so we draft around 10ish this year, 6 next year and then 3 the following year, wouldn't it be better to speed up that transition if we know we are going to fizzle?

Or by chance do you think we will all of a sudden be contender for the cup next year? Because THAT should be the ultimate goal. Not a division title or a plauyoff spot. We want a team that has a legitimate shot at winning the cup

So instead of being the Flames we become the Oilers? All youth no vets? good plan

Your missing everybody's point of make minor moves not blow everything up and rebuild when we have good vets still

With prospects like Horvat, Shink, Jensen and Gaunce+ whoever we draft this year making a push for the big roster(not to forget many other prospects on defence) things look pretty damn good long term

[5minutesinthebox]

"2014 Canucks are NOT the REAL Canucks"

Gillis also said last year was not the real Canucks because it was a weird shortened season.

I know this season isn't over yet, but can two years really be called an anomaly?

Two years (Or techincally a year and three quarters) is quite a sizable sample size.

Given how our core players (and role players) remaining from previous seasons, played last season vs this season, they are completely different. Sedins, Burrows, Hansen, Edler, Hamhuis (offensively) are all contributing substantially below last season, (and last season was not a great one for us offensively.) I wonder how this team would be performing if they were contributing even at the same level?

Add the return of (uninjured) Kesler for the season, the additions of Santorelli, Richardson, Stanton, the inspired play of Tanev, Higgins playing at a high level.

So I did a quick tally. Using last years goal totals converted to the 60 games we have played (even only using games played for injury with Burrows and Edler) and minus them from this years.

D Sedin +2

H Sedin +5

Hansen +4

Burrows +8

Garrison +4

Hamhuis +1

Edler +2

This would give us a grand total of +26 in the goal department (not even counting the number of assists these players has which would substantially add to the goal number). That would put us at 7th place in goals for.

That would also be easily a 8 win, 16 points at minimum swing in our direction which again would put us in about 7th in the league.

[Mustapha]

Winning isn't dependant on scoring.

This must be the Canuck's locker room mantra, it's why they can't get more than 1 goal per game.

[Tr4ilerP4rk]

Its looking like we will need 15 wins out of the last 22 games to snag that 8th spot. Not looking very likely to happen. I would be willing to wager that Gillis is having a hard time sleeping at night and probably wakes up every hour sweating bullets.

A vote of confidence from ownership to the GM isn't necessarily a good thing for Gillis. Don't forget that is how he landed this job. Nonis was fired after the Canucks failed to make the playoffs. At the time, Aquilini said "missing the post-season was unacceptable in Vancouver" I am fairly certain that the same standards apply today.

[Monty]

Its looking like we will need 15 wins out of the last 22 games to snag that 8th spot. Not looking very likely to happen. I would be willing to wager that Gillis is having a hard time sleeping at night and probably wakes up every hour sweating bullets.

A vote of confidence from ownership to the GM isn't necessarily a good thing for Gillis. Don't forget that is how he landed this job. Nonis was fired after the Canucks failed to make the playoffs. At the time, Aquilini said "missing the post-season was unacceptable in Vancouver" I am fairly certain that the same standards apply today.

Difference: Gillis has had success managing Vancouver, Nonis did not.

[tas]

Difference: Gillis has had success managing Vancouver, Nonis did not.

nonis had 3 years to tear down an old core and build a new one with a ridiculously low salary cap. gillis has had 6 years to merely add to nonis's core with a salary cap that's nearly double.

[Tr4ilerP4rk]

Difference: Gillis has had success managing Vancouver, Nonis did not.

Say what? you mean with Nonis's roster maybe. I'm sorry but Gillis has far more critics in this city that Nonis ever did. Nonis didn't sign Luongo to the 12 year deal, he didn't extend the Sedins after they expired as top line players. He didn't trade the farm for Ballard and Booth, didn't sign Hamhuis, Garrison, Bieksa and Edler to NTC's He didn't balk at moving Edler to Detroit for that great package and he didn't wait too ???? long to trade Luongo. He also didn't crap the bed on the Schneider and Hodgson trades. Gillis did all of that.

I'm sorry man but you and I have different ideas of what success is.

[aGENT]

Say what? you mean with Nonis's roster maybe. I'm sorry but Gillis has far more critics in this city that Nonis ever did. Nonis didn't sign Luongo to the 12 year deal, he didn't extend the Sedins after they expired as top line players. He didn't trade the farm for Ballard and Booth, didn't sign Hamhuis, Garrison, Bieksa and Edler to NTC's He didn't balk at moving Edler to Detroit for that great package and he didn't wait too ???? long to trade Luongo. He also didn't crap the bed on the Schneider and Hodgson trades. Gillis did all of that.

I'm sorry man but you and I have different ideas of what success is.

A LOT of revisionist history there...

[Tr4ilerP4rk]

A LOT of revisionist history there...

Um that is how management in any business makes decisions moving forward.

[aGENT]

Um that is how management in any business makes decisions moving forward.

[DarthNinja]

nonis had 3 years to tear down an old core and build a new one with a ridiculously low salary cap. gillis has had 6 years to merely add to nonis's core with a salary cap that's nearly double.

But what you say is all relative. If the salary cap is low with Nonis then it is low for all other GM's as well. Same when the cap is double for Gillis. It also doubles for every other GM. Every team has the same amount of money they can spend.

[Santo]

Can't blame Gillis too much- he'd be fired immediately if he didn't say "things will be alright".

I think its obvious we are entering a rebuild phase. That being said, Gillis would impress me by sending our core packing, possibly for some younger prospects or draft picks.

Even one or two large trades could re-open our window for a season or two.

[CanucksJay]

So instead of being the Flames we become the Oilers? All youth no vets? good plan

Your missing everybody's point of make minor moves not blow everything up and rebuild when we have good vets still

With prospects like Horvat, Shink, Jensen and Gaunce+ whoever we draft this year making a push for the big roster(not to forget many other prospects on defence) things look pretty damn good long term

You are also missing the point.

Guys here are saying do nothing.

I'm saying do something that helps speed up the reboot..

It's not all or nothing. I'm not saying trade EVERYBODY.

I'm saying swap out some of our aging core with high trade value for younger players (not necessarily picks and prospects but guys on bridge contracts etc or decent contracts like Simmonds, B. Schenn, Nyquist, Tatar, etc) while keeping some others vets to help with the transition.

The stuff I read from some of you guys are pretty much do nothing and if we do do something, trade guys who have low value in the NHL... that our friends will not lead to improvement.

That is simply changing bodies on 3rd and 4th line when the problem is that our top 6 cant score when needed.

[dragon4401]

You are also missing the point.

Guys here are saying do nothing.

I'm saying do something that helps speed up the reboot..

It's not all or nothing. I'm not saying trade EVERYBODY.

I'm saying swap out some of our aging core with high trade value for younger players (not necessarily picks and prospects but guys on bridge contracts etc or decent contracts like Simmonds, B. Schenn, Nyquist, Tatar, etc) while keeping some others vets to help with the transition.

The stuff I read from some of you guys are pretty much do nothing and if we do do something, trade guys who have low value in the NHL... that our friends will not lead to improvement.

That is simply changing bodies on 3rd and 4th line when the problem is that our top 6 cant score when needed.

I do exactly that move Hansen at the deadline then look at bigger deals in the offseason...We aint trading the twins and Kesler is a #1 RW/ #2 Center behind Hank...If we grabbed a #2 center that takes the pressure off Kes to be the scoring RW we know he is...Not going all in and not going all out the middleground is the best course of action

[CanucksJay]

Nope, try reading my post again.

your words

"Little to nothing. Maybe a depth hockey trade to shore up some spots"

"Lu (if he still wants out), Hansen, Schroeder, Tanev and Weber (with Edler having an outside chance as well)."

haha we couldnt trade Lu last year so you think we would get better value this year? Also as much as I like Lack, you really want him to be our starter?

And you are the one whining about not wanting to trade our core? Sure keep our core and put in a rookie goalie. Sounds like a great plan.

Hansen, Schroeder, Weber? What have they ever done to think they could garner something decent?

So then, that really only leaves Tanev with decent value and an outside chance on Edler...

yep, no matter how you dice it, looks like the team will look the same next year according to your plans.

[CanucksJay]

I do exactly that move Hansen at the deadline then look at bigger deals in the offseason...We aint trading the twins and Kesler is a #1 RW/ #2 Center behind Hank...If we grabbed a #2 center that takes the pressure off Kes to be the scoring RW we know he is...Not going all in and not going all out the middleground is the best course of action

OK I definitely agree with this.

Sometimes I think people just argue for the sake of arguing. No where did i say blow it up and stockpile draft picks and prospects.

I'm saying recognize that this group AS IS will NOT win a cup and we should start moving out some valuable pieces that help us re-tool for another shot sooner than later.

For a team that is going to be 6-10th for the next 3 years, do we really need a D group of Hamhuis, Garrison, Bieksa, Edler, Tanev, Corrado, Stanton, Diaz and Weber?

I'm saying hold guys that are value players (good performance, cheap contract) like Tanev, Stanton, Diaz. Corrado. Keep 2 of the 4 high paid D like Hamhuis, Garrison Bieksa, Eder and get some immediate help up front with players that are just approaching their peak.

All this talk of trade Scroeder and Weber ,etc will not amount to crap.