Bure010 Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Someone else asked, and I'm still curious what your strategic position / intent would be if you had to make moves; This deadline? This Off season? off-season, no point in making a big move at the deadline this year. maybe if we were in better position. we're going to have to go on a godlike run post-olympic break to make the playoffs and nothing about this team over the past month and a bit is making me think that will happen. I know some people like to think we will and that's fine, but honestly other than blind faith what have you seen from this team since the beginning of january that makes you think we will? i would wait until the offseason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icycold Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Sounds like MG is smoking the reefer and blastin up the bob marley. No actually that would be the bi-polar CDC that are all top notch nhl general managers who know better than anyone about hockey. sadly some here aren't smart enough to figure out that no matter what the season turns out like we shouldn't trade anyone until the off season with new money so we can actually afford players we need and Gillis is right by standing pat and not losing big on a desperation sale that if failed would even make things much worse than they are now. But let's overlook that piece of reality shall we and scream.. "the sky is falling, get rid of everyone!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Honky Cat Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 off-season, no point in making a big move at the deadline this year. maybe if we were in better position. we're going to have to go on a godlike run post-olympic break to make the playoffs and nothing about this team over the past month and a bit is making me think that will happen. I know some people like to think we will and that's fine, but honestly other than blind faith what have you seen from this team since the beginning of january that makes you think we will? i would wait until the offseason You obviously wouldn't base anything on 2014 when you have your coach,best player and slew of your regular guys out of the lineup..no NHL team would be rolling along with that adversity...I do agree with your other points though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocksterh8 Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 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. Ummmm sorry to blow your bubble, but when your a millionaire you sleep very, very well as with everything else you do... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icycold Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 No one ever mentions that the Canucks have serious injury problems every year. This is due to a flaw in MG's team building logic. He has put a heavy emphasis on "smart" smallish players over bigger more stout players. How many "puck moving", otherwise known as soft and undersized, dmen can one team have? The fact that Booth is considered a power forward is ludicrously hilarious. This flaw has been most evident in the playoffs, but divisional realignment away from the softest, easiest division in hockey now spells disaster for the regular season as well. It's just another example of a highly praised, yet failed academic theory by Gillis. This organization has lost an entire generation of players due to his failed theories. That is why you don't hire a GM without any managerial experience. Hopefully next time Franny doesn't listen to the little birdies chirping in his ear and hires a competent GM instead of a friend of friends. Ok can you please bring to our attention the bigger smarter puck moving players we need that we could have afforded under the new cap that were available? Seriously i don't expect a answer since there were none so YOUR theory is falied! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.DirtyDangles Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 This guy actually got a thumbs up calling for the public execution of the press for what they wrote? Wow... The 1930's called, they want their rhetoric back. Yes because reporters and paparazzi are lower forms of life that deserve to play in traffic oh wait......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NucksCup2015 Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 I agree. People have to stop panicking. This team has pure talent. Just a nut job coach. umm...they are paid to perform...your so called pure talent and highest paid players on this team other than Henrik and Lou are playing like timbits hockey players, I am serious when I say I can play harder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bure010 Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 umm...they are paid to perform...your so called pure talent and highest paid players on this team other than Kesler and Lou are playing like timbits hockey players, I am serious when I say I can play harder fixed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canucklekassian Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Fire Gillis, trade Kassian back to Buffalo plus a draft pick and see if Buffalo would give us Hodgson back. I think we may have to sweeten the pot by throwing in Hansen. Ok Hansen and Kassian for Hodgson with an apology to all of BC and Canada from Arthur Grifiths (the only guy that could connect with the fans). WE will forgive and forget and maybe fire Torts and bring Linden in as coach. I think the bozo's we have as owners are more concerned in what table they have at the shark club at game night than who wins. We have seen the best, now we are at our worst. IT didn't happen with players, it happened with our gm and whoever else attached to the underside of his genitals like a flea widdling away key players that left us with a sack of hammers. We miss you Salo and Brian Burke ( the only one with balls in the organization to upset the rock the boat that has been sinking for some time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Geez you love bringing this up. If I was you I would go back and listen to his comments on 1040 the other day. He actually says that the Sedins are the only untradable pieces and many, many, NTC's have been traded before. He wouldn't committ to saying it outright because everyone twists words but the impression he clearly gave me was that if the landscape dictated it these could be moved one way or the other. Whether we as fans are not aware of a loophole or simply have misconstrued his statements I think it's time to let this rest. Unless of course you just love to inform everyone that this crappy team is etched in stone for the next 4 years. “It is a fluid business and there are circumstances where a player may choose to move on,” Gillis said on the TEAM 1040. ” Those discussions occur periodically and, no, I haven’t wavered on a basic principle that when we make a deal with somebody that we stick to it, so, no, I’m not wavering. “When I make a deal with somebody and they have requested and are granted a no-trade clause, we respect that. In the event a player came to us and asked if things could be changed, then we’ll listen to it.” However, Gillis says no player with a no-trade clause has come to him and asked to be moved. “When you ask players to sacrifice in terms of dollars, they like some measure of guarantee that their sacrifices will be rewarded. That’s how these clauses come about. “There are circumstances that are fluid. Teams trade players with no-trade clauses all the time. It’s part of doing business under this CBA. It’s part of trying to assemble a team and keeping it together. You have to make decisions on people that you believe are long-term people for your hockey club and that’s what we’ve done.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanucksJay Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 “Only a fool learns from his own mistakes. The wise man learns from the mistakes of others.” Otto von Bismarck Let's not do what Calgary did...prepare for the next new wave of Canuck forwards, time to retool/rebuild. ps the 'fool' in this scenario is Gillis This is precisely my point. People get in such a huffy on these boards sometimes. I am not saying our position is as dire as the Flames. I'm saying that there are a lot of resemblance and it would be prudent for MG to learn from the Flames' mistakes rather than to repeat it. We are in a critical position here that could determine the teams fate for the next 5+years. Better than slowly fizzling, I think canucks are in a good position to make a few key moves that could get us back into contention a lot faster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanucksJay Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 What a myth that is exceedingly easy to refute by looking at actual results. You need to actually have a look at what the Canucks record was outside the Northwest. I've posted summaries of how they handled the East, the Central and the Pacific a number of times. I can say this - they dominated virtually everyone the last three years. For example, the Central was the best division in hockey last year - the Canucks were 9-2 vs the Central - 11-6 the year before, and 13-6 the year before that. They were 22-11 vs the East the two years previous (did not play the east last year). 11-5, 11-6. They were 13-5 vs the Pacific in 2011, and 11-5 in 2012. They were 6-7 last year, in large part due to being winless against SJ, who they'd dominated to the cue of 10-3 the previous two years. So do the math. 33-14 vs the Central. 22-11 vs the East. 30-17 vs the Pacific. 85-42 against non-Northwest opponents. That's the equivalent 55 wins over 82 games three years running if the weak NW is taken out of the picture. The Canucks did not need to be in the Northwest - they were simply an elite team. I realize it's hard for folks like you to accept - you myth is popular, but one that doesn't hold a grain of sand. Lol right. No advantage at all being in the same division as 3 of the league's basement teams. So then here's a question with some new facts. If we were such an awesome team last year (and it had nothing to do our weak division as you state) how about this year? Look at our record with Calgary, Edmonton and then compare it to our record with the Pacific teams. Oh what kind of excuses will Old News have... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tas Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Lol right. No advantage at all being in the same division as 3 of the league's basement teams. So then here's a question with some new facts. If we were such an awesome team last year (and it had nothing to do our weak division as you state) how about this year? Look at our record with Calgary, Edmonton and then compare it to our record with the Pacific teams. Oh what kind of excuses will Old News have... anaheim and san Jose are better than they were and vancouver is worse. simple. the numbers don't lie - you're wrong. walk away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tas Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 and how come in the early-mid 2000s when the northwest was the toughest division in the league and the wings were walking all over the central with all four other teams (chicago, nashville, st. louis, columbus) being terrible, nobody threw an asterisk next to their banners because they played in a terrible division? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanucksJay Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 and how come in the early-mid 2000s when the northwest was the toughest division in the league and the wings were walking all over the central with all four other teams (chicago, nashville, st. louis, columbus) being terrible, nobody threw an asterisk next to their banners because they played in a terrible division? Who's putting asterisk on the canucks? Just because they benefited from being in an easy division doesn't equate to putting an asterisk around their season. I wish people wouldn't put words in other people's mouths and make it sound like fact. I will post a full analysis on how the canucks benefited from an easier division when I get some time to actually put some work into the post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 I brought up Ott only for context. I am aware it was no specific suggestion of yours. What team outside the play off race (sellers), have a Richardson / Santorelli calibre guy possibly on offer? Regarding Tanev / Top 6. I don't think Tanev has enough profile to attract a Top 6 forward either? Not a dynamic one anyway, no chance with Kane for example. Perhaps it might get one at a prospect level. But even then, and even though they want D, do you see Detroit giving us Tatar or Mantha, Boston Reilly Smith? I suppose its possible, but I still consider it a stretch. Tanev is a Tweener value wise, both in contract value and in ability to attract a return via trade. So I view him as a keeper. It's just my opinion, I could be off. I suppose it could be a bundle also? I myself suggested Gaunce, Hansen and a first for Kane, Booth added to balance cap. Tanev could replace one of those pieces. However, even then, we are only one injury away from really needing Tanev. Note, he was not first on my list in this particular suggestion. I guess I just like keeping Tanev? Firstly who says they have to be outside the playoff race? Maybe it's a team with some D injuries and 3rd/4th line centre depth? They need a cheap d-man for depth (Weber) and can sacrifice some quality of a 3C/4C (and even get one back in Dalpe). Maybe their guy's going UFA and they have no plans to re-sign him? Anyways...it doesn't matter as your looking for specifics with something I've clearly pointed out was not a specific proposal but was simply an illustration of likely trade levels. I agree Tanev is not likely to get you a "Kane" on his own. Maybe as part of a package. But I do think he has more value than you're giving him credit for. His ceiling is something comparable to Hamhuis and he's young, good, cheap and an RFA. All the reasons you (and I) would LOVE to keep him are precisely why he has value. Other GM's aren't stupid looking at that. He may not be well known league wide but I guarantee any organization with D needs is keenly aware of him. But straight up, yes I'd say he gets you something of a high-end prospect. A guy who is still in Jr./AHL but looks ready to make the step probably next year at least on the third line...basically another team's "Horvat". Not yet proven but very promising. Depending on the quality/ceiling of that prospect we may have to add a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Lol right. No advantage at all being in the same division as 3 of the league's basement teams. So then here's a question with some new facts. If we were such an awesome team last year (and it had nothing to do our weak division as you state) how about this year? Look at our record with Calgary, Edmonton and then compare it to our record with the Pacific teams. Oh what kind of excuses will Old News have... K CanucksJay. Try to keep up. Calgary and Edmonton are Pacific teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 K CanucksJay. Try to keep up. Calgary and Edmonton are Pacific teams. But this isn't an excuse. He was clearly demanding an excuse. regards, G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VMR Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Some of you guys are hilarious. You complain when Coaches/Management/Players don't say anything and when they do you still complain. Exactly what is it do you want to hear? "Hi I'm Mike Gillis and thanks to some fruit on CDC, we have decided to trade so an so to the Hawks for Jonathan Towes and I can't believe it but the Hawks GM said, sure - it was after all from a CDC member who knows way more about hockey than us GM's do". Way to funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Lol right. No advantage at all being in the same division as 3 of the league's basement teams. So then here's a question with some new facts. If we were such an awesome team last year (and it had nothing to do our weak division as you state) how about this year? Look at our record with Calgary, Edmonton and then compare it to our record with the Pacific teams. Oh what kind of excuses will Old News have... We play those weak teams from our former division one whole game less. We play Anaheim, SJ and LA one whole game more. But then we play Chicago, Detroit, and St Louis less. It kind of balances out. The real difference is instead of three teams getting a banner and guaranteed the top three playoff seeds, it's only two teams that get a banner and are guaranteed the top two seeds. People are making a far bigger deal out of the realignment than is warranted. Overall the number of games against stronger/weaker teams is basically the same. There will simply be much smaller chance ot "easy banners" to be had because only two are handed out in larger divisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.