Mike Gillis Should Stay

[RunningWild]

That wouldn't be a surprise. He went through a costly divorce and might want to circle the wagons, financially-speaking.

Ya, but it's a family owned business - so it'd be about the brothers/fathers interests as well.

Successful businessman sell at the top and this is what looks to be the worst year since the 90's:

GPG-28th in the league

PP%-27th in the league

Team shooting % -29th in the league

Not always. There are many reasons why you can't/won't sell high, esp when their are multiple parties involved (like with Aquilinis).

Not sure how much GPG, PP% etc have to do with the franchise valuation. Wasn't this franchise ranked #5 but Forbes as most financially successful NHL team this yr? I'd say that's selling high.

[tas]

Ya, but it's a family owned business - so it'd be about the brothers/fathers interests as well.

Not always. There are many reasons why you can't/won't sell high, esp when their are multiple parties involved (like with Aquilinis).

Not sure how much GPG, PP% etc have to do with the franchise valuation. Wasn't this franchise ranked #5 but Forbes as most financially successful NHL team this yr? I'd say that's selling high.

the aquilinis bought it for $250 mil and the most recent forbes valuation had it at $700 mil. with the way this team is going, that number will be going down instead of up.

a smart businessman would sell now.

[Dr. Hockey]

Did y'all just hear his interview on Team 1040? Finally a candid interview. And he admitted he's not sure if he will be here next year.

[ForsbergTheGreat]

I would argue that if you see the situations as completely different you lack the foresight to see what is coming. The only real difference between the two situations is where in the timeline the respective teams are. Calgary is obviously further in but if you look back at when it started going downhill for the Flames you will see striking resemblances to where the Canucks are now and have been sliding to for the last few years.

All the high price, declining production players who are on long deals with NTC are eerily similar to the roster Calgary had when they fell off a cliff. Yes, they hung on too long but what has Gillis done for the last 3 years other than hang onto the same core without really adding anyone significant? He is doing EXACTLY what Calgary has done. He just hasn't been doing it as long as Calgary has been.

The Canucks youth coming through is much better than it was (a testament to Gillis for sure) but is still massively overrated on CDC. Not every decent prospect we have is going to be an NHL regular next year or the year after.

I would argue the opposite. The only similarity is the Sedins age as compared to Iginla’s. That’s it, besides the fact that both teams Logos have a “C”. It’s been pointed out over and over on this board how vastly different the two teams are/were and the fact that people are bring up the same argument just shows how little foresight they really have. Quick, without looking it up team me an impact player that flames drafted in the first round from 1999-2012.

The flames problem is that they were never a top elite team. They had one miracle run where they finished 6^th in their conference and they felt they could do it again. They hit their peak in 2006 and gambled on that core, going all in, acquiring players to add the “missing pieces” they felt would put them over the top, Jokinen, Cammalleri. The gambled failed. And it cost the flames youth and picks, similar to what people on CDC call for Gillis to do. Flames tried failed. Calgary’s decline started 15 years ago with terrible drafting, long before Sutter’s final year, long before Feaster. Now take a look at was the canucks have down. The only assets we’ve traded in the last 3 years were expendables. Gillis has been quietly building up for the next core. It’s the reason why this team doesn’t have to go into full rebuild mode.

[sting]

Wow.

Gillis on 1040 moments ago.

Great interview.

Claims he is not chasing a moving target anymore.

Team needs to get back to up tempo puck possession hockey and anyone not on board will not be back.

Will sit down with Kesler and discuss future.

Seems confident that they can make a splash on free agency. ..will spend to cap.

Excited about Lack's and Kassian's future.

There is no way that both Gillis and Tortz will both be back unless Tortz changes his style.

The more I hear lately the more I hope Acquilini sells the team, Gillis hires Naslund and a coach that matches his style and vision

[wallstreetamigo]

I would argue the opposite. The only similarity is the Sedins age as compared to Iginla’s. That’s it, besides the fact that both teams Logos have a “C”. It’s been pointed out over and over on this board how vastly different the two teams are/were and the fact that people are bring up the same argument just shows how little foresight they really have. Quick, without looking it up team me an impact player that flames drafted in the first round from 1999-2012.

The flames problem is that they were never a top elite team. They had one miracle run where they finished 6^th in their conference and they felt they could do it again. They hit their peak in 2006 and gambled on that core, going all in, acquiring players to add the “missing pieces” they felt would put them over the top, Jokinen, Cammalleri. The gambled failed. And it cost the flames youth and picks, similar to what people on CDC call for Gillis to do. Flames tried failed. Calgary’s decline started 15 years ago with terrible drafting, long before Sutter’s final year, long before Feaster. Now take a look at was the canucks have down. The only assets we’ve traded in the last 3 years were expendables. Gillis has been quietly building up for the next core. It’s the reason why this team doesn’t have to go into full rebuild mode.

Let me see if I get what you are saying.

Calgary holding on to their core too long was wrong and did not work out so their GM's were idiots.

But Gillis holding on to the Canucks core and adding only supplementary pieces is a brilliant way to rebuild?

You are saying that the two teams are doing the exact same thing. The only thing that makes Gillis right is homerism.

Gillis may have only traded expendables but he also let some pretty important pieces of the team walk away for nothing without replacing them.

Lots of people look at best case scenario when it comes to Gillis and the Canucks. What if some or all of our top prospects don't turn out to be core NHL players? That is certainly a possibility.

[Bingo Chili]

Aquilini, butt out. Hire a GM you trust and leave everything for the GM to decide

[Metal Face Doom]

Typical Canucks nation. Wah wah wah. Mike Gillis is doing a decent job as gm. The team just needs a overhaul which I believe he can do.

Stop crying. Man up and be patient.

[ForsbergTheGreat]

Let me see if I get what you are saying.

Calgary holding on to their core too long was wrong and did not work out so their GM's were idiots.

But Gillis holding on to the Canucks core and adding only supplementary pieces is a brilliant way to rebuild?

You are saying that the two teams are doing the exact same thing. The only thing that makes Gillis right is homerism.

Gillis may have only traded expendables but he also let some pretty important pieces of the team walk away for nothing without replacing them.

Lots of people look at best case scenario when it comes to Gillis and the Canucks. What if some or all of our top prospects don't turn out to be core NHL players? That is certainly a possibility.

Calgary didn't just hold on to their core, they tried to add to it, costing them youth and picks. Calgary's core was never considered elite, hence the 5 playoff apperances in 15 years.

But again thats not even the main point but the only thing you take out of that. Selective reading....

The main demise of clagary that you evidently failed to even look at is the fact that Calgary has landed only one single impact player in 15 years of drafting in their first round (multiple pick in the top 10). That player they traded away and now they are left with a 3^rd line center as a result. It’s hard to build a team when you have little assets being generated within your own organization. They haven’t been good at drafting nor have they been able to pick up undrafted talent, add that to the fact that Calgary is not a hot spot for UFA’s to sign. You are then left with an old team and zero left in reserve.

Calgary was simply a poorly run organization, you have to fill up the tank at some point before it eventually will run out. Calgary didn’t have a backup plan to what life after Iggy would be like (unless they thought Jankowski was their saviour).

Kipper is the best example of not planning for the future, they knew he was going to retire but instead of going out and looking for a goaltender to learn and develop under kipper they went out and picked up a washed back up in Mcdonald. Canucks now have 3 goalies to fight for that number 1 spot over the next 3 years and lack who’s been learning from one of the best, this year.

Canucks probably could have got more in terms of trading Cory, say a current scorer who’s at the tail end of his prime, but what Gillis do, refilled his tank in one of the deepest drafts,. not just adding on that "missing piece" which everyone seems to thing will put this team over the top. Canucks were rumoured to trade a first/Horvat for a Ladd type player. Would canucks have made the playoffs, sure but we'd also hurt our future. Flames didn't care about their future they wanted playoffs at any cost.

The first year the flames missed the playoffs, how many players under 25 did they have? Until 2012 when they drafted Baertschi they had no one in there system who had any sort of promise. That’s 3 years of missed playoffs and zero youth in stock and zero youth in their lineup. Canucks are going to be year one in missing playoffs and already have young players making an impact in the NHL, and young players at the top of their current leagues. Even if your opinion of them isn’t very high they are still miles ahead of what flames had at that time. They don't all have to turn out to be NHL regulars but its not a stretch to think 1 or 2 picks exceeds everyones expectations and turns out to be a real bright spot for this teams future.

But wait your smarter than that, you take the Sedins age with their decline in production and the canucks/flames cup run and draw conclusions. Ignore the fact the canucks were back to back president trophy winners. Ignore the fact that canucks have youth currently in their lineup, Ignore the fact that canucks have 10x the better prospect pool than the flames their first missed playoffs. Ignore the fact that our winning team was built within the last 15 years through our own drafting and player development. Ignore the fact that we have assets to move if need be.

Like I said both canucks and flames have a “C” in their crest you might want to use that as a statement of how canucks will inevitably become the flames.

You bring those statements (your opinions) without any sort of factual evidence to back up the “full extent” of your claim (Calgary’s real underlying root of their collapse), and spew it off as it’s supposed to mean something. The only people you will convince are the people who are as clueless as yourself. And Toronto fans, they will believe anything that puts down the canucks.

Now I’ve seen oldnews post countless times the full extent of the flames situation and then you ignore the cold hard facts and continue rambling on just goes that you don’t have an actually rebuttal to the facts, so instead of admitting defeat, you change topic of just reword what you’ve already been saying. It starts to get a bit redundant.

It’s not even worth debating about because it’s the same old, same old, each time.

Wallstreet: “Mortal combat is the best”

Oldnews:“Actually gross sales and all games review show that donkey Kong is the best game ever”

Wallstreet: “Donkey Kong sucks, Mortal combat is better”

Oldnews: “While mortal combat does good at….Donkey Kong is better because (fact, fact, fact)”

Two days later…

Wallstreet: Mortal combat is the best

[Red Light Racicot]

Recent stretch...?...since the Schneider /Horvat deal, I think Gillis has done a decent job.

I suppose Santorelli was a fantastic signing. Im certainly not arguing that he hasnt made some good decisions. It just hasnt been near enough in helping the team stay competitive.

If you compare this team to the one three years ago or even last season and say Gillis has done a decent job over that stretch, its confusing to me.

[RunningWild]

the aquilinis bought it for $250 mil and the most recent forbes valuation had it at $700 mil. with the way this team is going, that number will be going down instead of up.

a smart businessman would sell now.

Ya, should be interesting. Good and bad of a potential new owner. They say the grass is always greener *****

But I'm really not sure what's worse, a owner who's calling all the shots (Aquilini) or one who won't spend to the cap.

[Nino]

Ya, should be interesting. Good and bad of a potential new owner. They say the grass is always greener *****

But I'm really not sure what's worse, a owner who's calling all the shots (Aquilini) or one who won't spend to the cap.

.

I would think that any new owner coming into Vancouver would be willing to spend to the cap, it's a hockey hotbed they would be publicly hung if they weren't. Any owner willing to by the team here for the amount it would cost would have to be willing to go all in.

[oldnews]

I would argue that if you see the situations as completely different you lack the foresight to see what is coming. The only real difference between the two situations is where in the timeline the respective teams are. Calgary is obviously further in but if you look back at when it started going downhill for the Flames you will see striking resemblances to where the Canucks are now and have been sliding to for the last few years.

All the high price, declining production players who are on long deals with NTC are eerily similar to the roster Calgary had when they fell off a cliff. Yes, they hung on too long but what has Gillis done for the last 3 years other than hang onto the same core without really adding anyone significant? He is doing EXACTLY what Calgary has done. He just hasn't been doing it as long as Calgary has been.

The Canucks youth coming through is much better than it was (a testament to Gillis for sure) but is still massively overrated on CDC. Not every decent prospect we have is going to be an NHL regular next year or the year after.

You're getting carried away there Amigo.

The Flames Cup run was in 2004. A full five years later they still did not have any talent whatsoever on their roster under the age of 25. Here's their 2009 roster.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/CGY/2010.html

Backlund, Dawes, and Phaneuf at 24 whom they dealt midway.

The Canucks have Kassian, Tanev, Stanton, Markstrom, Jensen, Schroeder, Corrado, Dalpe, and the likes of Horvat, Gaunce, Shinkaruk etc in their system. To put it in perspective, Backlund just topped the 25 point mark for the first time in his career this year.

Added to that fact, here's the Calgary Flames prospect pool five years after their Cup run in 2009:

Lance Bouma

Brett Palin

Keith Aullie

Greg Nemisz

Ryley Grantham

Kris Chucko

John Negrin

TJ Brodie

Jason Jaffray

Anton Stralman

John Armstrong

Cam Cunning

Gaelen Patterson

Michael Backlund

Spencer Bennett

Hugo Carpentier

Brad Cole

Carsen Germyn

Kyle Greentree

Ryan Howse

Josh Myers

Leland Irving

Garth Murray

David Van der Gulik

J.D Watt

David Shantz

Matt Keetley

Daniel Spence

Four full years later they finally stopped buying at the deadline trying to prop up a core that hadn't made the playoffs through that entire stretch.

Wallstreet - forgetting the absolute different states of their systems and prospects, and the huge difference in timelines, this point alone puts to rest your claim that "He is doing EXACTLY what Calgary has done." Gillis just dealt Luongo at the deadline - that would be the equivalent of Calgary having moved Kiprusoff in 2006. If the Canucks had been and continued to sell off their futures, and did so until 2018/19, we'd have the real makings of an analogy.

That is the Flames timeline - from 2004 to 2013, with no youth and selling assets to buy playoff pipe dreams until there was scarcely any value left in their core. The Canucks are two years removed from 2011 - their 2004 - light years ahead of them in terms of futures in their system, and seven years ahead of them in terms of having already moved one of their core players. No trade clauses to core players do not suffice to make this analogy hold water. Players with ntcs are dealt all the time. It's also arguable that Luongo brought a comparable return in Matthias and Markstrom than Iginla did in the 28th overall pick, Hanowski and Agostino.

They waited so long that Kiprusoff retired before they could even rent him for a mid round pick.

Iginla, their franchise player - they got a late pick and b prospects for him.

It makes for good dramatics, but it's actually an extreme embellishment and very weak analogy when you put it in context.

[Green Building]

You're getting carried away there

I like this post very much. I may disagree with the occasional thing you write oldnews, but this surely isn't one of them.

[D-Money]

The problem was that the NHLPA and Owners all agreed to a new contract re-designing what those contracts meant to the league. It's borderline illegal. In most businesses you can't just restructure the rules on existing contracts. However, the NHL is a monopoly so they could do it.

You can't compare the NHL to most businesses. It operates as a closed system with many rules/procedures that would be illegal in a regular business environment, in order to foster competition and parity.

For instance, regular businesses can't draft employees and hold their rights. They can't institute a salary cap. They can't legally prevent their employees from even speaking to a competitor about potential future contacts.

So if the NHL wants to impose a penalty on teams that circumvent the salary cap, and the members agree and sign the CBA, then there is nothing illegal about it.

[tas]

i've been one of gillis's harshest critics, but his interview yesterday tempered some of that for me.

it seems obvious to me now that the change in philosophy from fast and skilled to big and gritty was the result of media chatter getting in the head of ownership. i always resented gillis for giving up on that obviously superior strategy due to one game 7 stanley cup final loss. i felt like it demonstrated a lack of will and constitution. now i don't think it was his doing at all, along with the obviously undermining tortorella hire.

the guy still has his warts, no question, with bad drafting, trades and signings. but i'm prepared to give him a shot at redemption.

[aGENT]

the guy still has his warts, no question, with bad drafting, trades and signings. but i'm prepared to give him a shot at redemption.

His drafting has been at least "good", his trades at least above average and signing... he's one of the best in the league. WTF?!?

[Nino]

His drafting has been at least "good", his trades at least above average and signing... he's one of the best in the league. WTF?!?

His drafting I don't think is as bad as a lot of people think it has been but his inability to get trades done and the trade history he has is clearly not good. You could say he's done a good job of singing players but look at all the no trades he's handed out like candy.... It's handcuffed the teams ability to make the trades we need.

Oh and by the way I was given a 24 hour ban last year for using the last abbreviation you used there, I'd be careful what words you use.

[aGENT]

His drafting I don't think is as bad as a lot of people think it has been but his inability to get trades done and the trade history he has is clearly not good. You could say he's done a good job of singing players but look at all the no trades he's handed out like candy.... It's handcuffed the teams ability to make the trades we need.

Oh and by the way I was given a 24 hour ban last year for using the last abbreviation you used there, I'd be careful what words you use.

His drafting is miles better than many people on here seem to think. How this silly sentiment even persists is a mystery.

His trade history only seems to be negative to people who where short sighted (Hodgson/Kassian) or seem to have an over inflated sense of value for our players value(Schneider, Luongo, Samuelsson etc).

As has been discussed many times, NTC's are comparable to a lot of other teams in the league. They also allowed us to sign numerous players for under market value. They're also largely to players I'd rather not move anyway. At worst this is a wash (we lose some asset liquidity but gain cap/value).

Didn't know that...seen that same acronym on here elsewhere lots but I'll keep it in mind

[Tearloch7]

_{Mike Gillis is hands down the greatest GM in the history of all professional sports. In fact, I would even go as far to say that Gillis is the greatest manager of people and assets there has ever been. This man is a bloody saint.....love him. If they cure cancer, it will be because of him.}

We all think you to be a swell fellow too.