Mike Gillis Should Stay

[aGENT]

I simply said that Gillis is showing me that he is at least as much a part of the problem. I had always been relatively neutral about Gillis before the last few years actually. But the past few years has really shaken any faith I have in him as our GM.

This, I think, is the crux of the divide between the anti-Gilis folks and the pro-Gillis (or indifferent) folks.

What I think is missing from the "anti" crowd's view is the context of what's happened outside of MG's control the last couple years. Things like the lockout, new CBA (with retroactive Luongo contract punishment and shrinking cap), Booth's injuries, the level of media interference during "goalie-gate" etc, etc...

There's a lot of things that no GM could/would have entirely foreseen that he had to react to. And hard decisions they would have had to make the same/similar moves that people want to crucify him for. It's classic "the grass is always greener".

I also find it laughable when they try to directly compare GM's of other teams to him/the Canucks. I'm sorry but what GM "X" did in Chicago/Boston/St. Louis etc isn't terribly applicable. They all have different aged cores, prospect pools, expiring/value contracts etc, etc. The only way you should be comparing them is by asking what would GM "X" have done in Vancouver. Personally I think the differences would be a lot smaller than the anti-crowd would care to admit.

[oldnews]

LOL.

nah, they are just passionate in their support for Gillis. I am cool with that. Of course, they seem to think I am an idiot and wrong all the time so its a good thing I don't offend easily.....lol

I think you're getting carried away with generalizations - and as for not offending easily, I think you're also the person who objected to how you were being treated here - I think the treatment you're getting is actually kind of mild compared to some of the arguments that take place on these boards.

Anyway, regarding your assessment of Tortorella and your reassessment of AV, I think they were fairly level-headed. Now, if only you could achieve that where MG is concerned hahaha. I like some of what Tort's has done, but I do have some issues with the way he has handled a few players, the way he has structured the lineup, and some of his systems decisions - but I also think he might be capable of improving in those areas and don't think he's necessarily run the course yet.

[SamJamIam]

This, I think, is the crux of the divide between the anti-Gilis folks and the pro-Gillis (or indifferent) folks.

What I think is missing from the "anti" crowd's view is the context of what's happened outside of MG's control the last couple years. Things like the lockout, new CBA (with retroactive Luongo contract punishment and shrinking cap), Booth's injuries, the level of media interference during "goalie-gate" etc, etc...

There's a lot of things that no GM could/would have entirely foreseen that he had to react to. And hard decisions they would have had to make the same/similar moves that people want to crucify him for. It's classic "the grass is always greener".

I also find it laughable when they try to directly compare GM's of other teams to him/the Canucks. I'm sorry but what GM "X" did in Chicago/Boston/St. Louis etc isn't terribly applicable. They all have different aged cores, prospect pools, expiring/value contracts etc, etc. The only way you should be comparing them is by asking what would GM "X" have done in Vancouver. Personally I think the differences would be a lot smaller than the anti-crowd would care to admit.

Very well said.

[BureisBest]

I simply can't get past Gillis' biggest mistake, which was trading Cory Schneider for peanuts.

This to me this was an absolute bomb of a move, that has the potential to set us back for 5 years or more, while it set New Jersey up for the next decade (just look at Edmonton who is still searching for a #1 goalie).

Here's why it was such a colossal failure:
- Schneider was developed patiently and pretty much perfectly for 6 years by our organization.

- That type of time and investment is not easy to re-create.
- He is still only 28 years old and puts up some of the best numbers in the NHL.
- We got a (barely) top-10 pick for him.

- I like Horvat and hope he can be a top-6 centre, but he's a prospect. Schneider is a blue chip asset just entering his prime.

- Now we are in a position for the forseeable future where we "hope" Lack can take us there and get hot at the right time.

If we aren't careful, we will turn into the Edmonton Oilers, a veteran group that ages out of form, is replaced by young prospects, and has no goaltending, leaving the organization and fan base hoping that a young core can lift the team back up again. A lot harder to do without the pillar of strength of a Cory Schneider between the pipes.

[aGENT]

I simply can't get past Gillis' biggest mistake, which was trading Cory Schneider for peanuts.

This to me this was an absolute bomb of a move, that has the potential to set us back for 5 years or more, while it set New Jersey up for the next decade (just look at Edmonton who is still searching for a #1 goalie).

Here's why it was such a colossal failure:

- Schneider was developed patiently and pretty much perfectly for 6 years by our organization.

- That type of time and investment is not easy to re-create.

- He is still only 28 years old and puts up some of the best numbers in the NHL.

- We got a (barely) top-10 pick for him.

- I like Horvat and hope he can be a top-6 centre, but he's a prospect. Schneider is a blue chip asset just entering his prime.

- Now we are in a position for the forseeable future where we "hope" Lack can take us there and get hot at the right time.

If we aren't careful, we will turn into the Edmonton Oilers, a veteran group that ages out of form, is replaced by young prospects, and has no goaltending, leaving the organization and fan base hoping that a young core can lift the team back up again. A lot harder to do without the pillar of strength of a Cory Schneider between the pipes.

This, I think, is the crux of the divide between the anti-Gilis folks and the pro-Gillis (or indifferent) folks.

What I think is missing from the "anti" crowd's view is the context of what's happened outside of MG's control the last couple years. Things like the lockout, new CBA (with retroactive Luongo contract punishment and shrinking cap), Booth's injuries, the level of media interference during "goalie-gate" etc, etc...

There's a lot of things that no GM could/would have entirely foreseen that he had to react to. And hard decisions they would have had to make the same/similar moves that people want to crucify him for. It's classic "the grass is always greener".

I also find it laughable when they try to directly compare GM's of other teams to him/the Canucks. I'm sorry but what GM "X" did in Chicago/Boston/St. Louis etc isn't terribly applicable. They all have different aged cores, prospect pools, expiring/value contracts etc, etc. The only way you should be comparing them is by asking what would GM "X" have done in Vancouver. Personally I think the differences would be a lot smaller than the anti-crowd would care to admit.

[SamJamIam]

Yeah, your post is pretty much the /thread haha

[aqua59]

The thing is, and like MG has said, to get players to sign in VAN for less, and many of whom are looking out for their families interests, a NTC is negotiated. It is a sign of respect, and to play hardball with players you want to keep on the team just builds poor relationships. Heck, most of the players whom have NTC's are the core group who got VAN to the Stanley Cup finals. MG was trying to solidify a core group, and for someone in the trenches actually doing the work, negotiating with players and agents, I don't think he did anything that out of the ordinary.

Of course, this abysmal season by CDC standards throws all of that into question, but I think people will quickly forget if the Canucks bounce back and have a great run next year.

I understand what you're saying regarding Gillis and his NTC. It reeks of unionism when I hear family interests or job security. We've seen how NTC can hold an organization down, not just Vancouver but all of them. For the length of a players career and the money they make I feel the NTC should be banned completely. Playing in the NHL is a privilege not a right that is different than any other regular job. Sure these people earned it with hard work and sweat as did I earning a solid degree that will take care of my family's future. The reality of it is there is no job security. Every one wants security with their risk.

I just think NTC are bad news for the player and the franchise. Luongo signed a contract for big bucks that gave him all the security in the world look where that landed him and this franchise.

MG was doing his job, he's not the only guy in the NHL signing player to NTC and I understand why they are there, I just see them as bad news. If the organization is good a player should want to go there with out a NTC, problem is it just isn't so.

[Bruce Boudreau]

For a guy you say is focused on short term,he has not traded for any veteran players...he has said he wants to get younger and bigger..And when you're dealing with younger players..it's a process.

Rumored that the Leafs were offering a package at one point involving either Bozak or Kadri plus a prospect or draft pick.

[Mr.DirtyDangles]

LOL.

nah, they are just passionate in their support for Gillis. I am cool with that. Of course, they seem to think I am an idiot and wrong all the time so its a good thing I don't offend easily.....lol

I love the passion on these boards ! It is at a boiling point every day lol. I was never a huge fan of Gillis and i dont hate the man either. Although I do agree with much of what you are saying. Yes he has been in tough with the Lou saga and the cap being raised unexpectedly but to go from 2 world class goal tenders to (and i love Eddie) Eddie and Markstrom ? The Malhotra fiasco, I am sorry I know you and many liked Torres but that guy is just a joke. Of course i do not know the exact inner workings of THE Gillis and his process There is a lot more I could say but most would disagree and call me the idiot so I will let you be my shield in this fight : D

[aGENT]

Yeah, your post is pretty much the /thread haha

I've bookmarked it to keep as a response to the next Gillis thread ...lol

[Bruce Boudreau]

Wow. You've got to be kidding.

You thought that Gillis should have gotten a top 10 pick, a bluechip goaltending prospect, and a big, young mid range center for Luongo alone? And people call me a homer. That is some technicolor dreaming you are doing.

I suggested/proposed that they'd get a premier prospect and a B+ prospect all along - before the cap drop and CBA recapture penalty - and a whole lot of folks thought that was too much, that I was overvaluing him, and that they'd never get that. Well, that's pretty much what Gillis just managed - a hell of a deal imo, and thankfully, the window to send Luongo to the one market he wanted finally opened. I'm curious to hear an elaboration on the "mishandling" - people love to make those kind of facile judgements, but when and in exactly what context was Gillis going to get this return you expected in hindsight? I think you should be happy with what the Canucks got, take it, and run.

Markstrom is a huge wildcard in this he is supposed to be a top goalie prospect but for his size he lets a ton of pucks go right through him. The Canucks don't even have confidence to play him. They ride Lack even though he is a rookie himself and ask him to play back to back games. I would have preferred they got back a forward prospect who can help out their scoring.

Matthias is not a young player. He is entering his prime at almost 27 and is basically a Kesler type player who is a b version of him.

They could have gotten more for Schneider than Luongo obviously because of the difference in contract and age.

I thought Gills could have gotten one decent roster player out of Schneider or either a top prospect on the cusp of getting in the NHL or a young player like a Kadri would have stepped in the top six right away.

Horvat is no guarantee to be more than a 3rd line 2 way type. That is basically what Matthias is now. Plus they already had Guance who is a similar player abeit with slower speed.

[Bruce Boudreau]

Feel free to share with us what teams were willing to offer such returns for either goalie. Oh, you don't have any sources to back that up? Ah, that's ok, I knew you didn't. I've seen or heard almost all the reliable rumours that were around for both goalies.

And that's the problem, as much as not moving either goalie to avoid the controversy was an issue, it's not like he was swimming in offers and declined trades to try and get an unreasonable return for either goalie. Not only were teams not calling with offers of the 9th overall pick, an underrated 3rd line center and a former 'best outside the NHL' goalie prospect with some question marks, the only teams that were calling either had owners who couldn't back a deal without us taking back or keeping significant cap dumps, or called with lowball offers almost to the point of ridicule which they then pulled from the table just prior to deadlines.

If you think Gillis is a bad GM because he didn't get all that in one trade, then you'll think the same of pretty much any GM in the league.

If he couldn't get that return why were their so many reports saying his asking price was way too high? I remember reports saying that Gillis wound't move Luongo to the Leafs because his asking price was too high.

He wanted Bozak or Kari plus a good young player or first round pick back.

Maybe he should not have tried to copy everything he did from Detroit and give Luongo that monstrity of a contract in the first place.

I remember Gillis saying they based the contract of Zetterburg's deal but they justified by the fact the Luongo was a goalie and would play longer.

[Junkyard Dog]

This, I think, is the crux of the divide between the anti-Gilis folks and the pro-Gillis (or indifferent) folks.

What I think is missing from the "anti" crowd's view is the context of what's happened outside of MG's control the last couple years. Things like the lockout, new CBA (with retroactive Luongo contract punishment and shrinking cap), Booth's injuries, the level of media interference during "goalie-gate" etc, etc...

There's a lot of things that no GM could/would have entirely foreseen that he had to react to. And hard decisions they would have had to make the same/similar moves that people want to crucify him for. It's classic "the grass is always greener".

I also find it laughable when they try to directly compare GM's of other teams to him/the Canucks. I'm sorry but what GM "X" did in Chicago/Boston/St. Louis etc isn't terribly applicable. They all have different aged cores, prospect pools, expiring/value contracts etc, etc. The only way you should be comparing them is by asking what would GM "X" have done in Vancouver. Personally I think the differences would be a lot smaller than the anti-crowd would care to admit.

/thread

[oldnews]

Markstrom is a huge wildcard in this he is supposed to be a top goalie prospect but for his size he lets a ton of pucks go right through him. The Canucks don't even have confidence to play him. They ride Lack even though he is a rookie himself and ask him to play back to back games. I would have preferred they got back a forward prospect who can help out their scoring.

Matthias is not a young player. He is entering his prime at almost 27 and is basically a Kesler type player who is a b version of him.

They could have gotten more for Schneider than Luongo obviously because of the difference in contract and age.

I thought Gills could have gotten one decent roster player out of Schneider or either a top prospect on the cusp of getting in the NHL or a young player like a Kadri would have stepped in the top six right away.

Horvat is no guarantee to be more than a 3rd line 2 way type. That is basically what Matthias is now. Plus they already had Guance who is a similar player abeit with slower speed.

The Canucks are rolling with their starter while they're still in a potential playoff race - not at all uncommon, whether your backup is a veteran or a young prospect, and particularly to be expected in the latter case. That they're not playing Markstron doesn't say much imo aside from wanting to give the younger (a couple years younger than Lack) goaltender some time to work with R.M. We can't really speak for the Canucks regarding a lack of confidence in the goaltender they just acquired. Evidently they think fairly highly of him - as do many others. Every young goaltender is a 'wildcard' - it's part of the risk of getting younger. As for a guy to take a risk on, he's very high on that list.

26 is young in my books - closer to young than old - and I think you're underplaying Matthias' utility.

Kadri is a 2.9 million cap hit - and assumes Luongo would have been willing to go to Onterrible.

I think you're forgetting the context of the Schneider deal and the cap drop. Taking salary and contract/roster players back was not really an option. Also, never was a fan of people pretending to put a cap on the potential of teenagers. Your assessment of Horvat as a two way 3rd liner is just skepticism.

[wallstreetamigo]

This, I think, is the crux of the divide between the anti-Gilis folks and the pro-Gillis (or indifferent) folks.

What I think is missing from the "anti" crowd's view is the context of what's happened outside of MG's control the last couple years. Things like the lockout, new CBA (with retroactive Luongo contract punishment and shrinking cap), Booth's injuries, the level of media interference during "goalie-gate" etc, etc...

There's a lot of things that no GM could/would have entirely foreseen that he had to react to. And hard decisions they would have had to make the same/similar moves that people want to crucify him for. It's classic "the grass is always greener".

I also find it laughable when they try to directly compare GM's of other teams to him/the Canucks. I'm sorry but what GM "X" did in Chicago/Boston/St. Louis etc isn't terribly applicable. They all have different aged cores, prospect pools, expiring/value contracts etc, etc. The only way you should be comparing them is by asking what would GM "X" have done in Vancouver. Personally I think the differences would be a lot smaller than the anti-crowd would care to admit.

But what is missing from the pr-Gillis side is that he created the Luongo situation himself with the contract. Not to mention how he handled the trade situation for two years. No one forced him to backtrack that quickly on his faith in Luongo. He did it himself and did it in such a way that he basically forced the issue public. That did not end up doing him any favors, especially since Toronto wanted to deep six any leverage Gillis may have had trading him.

Going into an expiring CBA situation where the league demolished the union the previous time and NOT preparing for the possibility that lifetime contracts would be adjusted is just foolish management. The owners main goal was not to crush the union this time (although that is always a goal) but the key was finding ways to protect the GM's from themselves (because you know, having restraint is not possible for them on their own).And clearly a DECISION made by Gillis. He took a huge risk and it ended up hurting the team not only with Luongo but also having to get rid of Schneider plus the complete and total distraction for two years.

The league basically told Gillis right when he signed the Luongo contract he was taking a massive risk and the prevailing feeling at the time was that they would be getting seriously looked at by the NHL. That only grew over time. I don't think they could have warned him any more than they did that a new CBA was going to address it. The Luongo type contracts needed to be the line in the sand to get the owners protection for their GM's from themselves. I remember a lot of hockey people warning that it was going to happen. Gillis played chicken with the new CBA and lost.

I also think the cap dropping was a pretty safe assumption to make. I mean, it is always an issue that ends up being a prominent one. The only thing that changes is HOW they do it, not that they do it at all or not. It is the cornerstone of the owners need list.

Should Gillis have foreseen how everything would go? Of course not. Should he have maybe planned for a worst case scenario? I think every good GM does just that. You make it sound like Gillis is the only GM who had to deal with the various issues outside his control. The reality is that ALL GM's had to. And the ones you don't think can be compared to Gillis were more successful at it because they hedged their bets a lot better than Gillis did just in case things did not fall their way. Gillis went all in and his bet was wrong. Bottom line.

When Gillis does something right it is because he is a genius. When he does something wrong it is because there were too many factors going against him to ever possibly succeed.

Here is a news flash, Pretty much his entire job is trying to determine where things will go and to set contingency plans in place should it not go well. All you are really saying is that Gillis did not do so.

I would bet good money that ANY of those GM's would have handled the goalie/Luongo situation much better, that they would have re-tooled better than Gillis has, and that they would have expected that things could turn out worst case scenario under a new CBA.

This pro-Gillis argument is really just saying he should not be held accountable because things did not go his way. I find that laughable. That is EXACTLY what he should be held accountable for because his job is to manage risk both short and long term and minimize the possibility of things not working out. That is what all high level management jobs are all about.

[Mr.DirtyDangles]

This, I think, is the crux of the divide between the anti-Gilis folks and the pro-Gillis (or indifferent) folks.

What I think is missing from the "anti" crowd's view is the context of what's happened outside of MG's control the last couple years. Things like the lockout, new CBA (with retroactive Luongo contract punishment and shrinking cap), Booth's injuries, the level of media interference during "goalie-gate" etc, etc...

There's a lot of things that no GM could/would have entirely foreseen that he had to react to. And hard decisions they would have had to make the same/similar moves that people want to crucify him for. It's classic "the grass is always greener".

I also find it laughable when they try to directly compare GM's of other teams to him/the Canucks. I'm sorry but what GM "X" did in Chicago/Boston/St. Louis etc isn't terribly applicable. They all have different aged cores, prospect pools, expiring/value contracts etc, etc. The only way you should be comparing them is by asking what would GM "X" have done in Vancouver. Personally I think the differences would be a lot smaller than the anti-crowd would care to admit.

Agreeing with much of what you've said I cannot ignore two major deals.

The draft day deal for the 9th pick sending Corey to NJD was inexcusable. Horvat will take years to develop, Corey was ready to go for us with bells on. Lou could have been dealt in the off season.

What is really leaning me towards the axe truthfully is the Booth trade. The whole league new he was paper mache and MG took the bait anyways. The Canucks have spent good money on a horrible return.

MG painted himself into the Lou deal. Clearly that will play itself out in the years to come. Inevitably this debate will rage on for ages well after MG is gone.

I have said it before I do not envy his job in the slightest. Being a GM for a Canadian hockey team ? Imagine the horrifying stress.

[aGENT]

But what is missing from the pr-Gillis side is that he created the Luongo situation himself with the contract. Not to mention how he handled the trade situation for two years. No one forced him to backtrack that quickly on his faith in Luongo. He did it himself and did it in such a way that he basically forced the issue public. That did not end up doing him any favors, especially since Toronto wanted to deep six any leverage Gillis may have had trading him.

Going into an expiring CBA situation where the league demolished the union the previous time and NOT preparing for the possibility that lifetime contracts would be adjusted is just foolish management. The owners main goal was not to crush the union this time (although that is always a goal) but the key was finding ways to protect the GM's from themselves (because you know, having restraint is not possible for them on their own).And clearly a DECISION made by Gillis. He took a huge risk and it ended up hurting the team not only with Luongo but also having to get rid of Schneider plus the complete and total distraction for two years.

The league basically told Gillis right when he signed the Luongo contract he was taking a massive risk and the prevailing feeling at the time was that they would be getting seriously looked at by the NHL. That only grew over time. I don't think they could have warned him any more than they did that a new CBA was going to address it. The Luongo type contracts needed to be the line in the sand to get the owners protection for their GM's from themselves. I remember a lot of hockey people warning that it was going to happen. Gillis played chicken with the new CBA and lost.

I also think the cap dropping was a pretty safe assumption to make. I mean, it is always an issue that ends up being a prominent one. The only thing that changes is HOW they do it, not that they do it at all or not. It is the cornerstone of the owners need list.

Should Gillis have foreseen how everything would go? Of course not. Should he have maybe planned for a worst case scenario? I think every good GM does just that. You make it sound like Gillis is the only GM who had to deal with the various issues outside his control. The reality is that ALL GM's had to. And the ones you don't think can be compared to Gillis were more successful at it because they hedged their bets a lot better than Gillis did just in case things did not fall their way. Gillis went all in and his bet was wrong. Bottom line.

When Gillis does something right it is because he is a genius. When he does something wrong it is because there were too many factors going against him to ever possibly succeed.

Here is a news flash, Pretty much his entire job is trying to determine where things will go and to set contingency plans in place should it not go well. All you are really saying is that Gillis did not do so.

I would bet good money that ANY of those GM's would have handled the goalie/Luongo situation much better, that they would have re-tooled better than Gillis has, and that they would have expected that things could turn out worst case scenario under a new CBA.

This pro-Gillis argument is really just saying he should not be held accountable because things did not go his way. I find that laughable. That is EXACTLY what he should be held accountable for because his job is to manage risk both short and long term and minimize the possibility of things not working out. That is what all high level management jobs are all about.

I agree that the Luongo deal was ultimately a negative. But again, think of the context that deal was signed in. We had an All Star goalie with all of the leverage. Gillis either re-signed what was at the time basically the cornerstone of the franchise...or he let's him walk for nothing. He would have been crucified for the alternative (and possibly fired). If you're going to attack him for signing that deal you have to offer a viable alternative that takes all the surrounding context in to consideration. Good luck.

You say that another GM would have seen the league retroactively screwing us and dealt with the goalie situation better but you have literally no way to prove that. "What if's" And again, IMO, a different GM in the Canucks situation would have made small differences, not large ones. Until you have some actual evidence (without the gift of hindsight) or again, a viable alternative, I'll stick with what I know.

As for the cap drop, did I ever say he didn't plan for it? Schneider was obviously contingency "plan C" (after Luongo and buying out Booth became impossible). But not all teams had to deal with the cap drop, just the cap teams. Further illustration as to why it's silly to compare GM's (for instance your Tallon in Florida...not a cap ceiling team FYI).

No the entire pro-Gillis argument is that another GM would not have done things appreciably differently or better given the exact same hurdles/context and that a lot of the "wrongs" are VASTLY overblown by media and the "anti" crowd. Case in point below:

Agreeing with much of what you've said I cannot ignore two major deals.

The draft day deal for the 9th pick sending Corey to NJD was inexcusable. Horvat will take years to develop, Corey was ready to go for us with bells on. Lou could have been dealt in the off season.

What is really leaning me towards the axe truthfully is the Booth trade. The whole league new he was paper mache and MG took the bait anyways. The Canucks have spent good money on a horrible return.

MG painted himself into the Lou deal. Clearly that will play itself out in the years to come. Inevitably this debate will rage on for ages well after MG is gone.

I have said it before I do not envy his job in the slightest. Being a GM for a Canadian hockey team ? Imagine the horrifying stress.

Horvat very likely will be playing for us next year and moved an organization strength (older expensive player, goalie) for an organizational weakness (young inexpensive player, talented forward, cap space). Lou couldn't be dealt until Florida sorted out it's ownership issues. Period. I do that trade again and again and again....

As for Booth, you are aware of what we traded him for, right? Also who the pick that came with him is? Booth injuries have all been cheap shots. That's not paper mache, that's damned unlucky and largely due to his willingness to go to the dirty areas. The only year it's REALLY even cost us was this one with the shrinking cap. I'd also do that deal again and again...

About the only major move I'd undo with the gift of hindsight is the Ballard one (and even it was a good deal at the time). If Gillis could somehow know that he'd get Hamhuis, that Ballard would struggle returning from injury and that AV would misuse him virtually his entire time here...but that's dealing in the silly "what if's" again.

Well that and maybe the Luongo contract. But again, coming up with a viable alternative to what happened (or simply losing him to FA) is not a simple undertaking.

[Nino]

But what is missing from the pr-Gillis side is that he created the Luongo situation himself with the contract. Not to mention how he handled the trade situation for two years. No one forced him to backtrack that quickly on his faith in Luongo. He did it himself and did it in such a way that he basically forced the issue public. That did not end up doing him any favors, especially since Toronto wanted to deep six any leverage Gillis may have had trading him.

Going into an expiring CBA situation where the league demolished the union the previous time and NOT preparing for the possibility that lifetime contracts would be adjusted is just foolish management. The owners main goal was not to crush the union this time (although that is always a goal) but the key was finding ways to protect the GM's from themselves (because you know, having restraint is not possible for them on their own).And clearly a DECISION made by Gillis. He took a huge risk and it ended up hurting the team not only with Luongo but also having to get rid of Schneider plus the complete and total distraction for two years.

The league basically told Gillis right when he signed the Luongo contract he was taking a massive risk and the prevailing feeling at the time was that they would be getting seriously looked at by the NHL. That only grew over time. I don't think they could have warned him any more than they did that a new CBA was going to address it. The Luongo type contracts needed to be the line in the sand to get the owners protection for their GM's from themselves. I remember a lot of hockey people warning that it was going to happen. Gillis played chicken with the new CBA and lost.

I also think the cap dropping was a pretty safe assumption to make. I mean, it is always an issue that ends up being a prominent one. The only thing that changes is HOW they do it, not that they do it at all or not. It is the cornerstone of the owners need list.

Should Gillis have foreseen how everything would go? Of course not. Should he have maybe planned for a worst case scenario? I think every good GM does just that. You make it sound like Gillis is the only GM who had to deal with the various issues outside his control. The reality is that ALL GM's had to. And the ones you don't think can be compared to Gillis were more successful at it because they hedged their bets a lot better than Gillis did just in case things did not fall their way. Gillis went all in and his bet was wrong. Bottom line.

When Gillis does something right it is because he is a genius. When he does something wrong it is because there were too many factors going against him to ever possibly succeed.

Here is a news flash, Pretty much his entire job is trying to determine where things will go and to set contingency plans in place should it not go well. All you are really saying is that Gillis did not do so.

I would bet good money that ANY of those GM's would have handled the goalie/Luongo situation much better, that they would have re-tooled better than Gillis has, and that they would have expected that things could turn out worst case scenario under a new CBA.

This pro-Gillis argument is really just saying he should not be held accountable because things did not go his way. I find that laughable. That is EXACTLY what he should be held accountable for because his job is to manage risk both short and long term and minimize the possibility of things not working out. That is what all high level management jobs are all about.

^^^

The bottom line is every GM is and always has been in the same boat, if anything MG is at an advantage because we are willing to spend to the cap. He has built a team that can't win because of HIS choices with contracts and trades. You can't fire two coaxes in a year without tutoring your attention to the GM first.

[aGENT]

^^^

The bottom line is every GM is and always has been in the same boat, if anything MG is at an advantage because we are willing to spend to the cap.

Nope.

[Nino]

Nope.

Well thought out post JR