Mike Gillis Should Stay

[aGENT]

I would give him another draft and free agency to see what he can do.

Since 2011 our drafting has vastly improved, and our prospects seem to be developing much better.

I don't like what he has done with trades for the most part, but drafting (since 2011) and free agency have been one of his strong suits. So if this team doesn't look a whole lot better on paper by September, then it might be time to bring in a new GM to shake things up.

Funny that arguably our best line the last couple weeks has been two guys he traded for (and an under the radar UFA he signed)

[elvis15]

Your option three dosent fly, everyone and there dogs knew that the few teams that were doing this were doing it to circumvent the cap. The league was not happy about it and they let it be known. It's a loophole that GM's that thought they were smarter then the league tried and got punished in the end.... Why because they were bending the rules and they knew it just like everyone else.

Go back and pick from option one or two thanks.

No thanks.

The NHL was concerned about the contracts, yes, but they approved them and drew the line for what was legal. GMs were certainly finding ways to maximize their cap space, but they knew the NHL had final approval on any deal they signed and could deny them if they wanted to.

That's not bending the rules, but rather following them to their limit.

[Neversummer]

What do you guys think of the Nazzy theory?

MG steps back and be President.

Nazzy comes in to be GM.

Nazzy gets to decide whether Torts stay or go ... he axes Torts and because Nazzy has clout/credit with fan base, no one is upset that he fires Torts and bring in new coach.

Everyone saves face including owner and MG ... except of course, Torts, he is the scapegoat.

[Rush17]

What do you guys think of the Nazzy theory?

MG steps back and be President.

Nazzy comes in to be GM.

Nazzy gets to decide whether Torts stay or go ... he axes Torts and because Nazzy has clout/credit with fan base, no one is upset that he fires Torts and bring in new coach.

Everyone saves face ... except Torts, he is the scapegoat.

I love the idea of nazzy coming but I think Stan Smyl will get the GM call first. Guy seems like he would be a great GM from the video's ive seen of him. Just my opinion though.

I think the biggest reason why some people may be against Nazzy being the GM is because he was such a quiet captain in the dressing room. I know he could learn it pretty quick though not sure if he would get that job right away despite his xp. Prob an assistant GM or player development in the event Stan Smyl gets promoted.

President of Hockey Ops: Mike Gillis

General Manager: Stan Smyl

Director of Player Development: Markus Naslund

is my guess.

I think Torts will stay and help bring in the young guys. But we may need to look at bringing in an offensive specialist assistant coach perhaps?

[oldnews]

Your option three dosent fly, everyone and there dogs knew that the few teams that were doing this were doing it to circumvent the cap. The league was not happy about it and they let it be known. It's a loophole that GM's that thought they were smarter then the league tried and got punished in the end.... Why because they were bending the rules and they knew it just like everyone else.

Go back and pick from option one or two thanks.

Go back and read the links you posted Nino.

Elvis is talking plain sense.

The fact of the matter is that the NHL registered those contracts. The NHL had an obligation not to do so if they were considered in violation of the existing CBA.

An analogy would be if a food truck business applied to a city to park and operate a food truck in a public location, knowing that parking there is generally prohibited, but nevertheless, given the fact that a half dozen other trucks are parked and operating there, see exceptions taking place and wish to capitalize themselves. They receive approval of that application.

A few years later they are issued years worth of retroactive parking violation tickets.

But to the fact that the NHL retroactively decided to create a cap recapture penalty, after having registered those contracts - while you maintain that even our dogs knew better - that is simply mickey mouse legality.

In fact - ex post facto law (Latin for "from after the action" or "after the facts"), also called a retroactive law, is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions that were committed, or relationships that existed, before the enactment of the law - is forbidden by both the United States Constitution and the prohibited by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the Canadian Constitution.

The NHL was responsible to require GMs to renegotiate the terms of that contract at the time. If the contract were not acceptable, the team should have been charged to amend/correct the violating aspects of that contract at the time. Instead, they registered them. GMs submit these contracts to the NHL for approval. As Gillis stated, he submitted it to the NHL and "awaited instructions." They registered it - the part you don't seem to understand.

If they were as 'annoyed' etc as you seem to believe Nino, that was the appropriate actionable moment.

It's interesting that the specific precedent is referred to as the 'Luongo clause' considering how many other contracts are subject to it -

Backstrom,

Campbell,

Carter,

Chara,

Crosby,

Doughty,

Ehrhoff,

Erat,

Fleury,

Franzen,

Hall,

Hossa,

Johnson,

Karlsson,

Keith,

Koivu,

Kopitar,

Kronwall,

Malone,

Myers,

Nash,

Ohlund,

Parise,

Quick,

Richards,

Richards,

Rinne,

Savard,

Spezza,

Staal,

Staal,

Suter,

Weber,

Zetterberg.

I guess when Gillis does it a big protest is in order. Let's name it after Gillis and Luongo! Are these kinds of exceptions not intended to include he and Luongo?

Now what you're doing is attempting to cherry-pick Gillis out of a whole crowd of GMs who made this common practice - and why shouldn't Gillis take advantage of loopholes that virtually all other GMs are using to their advantage and being approved by the NHL at the time?

You're also attempting to hindsight something as unconventional as an ex post facto recapture penalty - as if that were something that was predictable. None of your links predicted it. If you're suggesting that you did, I think you're talking out your posterior tbh - you are unable to produce even a single reference to the possibility. What it is imo is an internal corporate exception to the rule that stands because it's 'internal', not really worth disputing in terms of cost/benefit of the battle, is 'fair enough' in that it effects GMs who used it proportionally, and the penalty isn't signifcant enough to make the battle worthwhile, certainly not in the present. I won't be surprised if it doesn't stand up in the future.

[Ding-Dong]

Go back and read the links you posted Nino.

Elvis is talking plain sense.

The fact of the matter is that the NHL registered those contracts. The NHL had an obligation not to do so if they were considered in violation of the existing CBA.

An analogy would be if a food truck business applied to a city to park and operate a food truck in a public location, knowing that parking there is generally prohibited, but nevertheless, given the fact that a half dozen other trucks are parked and operating there, see exceptions taking place and wish to capitalize themselves. They receive approval of that application.

A few years later they are issued years worth of retroactive parking violation tickets.

But to the fact that the NHL retroactively decided to create a cap recapture penalty, after having registered those contracts - while you maintain that even our dogs knew better - that is simply mickey mouse legality.

In fact - ex post facto law (Latin for "from after the action" or "after the facts"), also called a retroactive law, is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions that were committed, or relationships that existed, before the enactment of the law - is forbidden by both the United States Constitution and the prohibited by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the Canadian Constitution.

The NHL was responsible to require GMs to renegotiate the terms of that contract at the time. If the contract were not acceptable, the team should have been charged to amend/correct the violating aspects of that contract at the time. Instead, they registered them. GMs submit these contracts to the NHL for approval. As Gillis stated, he submitted it to the NHL and "awaited instructions." They registered it - the part you don't seem to understand.

If they were as 'annoyed' etc as you seem to believe Nino, that was the appropriate actionable moment.

It's interesting that the specific precedent is referred to as the 'Luongo clause' considering how many other contracts are subject to it -

Backstrom,

Campbell,

Carter,

Chara,

Crosby,

Doughty,

Ehrhoff,

Erat,

Fleury,

Franzen,

Hall,

Hossa,

Johnson,

Karlsson,

Keith,

Koivu,

Kopitar,

Kronwall,

Malone,

Myers,

Nash,

Ohlund,

Parise,

Quick,

Richards,

Richards,

Rinne,

Savard,

Spezza,

Staal,

Staal,

Suter,

Weber,

Zetterberg.

I guess when Gillis does it a big protest is in order. Let's name it after Gillis and Luongo! Are these kinds of exceptions not intended to include he and Luongo?

Now what you're doing is attempting to cherry-pick Gillis out of a whole crowd of GMs who made this common practice - and why shouldn't Gillis take advantage of loopholes that virtually all other GMs are using to their advantage and being approved by the NHL at the time?

You're also attempting to hindsight something as unconventional as an ex post facto recapture penalty - as if that were something that was predictable. None of your links predicted it. If you're suggesting that you did, I think you're talking out your posterior tbh - you are unable to produce even a single reference to the possibility. What it is imo is an internal corporate exception to the rule that stands because it's 'internal', not really worth disputing in terms of cost/benefit of the battle, is 'fair enough' in that it effects GMs who used it proportionally, and the penalty isn't signifcant enough to make the battle worthwhile, certainly not in the present. I won't be surprised if it doesn't stand up in the future.

Very informative and well done post. Not only did you tackle it from a hockey perspective, but also froma business perspective which is what I think is really lacking in regards to this discussion.

But sadly, this post will do nothing to change his mind. There's just simply too much logic in it

[Vansicle]

No thanks.

The NHL was concerned about the contracts, yes, but they approved them and drew the line for what was legal. GMs were certainly finding ways to maximize their cap space, but they knew the NHL had final approval on any deal they signed and could deny them if they wanted to.

That's not bending the rules, but rather following them to their limit.

It's actually more like loophole exploiting. Like lawyers who scour tax laws to find ways for giant mega corporations to not pay any taxes. Legal as it may be, it's still vile.

Every law, rule, etc, has room for interpretation. If you are searching for the very edge/limit, you are looking to come as close to breaking it as you can, and it suggests you would break it if you thought you wouldn't get caught.

A body check that is technically legal but puts a guy in the hospital, for example, is committed by a scumbag. Scumbags need to be buried in shallow graves.

[Vansicle]

Go back and read the links you posted Nino.

Elvis is talking plain sense.

The fact of the matter is that the NHL registered those contracts. The NHL had an obligation not to do so if they were considered in violation of the existing CBA.

An analogy would be if a food truck business applied to a city to park and operate a food truck in a public location, knowing that parking there is generally prohibited, but nevertheless, given the fact that a half dozen other trucks are parked and operating there, see exceptions taking place and wish to capitalize themselves. They receive approval of that application.

A few years later they are issued years worth of retroactive parking violation tickets.

But to the fact that the NHL retroactively decided to create a cap recapture penalty, after having registered those contracts - while you maintain that even our dogs knew better - that is simply mickey mouse legality.

In fact - ex post facto law (Latin for "from after the action" or "after the facts"), also called a retroactive law, is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions that were committed, or relationships that existed, before the enactment of the law - is forbidden by both the United States Constitution and the prohibited by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the Canadian Constitution.

The NHL was responsible to require GMs to renegotiate the terms of that contract at the time. If the contract were not acceptable, the team should have been charged to amend/correct the violating aspects of that contract at the time. Instead, they registered them. GMs submit these contracts to the NHL for approval. As Gillis stated, he submitted it to the NHL and "awaited instructions." They registered it - the part you don't seem to understand.

If they were as 'annoyed' etc as you seem to believe Nino, that was the appropriate actionable moment.

It's interesting that the specific precedent is referred to as the 'Luongo clause' considering how many other contracts are subject to it -

Backstrom,

Campbell,

Carter,

Chara,

Crosby,

Doughty,

Ehrhoff,

Erat,

Fleury,

Franzen,

Hall,

Hossa,

Johnson,

Karlsson,

Keith,

Koivu,

Kopitar,

Kronwall,

Malone,

Myers,

Nash,

Ohlund,

Parise,

Quick,

Richards,

Richards,

Rinne,

Savard,

Spezza,

Staal,

Staal,

Suter,

Weber,

Zetterberg.

I guess when Gillis does it a big protest is in order. Let's name it after Gillis and Luongo! Are these kinds of exceptions not intended to include he and Luongo?

Now what you're doing is attempting to cherry-pick Gillis out of a whole crowd of GMs who made this common practice - and why shouldn't Gillis take advantage of loopholes that virtually all other GMs are using to their advantage and being approved by the NHL at the time?

You're also attempting to hindsight something as unconventional as an ex post facto recapture penalty - as if that were something that was predictable. None of your links predicted it. If you're suggesting that you did, I think you're talking out your posterior tbh - you are unable to produce even a single reference to the possibility. What it is imo is an internal corporate exception to the rule that stands because it's 'internal', not really worth disputing in terms of cost/benefit of the battle, is 'fair enough' in that it effects GMs who used it proportionally, and the penalty isn't signifcant enough to make the battle worthwhile, certainly not in the present. I won't be surprised if it doesn't stand up in the future.

They had no choice but to honor those contracts, because technically they were adherent to the existing rules, but if you look at some of the contracts in question, they were never intended to be honored - that's why it is called cap circumvention. With respect to the Lou contract specifically, it was understood and openly talked about by everyone but the principals that Lu wouldn't likely play several of the last several years of that contract, and was therefore intended as a means of disregarding the cap. Yes, the contract adhered to the letter of the law, but it violated the spirit of the law and is therefore in violation of the intent of those who wrote it - also known as "gaming the system", "rules lawyering, etc. However legal, it is unethical and morally reprehensible.

I don't want to side with Nino, and I'm not actually in 100% agreement of his message, but in this specific detail, I felt compelled to chime in.

[Nino]

It's actually more like loophole exploiting. Like lawyers who scour tax laws to find ways for giant mega corporations to not pay any taxes. Legal as it may be, it's still vile.

Every law, rule, etc, has room for interpretation. If you are searching for the very edge/limit, you are looking to come as close to breaking it as you can, and it suggests you would break it if you thought you wouldn't get caught.

A body check that is technically legal but puts a guy in the hospital, for example, is committed by a scumbag. Scumbags need to be buried in shallow graves.

It's something some may just never understand, they found a loophole that they used the league wasn't happy about it and found a way to punish them. I'm not sure how anyone could argue this? MG knew he was using a loophole and also that the league wasn't happy about it, kinda find it hard it hard to believe there is actually an argument over this? He pissed the league off and got punished for it end of story. You can debate all day long as to weather the punishment was right or wrong but MG took a chance by pissing them off, it's an old boys club and MG hasn't learned that yet.

[RWMc1]

It's something some may just never understand, they found a loophole that they used the league wasn't happy about it and found a way to punish them. I'm not sure how anyone could argue this? MG knew he was using a loophole and also that the league wasn't happy about it, kinda find it hard it hard to believe there is actually an argument over this? He pissed the league off and got punished for it end of story. You can debate all day long as to weather the punishment was right or wrong but MG took a chance by pissing them off, it's an old boys club and MG hasn't learned that yet.

"It's interesting that the specific precedent is referred to as the 'Luongo clause' considering how many other contracts are subject to it -

Backstrom,

Campbell,

Carter,

Chara,

Crosby,

Doughty,

Ehrhoff,

Erat,

Fleury,

Franzen,

Hall,

Hossa,

Johnson,

Karlsson,

Keith,

Koivu,

Kopitar,

Kronwall,

Malone,

Myers,

Nash,

Ohlund,

Parise,

Quick,

Richards,

Richards,

Rinne,

Savard,

Spezza,

Staal,

Staal,

Suter,

Weber,

Zetterberg.

I guess when Gillis does it a big protest is in order. Let's name it after Gillis and Luongo! Are these kinds of exceptions not intended to include he and Luongo?

Now what you're doing is attempting to cherry-pick Gillis out of a whole crowd of GMs who made this common practice - and why shouldn't Gillis take advantage of loopholes that virtually all other GMs are using to their advantage and being approved by the NHL at the time?"

Gillis was not the first or only GM to use this strategy as shown above. I was wondering if the Gms who also used this cap strategy are members of the boys club. Who's included and who's excluded?

[aGENT]

Now what you're doing is attempting to cherry-pick Gillis out of a whole crowd of GMs who made this common practice - and why shouldn't Gillis take advantage of loopholes that virtually all other GMs are using to their advantage and being approved by the NHL at the time?

Don't worry, if Gillis wouldn't have signed Lu to a back diving contract I'm sure Nino would have been the first to complain that he should be fired for not taking advantage of the loophole like so many other GM's were

[Nino]

"It's interesting that the specific precedent is referred to as the 'Luongo clause' considering how many other contracts are subject to it -

Backstrom,

Campbell,

Carter,

Chara,

Crosby,

Doughty,

Ehrhoff,

Erat,

Fleury,

Franzen,

Hall,

Hossa,

Johnson,

Karlsson,

Keith,

Koivu,

Kopitar,

Kronwall,

Malone,

Myers,

Nash,

Ohlund,

Parise,

Quick,

Richards,

Richards,

Rinne,

Savard,

Spezza,

Staal,

Staal,

Suter,

Weber,

Zetterberg.

I guess when Gillis does it a big protest is in order. Let's name it after Gillis and Luongo! Are these kinds of exceptions not intended to include he and Luongo?

Now what you're doing is attempting to cherry-pick Gillis out of a whole crowd of GMs who made this common practice - and why shouldn't Gillis take advantage of loopholes that virtually all other GMs are using to their advantage and being approved by the NHL at the time?"

Gillis was not the first or only GM to use this strategy as shown above. I was wondering if the Gms who also used this cap strategy are members of the boys club. Who's included and who's excluded?

This list is rubbish if your trying to compare contracts. I just picked a contract at random and looked up erats contract. It's a seven year deal that pays him 3.5 mil the first year and 2.5 the last year with it topping out at 6 mil at about the half way mark. First erat unless he's injured will play out his contract, second it's a contract that is within reason that he could play the deal out in regards to age and health.

Now look at Lou's contract, it's almost two times as long with the payment extremely front loaded and ending in only mil per year and at an age that he is unlikely to be playing in the NHL. You could pull up the rest of the contracts on the list and only find a few that compare to Lou's contract. MG went over the top pissed them off, I really don't know why your trying to debate about this?

Lou's contract was clearly an attempt to circumvent the cap and the league knew it, erats contract NO, most on that list......... Hold on now....... No.

[Nino]

Don't worry, if Gillis wouldn't have signed Lu to a back diving contract I'm sure Nino would have been the first to complain that he should be fired for not taking advantage of the loophole like so many other GM's were

This is just an iddic post and another example of the troll you are. Old news although I disagree with him he has good points and he responds with integrity to the most part. You your just a troll why tries to live off the back of others with brains like old news. No real ability to debate without resulting to trolling.

[aGENT]

This is just an iddic post and another example of the troll you are. Old news although I disagree with him he has good points and he responds with integrity to the most part. You your just a troll why tries to live off the back of others with brains like old news. No real ability to debate without resulting to trolling.

Nope.

[Nino]

Nope.

Lol... Nope.... When old news posts something of intelligence you can copy and post it but till then the best you can do it nope..... Lol

[aGENT]

Lol... Nope.... When old news posts something of intelligence you can copy and post it but till then the best you can do it nope..... Lol

Nope.

[ForsbergTheGreat]

Zero GM’s would have known that they were changing the CBA to punish existing contracts. It should have been illegal to change or the contracts should have to be renegotiated anyway as they were signed under previous rules where the loop hole was still legal. Reality is it should have been grand fathered in rather than punishing the teams who still were technically operating legally. Contract length, term and yearly variance were all grand fathered in without punishment why was the retirement clause not?

The argument in itself is weak. Luongo’s play over the last two years had more to do with the value of Luongo than his contract. 2 years of back up goalies outplaying him, subpar GAA, sup par SA%, aging with previous groin injuries doesn’t equal to a high return, especially in a goalie market. As much as people would love to believe he was worth 3 first round picks, he simply wasn’t. Player + Prospect + pick, that’s what Gillis was asking for, We got everything but the pick, a pick that would have been a second round at the high point anyways. If everyone wants to think of this trade as a failure over a second round pick than go ahead, you’re really wasting time.

“Gillis didn’t get enough for two elite goalies” Well he didn’t have two elite goalies, he had a young, high end potential goalie with less than 100 started games in the NHL (very similar to Bernier, who is 3 years younger and on a cheaper contract). And an gaining vet who hasn’t put up top end numbers for a few years. Canucks also had the ability to move both goalies with high end depth waiting in the farm.

Lack + Horvat bring more to this team and a better future than just Cory alone. The Cody trade also allowed us to use our second first round pick to go after a high risk/ high reward pick. We still have to wait and see how that turns out. Only time will deal if we got a steal, or a long term project.

Same can be said about Lack + Matthias, Markstrom is the high end risk, that could potentially make this trade become even more lopsided in canucks favour.

Problem with canucks fans is they are so impatient and don’t have no imagination to look at the future. What happened when Gillis traded Cody for Kassian, people were screaming for his head? Two years later and now people are starting to see Kassians upside and what he can bring to this team over Hodgson. People were already call Jensen a bust before he turned 20 because he wasn’t an NHL regular.

3-4 years down the road and canucks could look like a completely different team, people would no longer be crying about the loss of Luo and Cory.

[oldnews]

This list is rubbish if your trying to compare contracts. I just picked a contract at random and looked up erats contract. It's a seven year deal .

Ok Nino - the list you call rubbish is the capgeek cap recapture calculator list.

Here's another contract - signed a few months before Luongo - one that I excluded from the list because of Pronger's inactive status - it too is a 7 year deal that goes from 7.6 millon to a mere 575k just 5 years later....

Registered? Yup.

http://www.capgeek.com/player/316

[oldnews]

Here's another - Franzen's - signed before Luongo - an 11 year deal that tails off from 5.5 million to 1 million over the last few years.

The dumby Holland.

The "Mule rule"? http://www.capgeek.com/player/292

Looking at that list, there are a couple guys who it is not clear why capgeek would put them there - Doughty is one, Erat, as you mention.

But also of note are players who signed their deals, ironically, right on the eve of the lockout!

That is the audacity of a franchise like Minnesota whose owner Leopold was one of the vocal owners in favour of the lockout and rolling back salaries.

Right before the lockout:

Ryan Suter - 13 years - from 12 million, backdiving to 1

Parise - 13 years - from 12 million to 1.

And yet in the folklore, Mike Gillis is the villain. Ridiculous.

[wallstreetamigo]

I love that final paragraph because it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of probability. I work in the field of risk management a lot, and there are two basic rules in the field:

1) You can't plan for everything, and

2) You can only minimize risk, not eliminate it.

The problem is that you are making a jump in logic on all of these issues. Interestingly, it's always the same jump and I don't think its actually because you're somehow being illogical, but bear with me. In each example you give, you equate poor results with poor planning. But good planning can also lead to poor results (see rule #2), and poor planning can sometimes lead to good results through dumb luck. I don't suspect I'm telling you anything you don't already know, yet every time you say "MG failed to foresee X", you treat that as though its damning.

Here's what I think is happening: I think arguing on this forum has entrenched you in your belief that MG is a bad GM. This started because you suspected that he could have done a better job once or twice, but one or two failures does not a solid argument make. So you've then had to go back and dig up new events that corroborate your view. In gathering ammo for debate, you've cemented an impossible opinion to substantiate: that every mistake MG made could be planned for.

Consciously, this isn't something that you believe. You're...fairly rational ( )...but contrary to when you offhandedly claim that MG couldn't plan for everything, you then compile lists of his every failure and every single one is proof against him. If you step back and look at this from a neutral standpoint, I suspect, as JR said, that there are actually very few points of contention, and the rest of your opinion is just noise, ammo that's been gathered to back up your original point.

Is it hard to believe that Lu isn't the darling he's been made out to be (partially by a deliberately incendiary Eastern media)? Not really.

Is it hard to believe that GMs with more power than MG worked to further their own interests, and that in a zero sum game like hockey, teams like the Nucks had to lose out as a result? Not really.

There may be some things that you think were truly failures of foresight by MG, but I don't think these two issues are. What has he done that's made you so convinced? Or have you just graduated from "MG made some bad choices" to "MG is an incompetent GM" to avoid giving an inch during debate?

Read my posts again. When did I say you can completely eliminate risk? I think you are stretching things just because no matter what I say you have to disagree with it. I am saying exactly what you said. MINIMIZE risk. I don't see in any of those moves that risk was minimized as much as it could have been.

I never said you can plan for everything. That is impossible. Again, I am not sure where you are getting that from. But you can definitely plan for some things.

Saying my arguments against Gillis are because I think I could do a better job is just childish and ridiculous. How do you know I couldn't do a better job? Do you know me? My history? My education? My background? And my area of specialty? Of course you don't, so making pump your chest BS comments like that add nothing to the conversation. What would you say if I happened to be fully qualified for the job? Just the fact that you would attempt to bring something that stupid into the conversation assures me you are not qualified.

I have also said MG is an AVERAGE GM. Not a terrible one. Just to refute another stretch on your part. He has been a terrible GM at times for sure. He has been a good GM at times too. But I have said there are better GM's which only true homers would debate. I have also said there are things he is good at and things he is not so good at, again reinforcing that it is not blind hate on my part. I don't expect you will ever be able to move past that because you seem to equate criticism with blind hatred. I don't generally hate people, especially ones I don't know. I also don't know enough about Mike Gillis to foolishly believe he is totally incompetent which is why I have never said that. I think he has made some huge mistakes that have severely hurt this team and my belief is some of that was easily avoidable had that risk been managed better at the start.

I disagree with your assessment of what I am actually saying. You are trying to sound like you are more of an expert than you are I think. Gillis has made some monumental mistakes. But all GM's have. That has never been the issue for me at all with Gillis. The difference in the points I make is it is fairly reasonable even at the time to assess the potential risk of the moves that blew up in his face. He either did not see it or did not give it the respect it deserved if he did. Either way that impacts his standing as a GM in my opinion.

I did not say he should eliminate all risk nor did i even remotely suggest it was possible. Read it again if that is what you see. Seriously. I said managing and minimizing risk is his job. All of the points I made are valid ones both before the fact and with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight vision. Managing risk is a manager's job more than anything else.