Ghostsof1915 Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 'Shhh.. stop mentioning them .. I did it once but I think I got away with it' Whatever you do...DON'T MENTION THE WAR!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tearloch7 Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 Whatever you do...DON'T MENTION THE WAR!!!!! Am glad someone picked up the reference .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tearloch7 Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 better'n mine which was: ...in Japanese. takobozu. Were you a long limbed, gangly kid? .. or should I ask? .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuck nit Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 "But it was pretty obvious at the time that Ehrhoff, and rightly so IMHO, felt that he shouldn't have his salary determined by an arbitrary structure that said no one on the Canucks' D could make more that the $4.6 million Gillis awarded to Bieksa. Gillis broke his internal cap to retain Edler two years later. At the time of the Ehrhoff negotiations, I honestly believe that a $5 million to $5.5 million cap hit (on a reasonable term) would have gotten an extension done. Gillis refused to go above an offer that was identical to Bieksa's. That all said, the biggest mistake that Gillis made was not in letting Ehrhoff (and also Salo, Samuelsson, etc.) go. It was in failing to replace these players. " Sid is me x 3 I agree. Gillis did not replace the skill sets these players provided to the team's success and successful style of play. You can' t blame GIllis for trying to sign Christian for less but insulting him and refusing to offer a fair deal helps define Gillis' weakness in his arrogance/intransigence that ultimately led to his eventual downfall. Gillis arguing that he could replace losing Ehrhoff as the team had Salo and Tanev implies Gillis was a poor judge of talent and did not recognise his team's internal synergies, success and strength. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuck nit Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 Suggesting in hindsight that Gillis should have matched or bettered the insane deal Regier gave Ehrhoff is about as rational as pining on as if the Samuelsson deal doomed this team. Canucks offered Ehrhoff 4.6 million for 6 years and he turned it down. Ehrhoff want longer term then 6 and a front loaded deal. canucks didn't want to give that to him and made the smart move to send him packing. He wouldn't have solved this teams issues anyway and we would have been stuck with a 10 year deal. Gillis stated he would not pay Ehrhoff any more than Bieksa and publicly berated Ehrhoff when he did not accept the Bieksa contract.Bieksa signed his contract in mid-June so Gillis had weeks to negotiate a fair deal with Christian before he hit FA . There was no "insane deal" from Regier as Ehrhoff was under contract to Vancouver when Gillis low balled him and refused to offer him fair value. Ehrhoff anchored the highest scoring team and best PP in the league (15g 36a 50 pts) as opposed to Bieksa's 6g 16a 22 pts. "We're still talking about different possibilities, but like I said earlier, playing on this team is more important than individual compensation," Gillis said. "That's our expectation with everybody. It works with some but it may not work with others. I can't tell you what I expect. We'll just see how it goes. If he's unwilling to accept what we think is fair and allows us to be competitive, we'll go in a different direction." Hours later, the Canucks went in a different direction. http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=567612 Ehrhoff, who tied for seventh among NHL defencemen this season with 50 points, also seems to realize that if he wants to stay in Vancouver he'll have to accept less than what he'd get on the open market. "I just want something that is fair and obviously if I end up staying here it's natural that you have got to come their way a little bit," Ehrhoff said. "It's just meeting at the right point, you know." Although he has only been a Canuck for two seasons, Ehrhoff said he too has a loyalty to the team "I'm very appreciative for what this organization has done for me in the short two years I have been here," he said. "Like I said many times before, I like the group of guys, I like where this team is going and we were very close this year and I think we can be a very good team for years to come and I'd definitely like to be part of that." Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/Kevin+Bieksa+money+ready+compromise+stay+with+Canucks/4966875/story.html#ixzz32sJ1KNHu NHL d men with 48 50 51 points in 2010-2011 48 pts:Rafalski ,Seabrook and Weber 49 pts: No players at 49 pts. 50 pts: Letang,Boyle and Ehrhoff 51 pts: Enstrom and Wisniewskihttp://www.nhl.com/ice/playerstats.htm?season=20102011&gameType=2&team=&position=D&country=&status=&viewName=summrary# Salaries for 2011-2012 Rafalski - $6m -last year of 5 year contract but he retired and did not play in 2011-12 Seabrook - $7m salary+$2m bonus Weber - $7.5m Letang - $3.5 (year 3 in 4 year contract) Now receiving $7.25m x 8 years or $58m Boyle - $6.666m Ehrhoff - offered $4.6m by Gillis Enstrom-$4m, $4.5m 2012-2013 (last 2 years in 4 year contract) $5.75m+$1.15m bonus each year through 2017-18 Wisniewski- $7m salary + $2m bonus 2012-13 $7m salary + $3m bonus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 "We're still talking about different possibilities, but like I said earlier, playing on this team is more important than individual compensation," Gillis said. "That's our expectation with everybody. It works with some but it may not work with others. I can't tell you what I expect. We'll just see how it goes. If he's unwilling to accept what we think is fair and allows us to be competitive, we'll go in a different direction." Hours later, the Canucks went in a different direction. This is the reason all the key role players got stripped away and replaced with pylons. And why the core group is so stale. They know they had Gillis and the Canucks over the barrel because they (supposedly) accepted so much less to stay in Van. Gillis did not understand that compensation is important to the players as well. As a former agent, you would think he would know that better than anyone. Losing Ehrhoff was the start of the spiral. They should have kept him and finally gotten rid of Ballard (who Gillis kept promising would get a top 4 shot...lol ya right). Torres, Mitchell, Ehrhoff, Salo, Malhotra, Lapierre, etc. The fabric that held together the core was ripped apart by Gillis and his "They should feel lucky to play for us at all" approach to asset management. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 There is not one single player on this team that should not be expendable except perhaps (and only perhaps) the Sedins. Anyone else should be fair game to get younger, faster, and better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdubuya Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 Lol remember when mg said he wanted 200 pts from dmen.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 Let's hope that Benning is not enamored by any player on this team to the point he will not do what needs to be done to improve the team. There should be no untouchables on a team that played as badly as the Canucks did last season. And if they did it to get Torts fired (which I think is likely) then there should be big changes to the leadership group of this team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ihatetomatoes Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 Lp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 And if they did it to get Torts fired (which I think is likely) then there should be big changes to the leadership group of this team. Sometimes I wonder where you come up with this stuff... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 There was no "insane deal" from Regier as Ehrhoff was under contract to Vancouver when Gillis low balled him and refused to offer him fair value. That makes literally no sense whatsoever. Yes, there was an insane deal - it was 10 years and 40 million, and given Ehrhoff's decline, would be yet another subject of endless whining on these boards if the Canucks owned that albatross (which also features the ever popular cap recapture penalty). Bieksa's 5 year deal for 23 million is not a lowball - it's what a reasonable GM would offer a - declining - asset like Ehrhoff, who benefitted as much from the situation he was in here as he contributed to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 Let's hope that Benning is not enamored by any player on this team to the point he will not do what needs to be done to improve the team. There should be no untouchables on a team that played as badly as the Canucks did last season. And if they did it to get Torts fired (which I think is likely) then there should be big changes to the leadership group of this team. Detroit called. They would like their tinfoil back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 Gillis did not understand that compensation is important to the players as well. As a former agent, you would think he would know that better than anyone. Losing Ehrhoff was the start of the spiral. They should have kept him In one breath you are on about the entitled core, in the next you are suggesting Gillis should have caved to the most entitled asset the team had in years - aside from the other one that landed in Buffalo. I'm just thankful the team isn't run by people with a mindset like yourself or nucknit - if that were the case, the team would have another nightmare contract on it's hands. 10 years and 40 million for Ehrhoff is just dumb - no two ways about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildwood Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 Jim Benning is going to establish who the core of the team is then he is going to add them support. Is Ryan Kesler going to be part of the core, he will have a meeting with him this week to find out. Bottom six are going to get bigger (finally) to help add support to the skill guys. Expect guys like Jordan Schroeder to be traded or replaced through the draft. As Jim said we need to get bigger in the bottom six to compete against the west coast (heavy) teams. Something Gillis said he was going to do but he second guessed himself constantly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 Gillis also took this team from out of the playoffs to the finals in 3 seasons. It's not like he didn't know what he was doing. However, like all Canadian teams in the Bettman era, making the finals meant imminent collapse of the team, with all sorts of BS drama surrounding the team during that time. It's called entertainment. But I'm not all that amused by it. What disappoints me most of the Gillis era is that Detroit long-term success was promised and all we ended up with was another repeat of the Canadian cycle of bullcrap. Hopefully Benning signals the end of that bs, but I think it will just signal the start of another cycle. The wildcard is Linden. Is him coming into the fold the start of something special? Or was it just a panic hire? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 Gillis' first 3 years here was very exciting though, no doubt about that. A lot of things happened, positive and negative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeltaSwede Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 Let's hope that Benning is not enamored by any player on this team to the point he will not do what needs to be done to improve the team. There should be no untouchables on a team that played as badly as the Canucks did last season. And if they did it to get Torts fired (which I think is likely) then there should be big changes to the leadership group of this team. I think this is a strength that Benning has. I don't know if you have watched "Behind the B" (a webseries about the Bruins - I know, I watched until the Benning part came up and stopped watching). Well that "part" that I was intrigued by was when Bruins management were talking about Tyler Seguins future with the team. Benning was fair with his remarks, he knew that he needed to be traded because of various situations and Pete Chiarelli made it happen. He doesn't get attached to players it seems. Something this team REALLY needs with the stagnant core. I am torn personally because I am obviously a fan of these players and don't want to see them leave Vancouver but this is the NHL and there won't be any Stanley Cup parades in Vancouver if the team doesn't change. Change is coming. It is still hard to imagine players like Kesler, Burrows, and Edler in other Jerseys than the blue and green Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 This is the reason all the key role players got stripped away and replaced with pylons. And why the core group is so stale. They know they had Gillis and the Canucks over the barrel because they (supposedly) accepted so much less to stay in Van. Gillis did not understand that compensation is important to the players as well. As a former agent, you would think he would know that better than anyone. Losing Ehrhoff was the start of the spiral. They should have kept him and finally gotten rid of Ballard (who Gillis kept promising would get a top 4 shot...lol ya right). Torres, Mitchell, Ehrhoff, Salo, Malhotra, Lapierre, etc. The fabric that held together the core was ripped apart by Gillis and his "They should feel lucky to play for us at all" approach to asset management. How about compensation in the factor of building on a team to help them get within one win of the Stanley Cup, and then trying to maintain that? It's not like the deals he offered a number of the players (Ehrhoff particularly, but even Torres, Mitchell and Salo considering the potential drawbacks each had) were complete low balls. They were fair as a re-signing offer on a top team trying to maintain it's talent. Malhotra had nothing to do with the situation you're describing and Lapierre was a different situation where they decided to not bring him back. Malhotra would have stayed with the team if it hadn't been for his eye sight concerns and had a contract many said was a little high when it was first signed. Lapierre was a surprise to me they didn't bring back, but it became apparent they were trying to move away from that type of player that was playing more on the wrong side of the edge. I can understand the argument of Gillis not doing enough to replace the lost pieces - even if that's easier said than done - but not the one that Gillis didn't try and make fair offers to players. But then this is a thread about Benning, not Gillis, so you'd think we'd be able to move past that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tangerines Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 Just caught this on TSN. Good interview with Jim and TSN. I noticed how he didn't mention Kesler, or Edler as a part of the core. Looks like he wants to hire a coach that wants to play an up-tempo style, and wants to get bigger, but play a fast, skilled game also more like a Chicago brand. http://iphone.tsn.ca/tsnpodcasts/TD_...ning_May27.mp3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.