Getting the prospect we should have got. (proposal)

[Toews]

Or maybe Aquaman takes the hint and realizes that the Schneider trade was completely unacceptable and no GM with a brain would have made it. Unfortunately we'll never know because Gillis chose to make a terrible trade instead of growing a pair and standing up to his boss.

As a GM you make things work based on the resources given to you by the owner. If Acquilini wasn't wiling to spend the money, there was nothing Gillis could have done to force his hand. This has nothing to do with "growing a pair" but its common sense, you do the job the guy cutting the cheques tells you to do. If you go against him, then well it looks like you are out of a job.

[King Heffy]

As a GM you make things work based on the resources given to you by the owner. If Acquilini wasn't wiling to spend the money, there was nothing Gillis could have done to force his hand. This has nothing to do with "growing a pair" but its common sense, you do the job the guy cutting the cheques tells you to do. If you go against him, then well it looks like you are out of a job.

But if you make a bad trade, you accept responsibility for that and make it harder for you to gain future employment. People in upper management have more responsibility than merely to "do what they're told".

[bigbadcanucks]

As a GM you make things work based on the resources given to you by the owner. If Acquilini wasn't wiling to spend the money, there was nothing Gillis could have done to force his hand. This has nothing to do with "growing a pair" but its common sense, you do the job the guy cutting the cheques tells you to do. If you go against him, then well it looks like you are out of a job.

Wouldn't you agree that CSE and the Aquillinis gave Gillis a lot of resources to work with? Running the hockey ops of the Canucks under the Aquillinis could very well be one of the dream jobs in the NHL.

The team spent to the cap the entire time Gillis was President/GM, the hockey ops department grew in numbers under Gillis' watch, and the Aquillinis supported all of the contracts that were signed and trades that were made (even the questionable ones).

In retrospect, it seems the Aquillinis lost confidence in Gillis when Gillis misread the direction of the NHL in terms of style of play and salary cap (including the imposition of the Luongo rule). It's been my experience that when ownership or majority shareholder loses confidence, they step in and start to impose their input on decision-making at all levels (which is a normal thing that happens). This probably resulted in the Tortorella hiring and quite possibly the trading of Schneider (though the Schneider trade was probably due to practical reasons...i.e., the inability to trade Luongo and his "crappy" contract).

This obviously led to a complete misalignment of vision and direction among ownership, management and coaching, manifesting itself in the car-wreck of a season that we just witnessed.

So, at the end of the day, there was a lot of blame to be shared. Neither Gillis nor Tortorella endeared themselves to the Canucks faithful for obvious reasons, so as costly as it was for the Aquillinis, they did the right thing and eradicated the team of Gillis and gave their blessings on the new hockey ops' decision to fire Tortorella.

Other than the Tortorella hiring (and this isn't and has never been substantiated, so it's only speculation on my part) the Aquillinis have been pretty much hands-off on running the hockey side of the business. They have been good owners, willing to spend money to give the hockey fans of Vancouver a competitive team each year.

[Ryan Strome]

King Heffy is right Gillis is to blame. He offered the contract after constantly complaining about long term contracts. MG is a hypocrite, even Nonutz stood up to management.

As for the trade, no thank you. I prefer the Canadian kid.

[ForsbergTheGreat]

Bottom line is the Schneider deal was completely unforgivable and it`s going to be damn painful to see the results of the worst GM in the history of the team's idiotic trade for the next decade.

Your severely overrating what Cory's value was. He hadn't even played 100 game in the nhl. he was 27, and a UFA in two years.

Bernier who also got dealt, was younger, had better numbers, and still to a RFA at the end of his deal didn't even muster up a first round pick, let alone a top 10 pick.

The only comparable trade was the Varlamov deal in 2011. but again Varlamov was 4 years younger when he got dealt, had better numbers, better playoff stats, and still a RFA. He got a first and a second. The deal was made a year head of the draft so the caps really didn't know where that pick would be, it happened to become 11th.

The comparables would say Gillis got on par with what other goalies of similar value got over the last 4 years. The fact that he got what he did with being handcuffed by the cap, is somewhat impressive, not idiotic as you put it...

So it seems to me your just blinded by your gillis hate, and spewing of nonsense.

[King Heffy]

Your severely overrating what Cory's value was. He hadn't even played 100 game in the nhl. he was 27, and a UFA in two years.

Bernier who also got dealt, was younger, had better numbers, and still to a RFA at the end of his deal didn't even muster up a first round pick, let alone a top 10 pick.

The only comparable trade was the Varlamov deal in 2011. but again Varlamov was 4 years younger when he got dealt, had better numbers, better playoff stats, and still a RFA. He got a first and a second. The deal was made a year head of the draft so the caps really didn't know where that pick would be, it happened to become 11th.

The comparables would say Gillis got on par with what other goalies of similar value got over the last 4 years. The fact that he got what he did with being handcuffed by the cap, is somewhat impressive, not idiotic as you put it...

So it seems to me your just blinded by your gillis hate, and spewing of nonsense.

Just because other GMs traded their top young goalies for trash doesn't mean ours should have. If that's all the return that was available, a competent GM would have refused to pull the trigger. Gillis making that trade is the equivalent of taking home an extremely unattractive person because a couple of your friends did.

[ForsbergTheGreat]

Just because other GMs traded their top young goalies for trash doesn't mean ours should have. If that's all the return that was available, a competent GM would have refused to pull the trigger. Gillis making that trade is the equivalent of taking home an extremely unattractive person because a couple of your friends did.

It's called market value.

Rather than hold out and believe he can get a supermodel he has to be realistic to come to the conclusion that he's not better than his friends and all he would ever get is the extremely unattractive person.

You want a better analogy

You have a 1991 Sunfire that your trying to sell, just because you think it's worth a million doesn't mean you'll ever sell it for that. You also don't need this Sunfire anymore because you have newer Sunfire sitting in your garage waiting to be taken out for a spin.. So you sell you 91 sunfire for what market value determines it is.

[King Heffy]

It's called market value.

Rather than hold out and believe he can get a supermodel he has to be realistic to come to the conclusion that he's not better than his friends and all he would ever get is the extremely unattractive person.

You want a better analogy

You have a 1991 Sunfire that your trying to sell, just because you think it's worth a million doesn't mean you'll ever sell it for that. You also don't need this Sunfire anymore because you have newer Sunfire sitting in your garage waiting to be taken out for a spin.. So you sell you 91 sunfire for what market value determines it is.

Except we DID need Schneider. Hence why trading him for garbage was a bad deal.

[ForsbergTheGreat]

Except we DID need Schneider. Hence why trading him for garbage was a bad deal.

Miller and Lack say we don't need him. He doesn't get this team any closer to winning a cup now or in the future. He wasn't going to be the difference maker last year and he wouldn't be the difference maker this year, to put this roster over the top to win the cup.

Again I'll take Miller+Lack+Horvat over just Schneider

This team had holes in it's future line up. A great two way center was one of them, goaltending was not.

[Warhippy]

Except we DID need Schneider. Hence why trading him for garbage was a bad deal.

Heff

We had 2.5 options at the time.

Lose Schneider for any return at all, which we did during a very deep draft and now with no Kesler we have McCann and Horvat to anchor our top 6 in the future. As well as Miller, Demko, markstrom, lack and Eriksson. Without mentioning Canaata and Corbiel as well.

Buyout Luongo and suck up what, like $3 million on the cap for a decade? Brilliant move I tell ya. That's how businesses stay afloat....anyone who seriously considered that as a genuine option knows A: Nothing about business and B: less about hockey. The shoddy return we got for Luongo is indicative of what his waning value was more so than an inept GM. Buying him out would have been criminally stupid

and the last .5 of an option was to keep Schneider AND Luongo and done what exactly? Oh ya. NOTHING as we still had NO scoring last year like at all, and then going in to this year with no Virtanen and still 2 goaltenders, no kesler no Matthias no Markstrom and no Demko. Doesn't seem very intelligent in retrospect seeing as how Lack basically took Lous job anyways.

The very fact you or anyone is still complaining about this is sad. it is over, leave it alone. We have Horvat, we have McCann, we have Demko Eriksson and Markstrom. I would say that in place of Schneider, that is ok moving forward if indeed we have to and need to get younger.

Back to the OP yet again though.

See what you did? This is why CDC cannot have nice things.

[Ryan Strome]

Heff

We had 2.5 options at the time.

Lose Schneider for any return at all, which we did during a very deep draft and now with no Kesler we have McCann and Horvat to anchor our top 6 in the future. As well as Miller, Demko, markstrom, lack and Eriksson. Without mentioning Canaata and Corbiel as well.

Buyout Luongo and suck up what, like $3 million on the cap for a decade? Brilliant move I tell ya. That's how businesses stay afloat....anyone who seriously considered that as a genuine option knows A: Nothing about business and B: less about hockey. The shoddy return we got for Luongo is indicative of what his waning value was more so than an inept GM. Buying him out would have been criminally stupid

and the last .5 of an option was to keep Schneider AND Luongo and done what exactly? Oh ya. NOTHING as we still had NO scoring last year like at all, and then going in to this year with no Virtanen and still 2 goaltenders, no kesler no Matthias no Markstrom and no Demko. Doesn't seem very intelligent in retrospect seeing as how Lack basically took Lous job anyways.

The very fact you or anyone is still complaining about this is sad. it is over, leave it alone. We have Horvat, we have McCann, we have Demko Eriksson and Markstrom. I would say that in place of Schneider, that is ok moving forward if indeed we have to and need to get younger.

Back to the OP yet again though.

See what you did? This is why CDC cannot have nice things.

A buy out for Luongo would not have cost 3 million against the cap for decade, you're wrong.

As for the rest of your post, you do make very good points.

[Toews]

King Heffy is right Gillis is to blame. He offered the contract after constantly complaining about long term contracts. MG is a hypocrite, even Nonutz stood up to management.

As for the trade, no thank you. I prefer the Canadian kid.

Wouldn't you agree that CSE and the Aquillinis gave Gillis a lot of resources to work with? Running the hockey ops of the Canucks under the Aquillinis could very well be one of the dream jobs in the NHL.

The team spent to the cap the entire time Gillis was President/GM, the hockey ops department grew in numbers under Gillis' watch, and the Aquillinis supported all of the contracts that were signed and trades that were made (even the questionable ones).

In retrospect, it seems the Aquillinis lost confidence in Gillis when Gillis misread the direction of the NHL in terms of style of play and salary cap (including the imposition of the Luongo rule). It's been my experience that when ownership or majority shareholder loses confidence, they step in and start to impose their input on decision-making at all levels (which is a normal thing that happens). This probably resulted in the Tortorella hiring and quite possibly the trading of Schneider (though the Schneider trade was probably due to practical reasons...i.e., the inability to trade Luongo and his "crappy" contract).

This obviously led to a complete misalignment of vision and direction among ownership, management and coaching, manifesting itself in the car-wreck of a season that we just witnessed.

So, at the end of the day, there was a lot of blame to be shared. Neither Gillis nor Tortorella endeared themselves to the Canucks faithful for obvious reasons, so as costly as it was for the Aquillinis, they did the right thing and eradicated the team of Gillis and gave their blessings on the new hockey ops' decision to fire Tortorella.

Other than the Tortorella hiring (and this isn't and has never been substantiated, so it's only speculation on my part) the Aquillinis have been pretty much hands-off on running the hockey side of the business. They have been good owners, willing to spend money to give the hockey fans of Vancouver a competitive team each year.

Its actually been rumored that Acquilini might have been involved in the Luongo negotiation. A writer from Vancouver (don't remember who) seemed to think the rumor had some merit. Its also not the first instance we have heard of where Acquilini chose to interfere in team matters. Its not very far fetched to believe it either as its not the only instance that a NHL owner has gotten involved in contract discussions with a player.

Off the top of my head, there was the Jeffrey Vanderbeek who handed Kovalchuk his massive contract. There was Ed Snider getting involved in bringing in Bryzgalov. Charles Wang getting involved in the negotiations for Di Pietro. Oren Koules/Len Barrie getting involved in the decision making at Tampa. More recently Geoff Molson getting involved in the Subban discussion. Point is this could easily have been the work of a meddlesome owner.

Luongo was a Vezina caliber goaltender and by far the Canucks best asset. Its not exactly too far fetched to believe that a owner would want to have a say in how the Canucks handled the contract of their best asset. In any case even if it was Gillis' decision to hand that contract, Acquilini should have agreed to fund the money to buy out the contract. This was essential for the long term goals of this franchise and yet this owner was too cheap to hand over the dough required to do that.

The Lightning a team with far lower revenue than the Canucks were willing to rid themselves of the Lecavalier contract. Buffalo did the same to wipe clean the contracts of Ehrhoff and Leino. Same case with the Flyers forking over a large amount of money to get rid of Bryzgalov. So if this owner is supposedly a good one then why wasn't he willing to do what his peers were capable of doing. Its not as if the Canucks are small market team bleeding cash. Considering the size of the fan base and how well the team has performed since Acquilini took over, he has made a decent amount of money so why wasn't willing to reinvest that towards helping the team out in the long run. He is a selfish owner who seems to be quite content when he is getting a cut from the Canucks profits but unwilling to help them out they are in trouble.

Gillis should eventually have been fired, he made too many mistakes and his drafting record was abysmal but he doesn't deserve all the blame for the goaltending fiasco. I would say the majority of the blame lies with Acqulini. We all saw what a mess Tortorella was and supposedly he was involved with that. He is rumored to have been involved in the Luongo contract. He refused to buyout a player that had negative value and forced the team to retain salary on that trade. If we assume that Acquilini is indeed at fault like the rumors say, lets examine scenarios in which he has harmed the team.

1. If Luongo had not gotten that contract, the team could have traded him to a number of teams as he was still a highly regarded goalie. The contract that he would have had would have been more reasonable and the return for a goalie just a year removed from a Vezina caliber season would have been pretty significant. Schneider would have remained with the team and taken over #1 duties.
2. If Luongo with his massive contract had been bought out then the team could have kept Schneider who would have taken over #1 duties. With 5.5M freed up the Canucks could have added a decent winger to play in the top 6. In either case Schneider would have remained and the Canucks would have gotten rid of Luongo without any salary retention nor any cap-recapture effects when he retires.

I am not a Canucks fan but I have come to have a soft spot for the team mainly because of the fans. This is mainly because I have seen Canucks fans get an unfair reputation. I have seen first hand how passionate Canucks fans are about the team. I absolutely despise people who paint an entire fan base with the same brush. From my perspective I don't like what Acqulini has done with the team thus far, I think he is a meddlesome owner who needs to go. He has already done so much potential damage to this team. I think Canucks fans deserve a better owner. Hopefully one that realizes that he holds a franchise in one of the best hockey market in the world.

Sorry for the long winded post but I think it was necessary to convey the point.

[terrible.dee]

I'm sure there would have been a team that would have taken Luongo without any salary being retained if he was traded when he originally asked for one.

Rumor has it there were some deals out the at first, ownership nixed them because we got nothing of significant value in return.

Then, later on when the deal was made, the return was even less.

Sound familiar?

Don't blame Gillis for that, blame Aqua

[terrible.dee]

Other than the Tortorella hiring (and this isn't and has never been substantiated, so it's only speculation on my part) the Aquillinis have been pretty much hands-off on running the hockey side of the business. They have been good owners, willing to spend money to give the hockey fans of Vancouver a competitive team each year.

It has been widely "Speculated" that Aqua shut down the original deals for Luongo and Kesler (At the deadline) as well as the Torts hiring,

If those are the only 3 times he's stepped in, I hope he's learned his lesson.

[JeremyCuddles]

Blame your owner then, he wasn't interested in the buyout option even though it would have benefited the franchise in the long run.

Easy to say when it's not your money.

[William_Clarkson]

Easy to say when it's not your money.

If the reports are true then he could have prevented paying Luongo anything had he not interfered with Gillis' attempts at moving Luongo back when he had more value.

[Dogbyte]

Now that's a SUPER FAIL on so many levels.

Once again Higgins at RW to top it off.

[IBatch]

Way to early. Maybe you should start a post saying we should have picked Modano instead of Linden...wonder what sort of uproar that would create lol.

[Warhippy]

Way to early. Maybe you should start a post saying we should have picked Modano instead of Linden...wonder what sort of uproar that would create lol.

He says as he makes a thread in which he takes a swipe at Horvat being part of one of the worst trades in canucks history in his opinion

[Gollumpus]

Way to early. Maybe you should start a post saying we should have picked Modano instead of Linden...wonder what sort of uproar that would create lol.

Well, the Canucks didn't have a chance to draft Modano. Just like they couldn't draft Perrault over Tallon.

Now if you want to suggest that they should have selected Sittler over Tallon, or Selanne over Linden...

regards,

G.