viking mama Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 Agree with your statements about Linden.... his most important decisions were solid and I think that Linden is a smart character and will perform his duties well as President. Yes, the day-to-day decisions won't be made by him and his choice of Benning & WD was a very good start. However, there are still decisions to be made by the President of any organization....the reason that I say I have "slight" concerns is that I would prefer if Linden was still involved with the NHL as opposed to his other businesses. All Presidents still need to make decisions and this is based on information given to them by those who report directly to them. They need to ask the required questions, perform their own due diligence and than make their decisions afterwards. Somebody who has been involved would have an advantage over somebody who hasn't....but this could be erased in short time. Presidents who don't understand the fundamentals of the business or Presidents who are preoccupied with other priorities heavily rely on their management team and specific individuals, and this makes the President very susceptible to influence. Which is not a very good scenario for any organization...a very good example is Bush and the puppet masters (Cheney, Rove, etc). By no means am I comparing Bush and Linden...just an example of the worst possible scenario. I would just prefer if the Canucks was his sole priority and he wasn't distracted by his other businesses... However, like I said, Linden seems to be a very smart character and I'm sure he will be able to catch up on all fronts, if he hasn't done so already. Yes again...."drivel" is the correct term. I was reading an article on Bosh and his relations with Lebron after the Cleveland signing....although the article didn't mention anything about 'dribble', I'm blaming it on this haha But, "dribble" could be used in this situation as well, "a small trickling of stream or flow". In other words, a slow uneventful read... but I admit it wasn't my intended use You also over-look the most important brain-trust & one of the best mentors whom Linden has within his camp... & that is a very long-serving & loyal Canuck Assistant GM & friend... in Laurence Gilman. Gilman is the guy who's been doing a lot of the heavy-lifting in building-up many elements of this franchise which includes...overseeing business practices, contracts, budgets & the very important development & progress of the Canucks farm team. He is also generationally wise to many of the ways of the NHL's old boy's club,...as is Benning. Gilman is a facts & figures guru - who holds the role of team-capologist. Trevor Linden's own role couldn't be more perfectly designed for him. Trevor has cultivated so many awesome frienships & relationships that span the entire continent & the entire NHL fraternity, which will make his education & mentoring process...a smooth one. Thank-you Mr. Cam Neely & others! I think you're just jealous...that he doesnt have these reams of documents from prestigious schools of higher learning... & you're dumping on what you see as a lack of pragmatic education - because you feel rather snobbish about it. Gheez! The best Commanders-in-Chief use all of the information & tools of the trade at their disposal...including their personal relationships, experience & observations. When you surround yourself with a team of very trustworthy & skilled individuals you have no need to be constantly questioning or scrutinizing their motivations ...& we're talking about hockey here,...not the possiblity global nuclear annihilation or the polarized politics of US economics (as per your George Bush analogy). On that note tho'... I love how Linden has managed to marry the knowlege of both east & west, and US & Canadian inter-league-politics within his leadership group...don't you? You may consider Trevor's position to be some-what expendable, if you will,...but his position is a lot about having a vision, team-building & applying a lot of PR to see this vision through. Surprisingly enough,.. I think Linden has a lot of abilities to his credit,... that will make him an even better leader for this organization than Gillis. His name & community servant reputation will immediately buy this organization some more patience from the fan-base ...for one thing. Trusting in his own vision & then demonstrating some humility,...by listening to the well-presented advise from his carefully assembled team of capable & very trusted advisors looks likely....to be another one of them. Can you honestly say.. Mr. Gillis had either one of these attributes in particular abundance? I think not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THERETOOL Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 reading this just bummed me out big time .. I won't be buying this depressing book .. Id like to look forward now as a fan , not backwards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
viking mama Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 I wholeheartedly agree with some of Dowbiggin's points (the Canucks lost in '11 due to lack of healthy bodies, Gillis shaking things up in unconventional yet effective methods, Torts, creating a positive player environment in Van), but completely disagree with others (Benning & Linden being "noobs" (Gillis also had 0 GM experience before Van), Willie having no coaching experience (except for over a decade of coaching at various levels), & Van being "toxic" for players now). All that being said, any book that has that amount of intrigue is certainly worth a library visit...no way am I paying for the book directly though. This book from what I have scanned through at Cole's...reads like posts on wikipedia. You'll be disappointed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipBlunt Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 You claim to have written a 200 page manual? This reads like dribble...you can't even form proper sentences and anyone's supposed to believe you? Maybe it was an essay for one of your high school classes? Regardless, nobody would be able to understand it or trust your judgement because you don't use facts...instead, you just make up facts to support your points. I did write a 200 page manual. Why would I lie about that? I could understand maybe someone lying about meeting a player or the size of a fish they caught in the Vedder, but writing a manual? Are you one of those petulant little grammar Nazis? I believe most of my posts are understood by the reader. If you can't, I suggest a phonics exercise. Hell, I'll even write it for you, if you want. Claim what facts I skewed. Please. I may have misquoted Kesler's first year as a Canuck, but wasn't as off base as you were in claiming that Gillis drafted him. That I believe was a claim you made. - "Another gutless move"....duh, what in your little mind is gutless? Do you even understand this term? I do understand the meaning of gutless. It is defined as lacking courage or determination. Which I believe defines you. You reacted vehemently to my initial post criticizing Gillis, and spewed impotent vitriol as if I had insulted you personally. - "Gillis offered the team no direction that was static" & "Your statements are either based solely on your skewed and spoon fed by the Province opinion or the work of a spineless coward."...you need to add punctuation and how can you not come up with a more relevant term than "spineless"? This term doesn't fit. I'll do you a favour here and demonstrate proper punctuation and grammar, as your writing clearly lacks it. Your statement should read as follows: "You need to use (not add) proper punctuation and find a more relevant term than spineless. Beginning a sentence with a trail of periods is extremely bad form, as is not capitalizing the first word of the sentence. Top that of with ending a statement with a question mark, and you truly have the hallmarks of a horrible sentence. Spineless fits just fine. - "Do me a kindness."...This makes me question where you're from....if English is your 2nd language, it would be acceptable. Question where I'm from? What are you? A border guard? You seem to have some self righteous bigotry percolating just below the surface there. Do me a kindness is fine. If it works for Jack Rebney, it works for me. Factor in the above and couple it with your comprehension issues and the picture becomes clearer....my "walnut-sized cerebrum" at least functions properly. You claim my "entire" post is based on conjecture and that I generalize everything? Yet, you haven't addressed any particular point. In fact, all you did was generalize the entire post and focused on the "decorations" to prove your point or you just conjured up some imaginary statement. Childish tactics at best.... Nope. I addressed inconsistencies in your post pretty directly. Please don't believe that just because you create these scenarios in your mind, that they have any plausibility in real world circumstances. They don't. 1) You said my "walnut-sized cerebrum" missed the fact that Lou's wife lived here last season? You wrote, "Loungo's wife has lived in Florida for all but one season of his career. That was last season." What I actually said was, "...his wife, she wanted to go back to Florida." In your futile attempt to disprove my points....you inadvertently supported it! The point was, his family wanted him to be in Florida...he wanted to be with his family, so it was a factor in his decision to be traded there. You are clearly suffering from dementia. My statement in no way supported yours. Honestly, why would Luongo's wife leave Florida and move to Vancouver after so many years, in hopes of swaying him to move back to the Sunshine State? Your point makes no sense. 2) "Gillis offered the team no direction that was static", MG took a bottom dwelling team to the SCF in less than 5 years. No direction? hmmm...uh, ok. I see you enjoy removing key words to suit your purposes. "No direction that was static." and "No direction" are vastly different statements. Gillis had a direction, he just never kept it focused on one outcome. His idea of what kind of team he wanted, changed with the breeze. It did not remain static 3) "He himself admitted to moving the goalposts numerous times", this is a PRIME example of your comprehension issues or addiction to conjuring up stories. MG never said that HE moved the goalposts...he said, "I really feel the last couple of seasons we have chased goalposts that have been moving and got away from our core principals of how I want this team to play and how I want it to perform and the the tempo we want to play with..." http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/Canucks+style+blame+team+struggles+Mike+Gillis/9696073/story.html#ixzz3FbmY66DjB I misquoted Gillis here and I'll eat that delicious crow. However his statement clearly shows he had no fixed idea of the teams identity. 4) "And Gillis took over in 2008, Genius. Two years after Kesler played his first game as a Canuck.", another PRIME example of how you conjure up something to prove a point. Where did I even mention Kesler to you? Where did I mention when Gillis took over? Prove your points Genius! This is a quote from your initial response to my post: "Finding key pieces....??? one of the two players you mentioned, "the greatest defensive forward" is a player that MG picked up amongst many" You stated that Gillis "picked up" Kesler . My comments are based on facts & theories coupled with my own analysis...your comments are typical of some teenager who's been influenced by peers and the media, no clue on the actual situation and just regurgitated feces. You and facts don't get along very well. You're just crying and whining when you don't know how good you had it...MG had GM'd the Canucks to the best seasons in history during his tenure here. On top of that, he took this team and matched the highest levels, SCF, in Canucks history....to even consider MG as one of the worst GM's is asinine. In your case, I guess it should be expected.... Pat Quinn took his team to the same level as Gillis, as a coach and GM. Your constant repetitious lame excuses for insults are a bore and bely some deep seated issues. You create a fallacy yet again by trying to shove words in my mouth. I clearly state that Gillis started out well, but crashed and burned. Nowhere in my post do I state that he is the worst GM. You fabricate that, just like so many other things. I just dismantled your entire post and proved you to be a sham....People with low IQ's are so easily spotted, don't try and be something you're not. In your mind only, nuck luck. Can I ask you a question? Did the person who told you that "people with low IQ's are so easily spotted" say that after they found you? Do YOURSELF a kindness favor, stop posting on CDC because the more you post the more you lose credibility. I find a lot of posters on the CDC to be extremely interesting people. Most offer an insight, something to consider and learn from. You, however, are as vanilla and monotone as they come. Your posts are a bore, as is your misguided arrogance and sad attempts at dismantling. In your next response, please try to be somewhat creative and interesting. Otherwise, you're stealing valuable real estate on this board. I expect that you'll rehash your last diatribe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuck luck Posted October 11, 2014 Share Posted October 11, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alfstonker Posted October 11, 2014 Share Posted October 11, 2014 As soon as it became apparent that the guy is a pro Gillis man, this book became unreadable for me. He also seems to think no one wants to come here, well no one worth a damn wanted to come here under Gillis and even if they did Gillis could never get the job done anyway. I would say that JB and Willie will be a much more attractive situation to come into if/when they demonstrate logical progression and team building which is what I think this club is about now under TL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monty Posted October 11, 2014 Share Posted October 11, 2014 well no one worth a damn wanted to come here under Gillis and even if they did Gillis could never get the job done anyway. - Hamhuis - Garrison - Torres - Malholtra - Samuelson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipBlunt Posted October 11, 2014 Share Posted October 11, 2014 It's quite clear you are a delusional character... Just accept the advice I gave you in the last post and do yourself a favor! You are running out of credibility as I point out all your lies and misguided quotes. I never claimed to have written a book or manual. My business doesn't involve anything of the sort, so I would expect that I make some errors....so be it. If I claimed to have written anything that is intended for public reading than I would be greatly embarrassed for the same errors....how do you feel about it? I will also add that I'm not a grammar nazis, but I expect a certain level from people who claim to be writers. The reasons that I pointed your errors out is because I was emphasizing my point about you claiming to have written a 200 pg manual. I would have assumed that you would be able to put the two together...but I guess my expectations were to high. SKEWERED FACTS, MISQUOTES AND LIES 1) You admitted to misquoting the year Kesler started with the Canucks 2) You wrote, "Claim what facts I skewed. Please. I may have misquoted Kesler's first year as a Canuck, but wasn't as off base as you were in claiming that Gillis drafted him. That I believe was a claim you made." This was something you conjured up... I never mentioned Kesler in regards to MG to you in this thread. I'll go even further and add that I NEVER claimed MG drafted Kesler. I even asked you to find this infamous quote, which you happened to conveniently overlook.... 3) You wrote, "I see you enjoy removing key words to suit your purposes. "No direction that was static." and "No direction" are vastly different statements." Post #125 written by YOU in this thread, "Gillis offered the team no direction that was static." I didn't remove any words in that quote. Who is suffering from dementia? You are D-E-L-U-S-I-O-N-A-L... 4) I pointed out with a direct quote on how you, AGAIN, misquoted MG on the comment about the moving goalposts. However, you feel compelled to write, "I misquoted Gillis here and I'll eat that delicious crow. However his statement clearly shows he had no fixed idea of the teams identity." Here's MG quote again, "I really feel the last couple of seasons we have chased goalposts that have been moving and got away from our core principals of how I want this team to play and how I want it to perform and the the tempo we want to play with..." You interpret this as MG having no idea on the teams identity? Interesting. If you ignore the first part of the sentence, than I would interpret the same. However, it is a significant portion of his statement, so you have to include it as such. He is saying that the NHL has been changing their priorities, which has effected the type of team he wanted to build. I guess we can add HYPOCRITE to your character description. As you said to me, "I see you enjoy removing key words to suit your purposes." ** AH....here is where I see you get the Kesler talk. I will admit that I read your statement wrong, I only glanced at it and thought you were talking about a PMD...Ehrhoff. Hence, I discussed Ehrhoff as being a key piece that he picked up prior to the SCF in the next paragraph. Since I never mentioned "Kesler" or "draft", I couldn't understand where this was coming from... But, to be factual, you wrote, "You stated that Gillis "picked up" Kesler ."..... I NEVER mentioned Kesler's name or drafting him. Hmmm....a few posts from you and I count 4 skewered facts already. Looks like I'm not the one having problems juggling facts... MG's TENURE Pat Quinn won 2 President Trophies? and Western Conference Titles? Please inform us all. Pat Quinn did well enough, but what's your point? Pat Quinn record was "close" to MG so MG isn't one of the better GM's the Canucks ever had? I said MG gave us the best seasons in Canucks history and the hardware proves it. Stating and implying are similar on forums like this. If you're going to "imply" that he was an awful GM than I would expect you to use facts to back it up. Not misquotes, lies and misinformation. Especially on recent events like the Loungo trade.... Your initial post that I replied to, you wrote, "So if he created such a great atmosphere for players to be in, why did the greatest goalie and the greatest defensive forward this team has had in a decade wanted out?" You are implying that MG was at fault because he didn't create a good enough atmosphere, that these two wanted out because of MG?...factually wrong. I also enjoy other people's insights regarding the Canucks and I don't need to agree with everyone....but I can't tolerate it when people like yourself intentionally try to mislead readers. Give it a rest and get off your high horse....see that in your rearview? it's your credibility. And you rehahsed your last post, just like I said you would. You disappoint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brick Tamland Posted October 11, 2014 Share Posted October 11, 2014 uh.. the '11 team was statistically the best team in the NHL in numerous categories some not just for that season but historically in the entire nhl.. it included 2 hart winners, a selke winner and a vezina finalist (should have won). The '94 team was not expect to do what they did in the playoffs.. the '11 was far and away the best team in the league for the entire season.. and the next season.. its not even close. I have lots of love for the '94 team but '11 was better ( a lot better) in every category. Do you know why I put team in quotations? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2SKATES1STICK Posted October 11, 2014 Share Posted October 11, 2014 - Hamhuis - Garrison - Torres - Malholtra - Samuelson Sundin Demitra Tanev Fox Ericsson MATHIEU SCHNEIDER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
48MPHSlapShot Posted October 11, 2014 Share Posted October 11, 2014 Wow. This thread is probably a more interesting read than he book itself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alfstonker Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 - Hamhuis - Garrison - Torres - Malholtra - Samuelson Is that all you could muster in 6 years??? That's not even one a year. Please don't tempt me to make you look foolish by doing a team comparison with half the league over the last 6 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DefCon1 Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 After this year, they would need to write another book called "The fall and the rise of the Canucks". I see Linden and Benning making this team a contender again. All we would need to add is a puck moving D-man to compliment our high tempo, fast paced system that Willie D has implemented. Maybe Subban could be that guy in a few years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mcfly Posted October 13, 2014 Share Posted October 13, 2014 uh.. the '11 team was statistically the best team in the NHL in numerous categories some not just for that season but historically in the entire nhl.. it included 2 hart winners, a selke winner and a vezina finalist (should have won). The '94 team was not expect to do what they did in the playoffs.. the '11 was far and away the best team in the league for the entire season.. and the next season.. its not even close. I have lots of love for the '94 team but '11 was better ( a lot better) in every category. ...the way we broke every team record leading up to the finals... and then a game 7... it was almost a fairy tale ending. Almost Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.