Nuckin Kingsly Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 He built a monster than tore it down. I still think his most underrated moves were trading for Lappy, Higgins at the Deadline. Also signing Torres, and shoring up the bottom six that year was key to the cup run.I agree man, those trades worked out amazingly for us! Gave us great depth for the long playoff run and almost made the difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Provost Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 His name wasn't ever floated for any of the vacancies last summer... not even an interview. Same with Torts. The best indicator of how these guys are thought of is how the market reacts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Honky Cat Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 How many of these guys are going to become studs in the NHL? How many guys has Gillis landed for this team that will become studs? Potential stars? and that's were Gillis failed big time because his drafting blunders cannot be overlooked! Are you taking into consideration that the highest he picked in the draft was 9th and 10th overall (Horvat,Hodgson)...Canucks usually had their first pick around the mid 20's during Gillis' tenure..not too many studs when you're picking that late. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aliboy Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 He still had to convince them to make a move to a team in their conference. Give credit where it is due and you look like a more credible and knowledgeable poster in my opinion.Look, when Hoff was traded the Sharks needed cap space for another move and Boyle was their goto offensive D-man, so Hoff was expendable, at that time. The Sharks would have clearly been the ones who initiated the discussion as they were clearing cap space. Beyond that, we have no idea how many teams they contacted or what transpired. MG may have just had to say, I'll take them, who knows. So I honestly don't think that much credit is really due and I am being truthful here, as far as I am aware. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush17 Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 This guy is hated and pitchforked out of town but he is coming out looking a lot better recently. He didnt hire Torts the owners did. He messed up the situation with the goalies but the new cap penalties screwed him. He got Horvat out of the deal though which might end up being his greatest move of all. Matthias and Markstrom arent looking like bad pieces for Lu either. When he wasnt pissing away picks on guys like Derek Roy (pukebaby) he was making decent draft picks and his only real horrible pick was Mallet. Cassels, Gaunce, Corrado and Jensen all look like future NHL players as well. Jurys still out on Shinkaruk but I have faith. I would be suprised if he is hired again. His decisions yes were questionable but his arrogance was his greatest fault. Just cause you got a GM title doesn't mean your a good GM. You have to prove your worthy of the title. He did good at 2 points in his tenure here imo. The load up for 2011 (deadline acquistions and the draft picks in his final year. ) Will he be hired again? Perhaps but I would be skeptical if any owner would want someone who is that disliked in the league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 How many of these guys are going to become studs in the NHL? I disagree with the notion that there are no dumb questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronalds.Kenins41 Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 On the top of my head... The Bad: -Drafting -His last years of trade deadlines where he traded for rentals -Goalie controversery -All that NTC The Good: -Horvat, Shink, Cassels, Gaunce -Higgins, Lappy, Ehrhoff for nothing -Undrafted/College signings ex: Tanev You missed so much good, there was a 10 part series in the Vancity buzz and it pointed out that for every failed move he did, there were 5 good ones. Also how can you forget Kenins and Corrado on your list. His bad moves along with his outer personality was the reason he isn't popular but his good moves (despite popular opinion) happened even in his final years. Anyone who hasn't read that series knows very little if anything of what gillis did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronalds.Kenins41 Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 I dont know that gillis would be a good fit in Toronto. His strength was augmenting an existing strong core group. He also left us a future core as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
desiboynux4lifee******* Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 Are you taking into consideration that the highest he picked in the draft was 9th and 10th overall (Horvat,Hodgson)...Canucks usually had their first pick around the mid 20's during Gillis' tenure..not too many studs when you're picking that late. I can name teams that drafted in the mid 20's and have drafted actual studs. Eg, La, Chicago, Blues,etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesB Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 I would not go that far. He was handed the keys when the easy work was done. The West coast express was retired and their contracts were gone, the farm was slightly replenished and Loungo was acquired. AV was a Nonis hire but MG does get credit for keeping him. CDC seems to be split on Gillis. I would not say Gillis an idiot, but I think he made a lot of mistakes. The points I would add to the discussion include the following. 1. The original mega-contract he signed with Luongo was a disaster. I do not buy the argument that penalties added in the 2013 CBA were the key problem. It was a terrible deal even without those penalties and the NHL had indicated its intent to penalize those contracts in any case. 2. While the Sedins are having a very good bounce back year the 4-year deals with cap hits of $7 million are very bad deals. Right now the Sedins might be worth close to $7 million. But even with optimistic projections about age-related decline, those deals will be terrible deals in the last two years. 3. The trade with Florida under which Markstrom and Matthias came to Vancouver was, I understand, largely worked out by Luongo's agent. The Canucks had to eat part of Luongo's salary and Markstrom was a salary dump as he was an expensive player in the minors that Florida wanted to get rid of. Markstrom has had a very good year at Utica and I hope he does well in the NHL, but Gillis does not get much credit for that. 4. Gillis benefited by coming on board and riding the coattails of the exceptional talent of the Sedins as they went through age-related improvement. Kesler and Edler and Luongo (on his original contract) were also core players who would have generated very strong performance regardless of the GM. Overall, I think the Gillis was lucky that he inherited a strong core and an owner willing to spend to the cap. Once we got to the stage where the Gillis acquisitions might have been expected to form a new core it was obvious he had done a terrible job of maintaining the pipeline of good players. As Benning has pointed out, the Canucks had a huge hole in the early to mid-20 age range that is normally crucial to success. And, although Horvat is doing very well, getting a number 9 draft pick for one of the best young goalies in the NHL, who is also a great teammate and a great guy generally, and on a good contract, is not enough. But I agree that Horvat looks better than what would typically be expected for a #9 pick, although possibly he is just one of those guys who matures early and therefore hits his ceiling early. But he looks like a potential very good 2C who plays shutdown, plays PK, takes key faceoffs, and provides decent secondary scoring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chalky Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 Wrong again. BPA was Schroeder. Never said he wasn't. When was I wrong before? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quoted Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 I don't think he was as bad as some painted him. He made some mistakes with trades and picks, but in hindsight, most GMs do. I think his public persona likely worked against him in this market. I wouldn't be surprised one way or the other if he is or isn't ever a GM again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 Wrong He was not the BPA The draft is a crapshoot. We drafted a small forward with injury problems who fell in the draft and got Jordan Schroeder The Sharks drafted a small forward with injury problems who fell in the draft and got Thomas Hurtle.Hertl is 6'-2" 210lbs. The injury problems seem to be made up here. And Schroeder was clearly not BPA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 I would be suprised if he is hired again. His decisions yes were questionable but his arrogance was his greatest fault. Just cause you got a GM title doesn't mean your a good GM. You have to prove your worthy of the title. He did good at 2 points in his tenure here imo. The load up for 2011 (deadline acquistions and the draft picks in his final year. ) Will he be hired again? Perhaps but I would be skeptical if any owner would want someone who is that disliked in the league. You don't think a "GM of the Year" award proves that someone is a good GM? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 CDC seems to be split on Gillis. I would not say Gillis an idiot, but I think he made a lot of mistakes. The points I would add to the discussion include the following. 1. The original mega-contract he signed with Luongo was a disaster. I do not buy the argument that penalties added in the 2013 CBA were the key problem. It was a terrible deal even without those penalties and the NHL had indicated its intent to penalize those contracts in any case. 3. The trade with Florida under which Markstrom and Matthias came to Vancouver was, I understand, largely worked out by Luongo's agent. The Canucks had to eat part of Luongo's salary and Markstrom was a salary dump as he was an expensive player in the minors that Florida wanted to get rid of. Markstrom has had a very good year at Utica and I hope he does well in the NHL, but Gillis does not get much credit for that. 1. I've heard people claim that the NHL threatened retroactive penalties for teams signing front loaded contracts before, but every time I've challenged the claimant to provide a reputable source for that claim, they haven't been able to do so. Can you? Personally, that sounds to me like someone trying to twist a circumstance to support their position. I've also heard several people making the claim that "they knew it was a bad contract when it was signed". However, I remember the day that the contract was done and I don't recall anyone saying that. In fact, the general consensus around CDC was that the relatively low Cap hit was a coup for the Canucks, who would still be in a position to afford key players. The length of the contract was not deemed an issue at the time, because no-one expected Luongo to play out the entire term and at the time, there were no penalties in place for players retiring before the end of their deals. 2. Markstrom was a salary dump? I know the Panthers aren't the richest team, but JM's Cap hit is listed on NHL Numbers at $310k, while his actual salary is $1.4 million. That might seem like a lot to us everyday slobs, but to an NHL franchise (even Florida) it's chump change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apple Juice Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 they were pretty meh at the time.lol no they weren't. Just because Markstrom and Matthias are both playing pretty good this year doesn't make them "meh" last year. That's the difference between you and I. You're a Canucks fan. I'm a hockey fan.Next. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samurai Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 MG not liked around the league is just a lot of hearsay and TSN fueled garbage. It's a business and if there is a trade to be made or business to be done people will trade with whoever. I cannot imagine any competent GM not making a deal that makes his team better because he doesn't like the other guy. Its a cap league and there isn't a lot of trading going on especially with teams that still want to make the playoffs.MG had a lot of successes and failures like any GM. Obviously the Torts hiring was his undoing, especially trying to dump it on the owners.My only major criticism of MG was letting the lu thing go on to long and often I think probably from his days of being an agent he tended to oversell players to the fans (ballard, booth, to name a few) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronalds.Kenins41 Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 lol no they weren't. Just because Markstrom and Matthias are both playing pretty good this year doesn't make them "meh" last year. That's the difference between you and I. You're a Canucks fan. I'm a hockey fan. Next. Your not a hockey fan, your just plain old apple juice, even says so every time you post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 MG not liked around the league is just a lot of hearsay and TSN fueled garbage. It's a business and if there is a trade to be made or business to be done people will trade with whoever. I cannot imagine any competent GM not making a deal that makes his team better because he doesn't like the other guy. Its a cap league and there isn't a lot of trading going on especially with teams that still want to make the playoffs. MG had a lot of successes and failures like any GM. Obviously the Torts hiring was his undoing, especially trying to dump it on the owners. My only major criticism of MG was letting the lu thing go on to long and often I think probably from his days of being an agent he tended to oversell players to the fans (ballard, booth, to name a few) Totally agree with the first paragraph. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
missioncanucksfan Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 Absolutely random thread. He traded away 1st rounders, 2nd rounders, and failed at drafting a real stud in the 1st round. I mean come on its the 1st round.. His blunders continue to be drafting Jordan Schroeder and Patrick White (can't fully recall if he did) His blunders continued with failing to get the Luongo situation solved. I can go on, but yeah I guess your right he will be hired again if a team is desperate?well when you are picking at 28th/29th its kinda hard to get a stud. Slag him if he is picking 12th and drafts a dud.... Schroeder was a gamble, as was trading the 2010 1st for Ballard but he made a ton of key signings and trades so things balance out. His issue was hanging onto this core too long but who knows...maybe he mightve turned it around last summer or this, had he still had his job. Jury is still out on Jensen, Gaunce is picking up steam in the A and we all know what Horvat is doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.