Jonah Gadjovich | LW

[204CanucksFan]

34 minutes ago, Ray_Cathode said:

You realize that what you are proposing is having players dictate to the team where they can be traded, under what conditions and for whom? When being blackmailed, one should not just roll over and surrender - which is what Benning did. If players are unhappy, then they should not play - it just brings down the entire team. If a player wants out, it should be on the terms of the team that has invested so much in him - not just to be bandaid to some spoilt brat's 'feelings'. The real world does not give a damn about one's feelings, nor should it. There is nothing in a team's 'written' word that says how it should bow to blackmail from players.

Not playing players who are unhappy is not 'destroying' them - they are destroying themselves by being unwilling to play. It also does not 'destroy' a player by being unwilling to acquiesce to his demands - is the average Joe being 'destroyed' because his employer won't pay him more than he is worth? 

One maximizes return on players by increasing the number of teams available to bid for his services, rather than being forced to only deal with a single team, as in the case of Kesler.

So then how would you of handled the Kesler situation?

[Ray_Cathode]

8 minutes ago, 204CanucksFan said:

So then how would you of handled the Kesler situation?

I already said. Let him sit until he relents on his demand to only be traded to one team. It is to be realized that it is not the Canucks alone who are under time pressure - so is Kesler. If the Canucks refuse to deal under Kesler’s demands, he too is under pressure - his problem is how long will Anaheim hold out until they seek someone else. At this time, Kesler is a very valuable property, worth a lot more than Bonino and a 24th overall pick. Anaheim also helt the tenth overall pick that year. Forcing the hand of Kesler and Anaheim by threatening to hold out forever, could have freed the higher pick, or open up the market to other teams if Anaheim walks. In either case, opening the market to more teams permits a better return.

 

Sure, Kesler has the right to make demands and use what he thinks is his leverage, but the team has an equal right to do exactly the same. Benning panicked, feeling the need to fill the number two centre slot, which Bonino was not - and neither was Sutter, the best he could get for Bonino. Bonino finally proved his worth in Pittsburg as a number three centre, behind a Crosby and Malkin - he had reached his appropriate level. Sutter came here as a number two centre, something he clearly was not - Pittsburg used him as a number three centre, but considered a Bonino to be an improvement - which he turned out to be in their context, contributing to a Stanley Cup as a number three centre.

[204CanucksFan]

.

Edited March 11, 2021 by 204CanucksFan
Bad formatting. See post below

[Ray_Cathode]

On 3/9/2021 at 7:46 AM, 204CanucksFan said:

By 'things they did do in rebuilding their team' are you referring to trading for 3 consecutive first round picks and then immediately whiffing all of them? And you want to talk about Bennings bad signing of Eriksson but what about Bostons signings of Coyle, Debrusk and Grzelcyk. Myers has as many points as Coyle and Debrusk combined. They are an incredibly overrated team at this point. They are exactly 1 line deep. With one defenseman and two decent goalies. Demko has a worse GAA than Halak or Rask but a better save percentage. The biggest thing they have is they are much better coached team that plays a better structure. They also have one of the worst prospect pools in the entire NHL, so much for building from within. 

 

I still can't figure out why signing Ferland was a bad signing to people, sure it didn't work out because of his concussions but at this point all it costs is the owners money, doesn't count against the cap and doesn't take a roster spot either so it's a nothing signing at this point. And if it wasn't for the injuries he would be something that this team is sorely missing. Hopefully in the near future Gadj can fill that hole

 

 

Are you referring to the three picks in 2015 that they traded for? If so, Debrusk was hardly a whiff, and those picks took place after a Benning had left for Vancouver, where he plies his trade as an astute evaluator of young prospects. But that hardly disproves the value of the general strategy - it just establishes that Boston had lost their best evaluator of draft eligible prospects.

 

In any event, I don’t criticize Benning for his draft record, quite the opposite, I wish he had had more picks, especially early on where those extra picks might have been ready to help us by now. It is Benning’s pro trades and free agent signings - until the Miller and Myers signings that I criticize. Overpaying marginal third and fourth liners is not good practice, especially when it leads to being unable to re-sign valuable assets and thus being able to realize their value in trades for other assets or picks.

[204CanucksFan]

15 minutes ago, Ray_Cathode said:

I already said. Let him sit until he relents on his demand to only be traded to one team. It is to be realized that it is not the Canucks alone who are under time pressure - so is Kesler. If the Canucks refuse to deal under Kesler’s demands, he too is under pressure - his problem is how long will Anaheim hold out until they seek someone else. At this time, Kesler is a very valuable property, worth a lot more than Bonino and a 24th overall pick. Anaheim also helt the tenth overall pick that year. Forcing the hand of Kesler and Anaheim by threatening to hold out forever, could have freed the higher pick, or open up the market to other teams if Anaheim walks. In either case, opening the market to more teams permits a better return.

 

Sure, Kesler has the right to make demands and use what he thinks is his leverage, but the team has an equal right to do exactly the same. Benning panicked, feeling the need to fill the number two centre slot, which Bonino was not - and neither was Sutter, the best he could get for Bonino. Bonino finally proved his worth in Pittsburg as a number three centre, behind a Crosby and Malkin - he had reached his appropriate level. Sutter came here as a number two centre, something he clearly was not - Pittsburg used him as a number three centre, but considered a Bonino to be an improvement - which he turned out to be in their context, contributing to a Stanley Cup as a number three centre.

Ok but make him sit how? Like just stick him in the press box for every game? He is still coming to practice every day and still traveling with the team and being a cancer in the locker room every day in that scenario. Sure it was a s#!@%y situation but sometimes you have just suck it up and do whatever it takes to get the situation concluded as quickly as possibly so it doesn't become some long, drawn out thing that makes things harder for the rest of the team.

[204CanucksFan]

27 minutes ago, Ray_Cathode said:

Are you referring to the three picks in 2015 that they traded for? If so, Debrusk was hardly a whiff, and those picks took place after a Benning had left for Vancouver, where he plies his trade as an astute evaluator of young prospects. But that hardly disproves the value of the general strategy - it just establishes that Boston had lost their best evaluator of draft eligible prospects.

 

In any event, I don’t criticize Benning for his draft record, quite the opposite, I wish he had had more picks, especially early on where those extra picks might have been ready to help us by now. It is Benning’s pro trades and free agent signings - until the Miller and Myers signings that I criticize. Overpaying marginal third and fourth liners is not good practice, especially when it leads to being unable to re-sign valuable assets and thus being able to realize their value in trades for other assets or picks.

Debrusk is definitely a whiff of a pick especially when you look at the 3 people drafted immediately after Bostons picks. I mean, he has 1 goal this season. The free agents have been a rough spot for Benning but every one of them expire either after this season or next season, right when our first crop of young talent is ready to be resigned off their entry level deals.

 

As far as the players that weren't resigned after last year, Markstrom was never going to resigned here unless he was going to take a similar contract to what Holtby got, but there is also no way a team in the middle of a playoff race is going to trade away their de facto starter so that situation ended the only way it ever was going to end. Sure it kind of sucks seeing as he went Calgary but that contract is already starting to look worse for them than it did when he signed it. Same goes for Tanev, not getting traded in the middle of the playoff hunt but was never going to get  that kind of money from us. Also already looking like a bad deal for Calgary. I didn't want to see Stetcher leave but he isn't exactly top 4 caliber and we needed room on the bottom pair to start giving some of the young guys a place to grow in to. As for Toffoli, he ends up as a pure rental which I'm ok with. Losing the 2nd rounder sucks but Madden is a nothing prospect. Besides we have players to replace him like Hog and Podz, not to mention all the other talent coming up like Lind, Jasek and Gadj who just tied for AHL lead in goals so far this season

Edited March 11, 2021 by 204CanucksFan
Spelling

[Ray_Cathode]

4 hours ago, 204CanucksFan said:

Ok but make him sit how? Like just stick him in the press box for every game? He is still coming to practice every day and still traveling with the team and being a cancer in the locker room every day in that scenario. Sure it was a s#!@%y situation but sometimes you have just suck it up and do whatever it takes to get the situation concluded as quickly as possibly so it doesn't become some long, drawn out thing that makes things harder for the rest of the team.

The Canucks didn’t have to sit Kesler out, he sat himself out by refusing to report while term remained on his Vancouver contract - thus violating the terms of his contract. So the Canucks are supposed to honor the terms of a deal that the player does not, that he in fact has broken? I think not. You break your deal and don’t show up to work? Then rot - it is what you chose to do, so do it. When we get around to making a deal on our terms, we’ll do it.

[204CanucksFan]

7 hours ago, Ray_Cathode said:

The Canucks didn’t have to sit Kesler out, he sat himself out by refusing to report while term remained on his Vancouver contract - thus violating the terms of his contract. So the Canucks are supposed to honor the terms of a deal that the player does not, that he in fact has broken? I think not. You break your deal and don’t show up to work? Then rot - it is what you chose to do, so do it. When we get around to making a deal on our terms, we’ll do it.

What are you talking about??? Kesler never refused to report, never said he would refuse to report, never even implied he would refuse to report, at least not publicly. You're obviously a little confused so here is a history lesson for you;

 

Back during the 2013-14 season Kesler, at some point approached then GM Mike Gillis and requested a trade. Gillis, being the inept GM that he was, didn't deal with the situation and let it linger and fester like he usually did (see Luongo sagas, Versions 1 and 2). After a dismal season Gillis and Torts were unceremoniously fired. In May 2014 Jim Benning was hired as the new GM and he began to reach out to all the players to see where they were at. At that point Benning was informed by Kesler that he wanted no part of a rebuild or retool, he wanted to continue to compete for a championship while he was in his prime. He wanted out of Vancouver. Kesler, knowing that he had a full No Movement Clause, that Gillis liked to hand out like candy, knew he had full control over his fate and said he would only accept a trade to either Anaheim or Chicago. Benning worked the phones and got the best deal that he could, that he thought would help the team remain competitive for then and the future. Benning was considering a deal with Chicago but liked the return from Anaheim a little better so he pulled the trigger on that and said Chicago was in on Kesler right up until the end.

 

Obviously in hindsight the return didn't work out so well for Vancouver but given the next contract Kesler signed with Anaheim, how his medical condition played out there and the fact that he never did end up winning a Cup there I'd say that that situation ended up as a lose-lose for all involved.

[SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME]

4 hours ago, 204CanucksFan said:

Back during the 2013-14 season Kesler, at some point approached then GM Mike Gillis and requested a trade. Gillis, being the inept GM that he was, didn't deal with the situation and let it linger and fester like he usually did (see Luongo sagas, Versions 1 and 2). After a dismal season Gillis and Torts were unceremoniously fired. In May 2014 Jim Benning was hired as the new GM and he began to reach out to all the players to see where they were at. At that point Benning was informed by Kesler that he wanted no part of a rebuild or retool, he wanted to continue to compete for a championship while he was in his prime. He wanted out of Vancouver. Kesler, knowing that he had a full No Movement Clause, that Gillis liked to hand out like candy, knew he had full control over his fate and said he would only accept a trade to either Anaheim or Chicago. Benning worked the phones and got the best deal that he could, that he thought would help the team remain competitive for then and the future. Benning was considering a deal with Chicago but liked the return from Anaheim a little better so he pulled the trigger on that and said Chicago was in on Kesler right up until the end.

Gillis was blocked by ownership. Multiple sources, both out of Vancouver and Pittsburgh, confirmed that Gillis had a trade worked out with the Penguins, but it fell apart when the Aquilinis refused to authorize their GM to complete the deal. The return, according to multiple sources, would have been 1st and 3rd round picks, Brandon Sutter, and one of either Brian Dumoulin or Simon Despres (with our luck, we’d have taken Despres, but Dumoulin would have been quite the steal).

 

Kesler did not have a full NMC. He had an NTC. The only players on the 2013-14 Canucks with full NMCs were the Sedins. Kesler, Luongo, Edler, Bieksa, Hamhuis, Garrison, Burrows, Higgins, and Hansen, all had some form of NTC (either current or pending), many of them modified.

 

It’s true that Gillis gave out a lot of trade clauses to his UFA signings/extensions, but this was a tool that allowed the Canucks to shave considerable money off of their salary cap, and put together the type of roster that took them to within one win of the Stanley Cup, and was, during its peak, the most dominant team in Canucks history. The NTCs/NMCs were the cost of doing business. Without a doubt, they created barriers to maximizing trade returns, once it came time to sell off assets and rebuild, but they were a necessary evil to keep that team intact during a contending phase.

 

And while Gillis may have “given them out like candy,” let’s not pretend that Benning wouldn’t have done the exact same thing. In fact, JB has given out some form of NTC/NMC to every eligible player he’s signed on the current Canucks roster (something Gillis never did, although he came close). I have little doubt JB would have given the same clauses to every player Gillis did, while probably also handing out higher salary and term, in many cases.

Edited March 11, 2021 by SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME
Autocorrect and typo

[Kootenay Gold]

16 hours ago, Ray_Cathode said:

You realize that what you are proposing is having players dictate to the team where they can be traded, under what conditions and for whom? When being blackmailed, one should not just roll over and surrender - which is what Benning did.

Ray, do you realize that Kesler's contract with the NTC was not of Jim Benning's doing but that of Mike Gillis. That contract was agreed upon in 2012 long before JB took over as GM. Contracts are legal documents and if you deliberately break a contract you will most likely be challenged in court and not only by the player and his agent but also the players association and possibly the league as well. I doubt you come out of that scenario without severe repercussions to the GM and the team. IMO, JB did what he could to salvage something out of a lousy contract. In contrast if you delve into the NTC or NMC clauses of JB's signings, the NTC contracts are really not that limiting to the GM if he wants to trade that player.As for the NMC clauses both Edler and Hamonic's contracts expire this year thus they do not need to be protected for the expansion draft. Granted; they may choose to sign elsewhere next season, but may opt to re-sign with the Canucks if a price and term can be agreed upon. The two glaring mistakes that JB made were signing Eriksson for both the price and term of the contract. Ferland was the other big mistake IMO as he already had previous concussion and other issues prior to being signed. It was a very risky move by JB and one that has not turned out well.

[204CanucksFan]

 

20 minutes ago, SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME said:

Gillis was blocked by ownership. Multiple sources, both out of Vancouver and Pittsburgh, confirmed that Gillis had a trade worked out with the Penguins, but it fell apart when the Aquilinis refused to authorize their GM to complete the deal. The return, according to multiple sources, would have been 1st and 3rd round picks, Brandon Sutter, and one of either Brian Dumoulin or Simon Despres (with our luck, we’d have taken Despres, but Dumoulin would have been quite the steal).

 

Kesler did not have a full NMC. He had an NTC. The only players on the 2013-14 Canucks with full NMCs were the Sedins. Kesler, Luongo, Edler, Bieksa, Hamhuis, Garrison, Burrows, Higgins, and Hansen, all had some form of NTC (either current or pending), many of them modified.

 

It’s true that Gillis gave out a lot of trade clauses to his UFA signings/extensions, but this was a tool that allowed the Canucks to shave considerable money off of their salary cap, and put together the type of roster that took them to within one win of the Stanley Cup, and was, during its peak, the most dominant team in Canucks history. The NTCs/NMCs were the cost of doing business. Without a doubt, they created barriers to maximizing trade returns, once it came time to sell off assets and rebuild, but they were a necessary evil to keep that team intact during a contending phase.

 

And while Gillis may have “given them out like candy,” let’s not pretend that Benning wouldn’t have done the exact same thing. In fact, JB has given out some form of NTC/NMC to every eligible player he’s signed on the current Canucks roster (something Gillis never did, although he came close). I have little doubt JB would have given the same clauses to every player Gillis did, while probably also handing out higher salary and term, in many cases.

You  are absolutely right about the NTC vs NMC with Kesler. I would like to know what sources confirmed that the trade was blocked by ownership. Here is a quote from Elliotte Friedmans 30 Thoughts article from 2014: 

 

2. Canuck rumour II: That ownership blocked Gillis from trading Ryan Kesler at the deadline. Verdict: Don't believe it. As mentioned above, Aquilini was well aware of the GM's plans. It would not be the least bit surprising if an interested team or two told Vancouver it could be involved at the draft, but not now, for cap reasons. Also, when Kesler said no to Columbus, the Rangers and Philadelphia, the Canucks may have pulled back because they didn't like the situation.

3. It is believed the six teams to which Kesler would accept a deal at the deadline were Anaheim, Chicago, Colorado, Detroit, Pittsburgh and Tampa Bay. Only two -- the Ducks and Penguins -- were really in it, though.

 

Even Gillis stated that they didnt make the deal with the Penguins because he didn't feel it was a good deal. "We entertained multiple [other] offers on multiple situations today, and none of them fit our expectations or our long-term needs"

[SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME]

22 minutes ago, 204CanucksFan said:

 

You  are absolutely right about the NTC vs NMC with Kesler. I would like to know what sources confirmed that the trade was blocked by ownership. Here is a quote from Elliotte Friedmans 30 Thoughts article from 2014: 

 

2. Canuck rumour II: That ownership blocked Gillis from trading Ryan Kesler at the deadline. Verdict: Don't believe it. As mentioned above, Aquilini was well aware of the GM's plans. It would not be the least bit surprising if an interested team or two told Vancouver it could be involved at the draft, but not now, for cap reasons. Also, when Kesler said no to Columbus, the Rangers and Philadelphia, the Canucks may have pulled back because they didn't like the situation.

3. It is believed the six teams to which Kesler would accept a deal at the deadline were Anaheim, Chicago, Colorado, Detroit, Pittsburgh and Tampa Bay. Only two -- the Ducks and Penguins -- were really in it, though.

 

Even Gillis stated that they didnt make the deal with the Penguins because he didn't feel it was a good deal. "We entertained multiple [other] offers on multiple situations today, and none of them fit our expectations or our long-term needs"

From the same interview you quote Gillis, here’s what else he had to say:

 

“Ownership is involved in all kinds of decisions that we make," said Gillis. "And when you are in a situation like that at trade deadline day and the draft they are going to be involved as you advance situations and evaluate situations, like any other business. It’s not uncommon. In fact, it’s encouraged, because you need everybody in alignment when you are doing these kinds of things."

 

You have to read between the lines a bit here, and remember the circumstances under which Gillis is speaking. He’s still employed, but his authority has been compromised, and he’s hanging on by a thread, as far as keeping his job. So he’s not going to directly come out and say ownership nixed the deal. Had he done that, he’s have been fired by end of business that day. But he’s giving as much of an answer as he can, as far as whether or not the owners were involved in the deadline trade decisions.

 

People hate Botchford, but Jason did have  legitimate sources, and he maintained, with 100% confidence, right up until his death, that he had sources confirming that the Canucks owners had blocked Gillis from completing the Kesler trade. He said as much numerous times, whether in radio hits, The Athletic articles, and on his podcasts.

 

Rob Rossi, out of Pittsburgh, who was following the Kesler trade negotiations as close as anyone at the time, suggested the same reasoning, as to why the deal fell apart.

 

And when Gillis was interviewed years later, regarding the 2013-14 season, and rumoured trades, here’s what he had to say:

 

“We had a plan for that,” said Gillis. “We had really strong players who were highly desirable. We had some trades on the table at the deadline before I got fired that would’ve changed the landscape of the team.”

“There were a couple and they didn’t happen. That was an organizational decision that didn’t happen.”

 

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/canucks-gm-mike-gillis-interview-2018

 

”Organizational decision” is the key term here. You have to remember that Gillis wasn’t just the GM, but was President of Canucks Sports and Entertainment (CSE), and not just Hockey Ops. There was no higher authority inside the organization, other than ownership. So when he talks about an “organizational decision,” he’s saying the Aquilinis overruled him.

 

Similarly, you start to get an idea of the 2013-14 picture, when Gillis discusses the Torts hiring:

 

“We all felt the team needed a different viewpoint but it became apparent to me early on that this wasn’t going to work, and as I made those feelings clearer and I made them clearer on this station – I said later on that I didn’t like the direction of the team and where we were headed – I knew I was becoming part of the problem and not the solution by doing that.

“The solution is to find your way out of it and do your best, but I didn’t see a way we could emerge from this intact. I was watching a lot of the things we had done that gave us a competitive advantage go out the window, and I made my position clear. And in professional sports, 90 per cent of the time, as Laurence likes to say, you get rid of your problem. I was the problem and I deserved to go because I disagreed with certain things.”

“When I couldn’t be influential in the things I thought I should be influential in, I guess so.”

 

Again, for the President of CSE to say he “couldn’t be influential in the things [he] thought [he] should be influential in,” that means ownership had stepped in, as there was no one else within the Canucks organization with the authority to limit Gillis’s influence. Ownership had cut Gillis off at the knees, and he was no longer calling the shots. That was the situation in 2013-14, from the head coach hiring, through the trade deadline, and up to the day Gillis was fired.

[Boudrias]

I have always thought that the team could have been seriously tweeked in 2012 but when it didn't happen there had to be a rebuild started. I am not blaming ownership because they have imperatives that fans are not aware of. The Acquilinis are the best owners the org have ever had. 

[204CanucksFan]

11 minutes ago, SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME said:

From the same interview you quote Gillis, here’s what else he had to say:

 

“Ownership is involved in all kinds of decisions that we make," said Gillis. "And when you are in a situation like that at trade deadline day and the draft they are going to be involved as you advance situations and evaluate situations, like any other business. It’s not uncommon. In fact, it’s encouraged, because you need everybody in alignment when you are doing these kinds of things."

 

You have to read between the lines a bit here, and remember the circumstances under which Gillis is speaking. He’s still employed, but his authority has been compromised, and he’s hanging on by a thread, as far as keeping his job. So he’s not going to directly come out and say ownership nixed the deal. Had he done that, he’s have been fired by end of business that day. But he’s giving as much of an answer as he can, as far as whether or not the owners were involved in the deadline trade decisions.

 

People hate Botchford, but Jason did have  legitimate sources, and he maintained, with 100% confidence, right up until his death, that he had sources confirming that the Canucks owners had blocked Gillis from completing the Kesler trade. He said as much numerous times, whether in radio hits, The Athletic articles, and on his podcasts.

 

Rob Rossi, out of Pittsburgh, who was following the Kesler trade negotiations as close as anyone at the time, suggested the same reasoning, as to why the deal fell apart.

 

And when Gillis was interviewed years later, regarding the 2013-14 season, and rumoured trades, here’s what he had to say:

 

“We had a plan for that,” said Gillis. “We had really strong players who were highly desirable. We had some trades on the table at the deadline before I got fired that would’ve changed the landscape of the team.”

“There were a couple and they didn’t happen. That was an organizational decision that didn’t happen.”

 

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/canucks-gm-mike-gillis-interview-2018

 

”Organizational decision” is the key term here. You have to remember that Gillis wasn’t just the GM, but was President of Canucks Sports and Entertainment (CSE), and not just Hockey Ops. There was no higher authority inside the organization, other than ownership. So when he talks about an “organizational decision,” he’s saying the Aquilinis overruled him.

 

Similarly, you start to get an idea of the 2013-14 picture, when Gillis discusses the Torts hiring:

 

“We all felt the team needed a different viewpoint but it became apparent to me early on that this wasn’t going to work, and as I made those feelings clearer and I made them clearer on this station – I said later on that I didn’t like the direction of the team and where we were headed – I knew I was becoming part of the problem and not the solution by doing that.

“The solution is to find your way out of it and do your best, but I didn’t see a way we could emerge from this intact. I was watching a lot of the things we had done that gave us a competitive advantage go out the window, and I made my position clear. And in professional sports, 90 per cent of the time, as Laurence likes to say, you get rid of your problem. I was the problem and I deserved to go because I disagreed with certain things.”

“When I couldn’t be influential in the things I thought I should be influential in, I guess so.”

 

Again, for the President of CSE to say he “couldn’t be influential in the things [he] thought [he] should be influential in,” that means ownership had stepped in, as there was no one else within the Canucks organization with the authority to limit Gillis’s influence. Ownership had cut Gillis off at the knees, and he was no longer calling the shots. That was the situation in 2013-14, from the head coach hiring, through the trade deadline, and up to the day Gillis was fired.

Sure he had to watch what he said as an employee but here is Botch's deadline day piece from that year:

 

https://theprovince.com/sports/hockey/van-provies-deadline-day-special-and-still-shocked-at-kesler-offer

 

Here is a couple snippets from the article:

 

"Was there ever a deal that you wanted to do which the owner vetoed?

 

“No,” Gillis said.

 

Now, is it possible ownership was so desperate for a home run to win over fans that they helped created an asking price which was never going to be met?

 

It’s possible.

 

But what the Canucks were offered never came close to what Kesler should be worth."

 

And

 

"The truth here is murky. I’m not sure if people realize how involved the Aquilinis are in the day to day operations.

 

I think they’d be stunned if they knew. The fact owners were sitting in on coaches interviews last offseason, maybe even nodding off at times, gives a little indication that there’s some meddling going on."

 

[knucklehead91]

Soooo... how ‘bout that Gadjovich guy?

[Kootenay Gold]

3 minutes ago, knucklehead91 said:

Soooo... how ‘bout that Gadjovich guy?

I think he got railroaded. lol

[knucklehead91]

14 minutes ago, Kootenay Gold said:

I think he got railroaded. lol

It would appear so.... lol

[Fred65]

Thanks Sid is me, for posting this article, which I had never read before. It explains a lot. What does shine through IMO is Gillis was quiet willing to accept any blame he believed might be his fault and he endorses my perception that if nothing else he is an honourable man and unwilling to throw other under the bus to protect himself. To me that's character, I like character, I like to take a man for his word or a handshake. The fact that he spoke some times the harsh truth did not lye well with others. I think his remaining contract set him up for life. He turned to teaching at U.Vic shows he has other alternatives in life much like Linden, he didn't "need" hockey. That makes for difficult conversations with those that like to use financial muscle to bully people. He's a man that sets his own standards and some don't like that. He's certainly a person I'd enjoy having a conversation with, unfortunately some thought he was too smart for his own good

[Herberts Vasiljevs]

Lol this is bringing back some memories.

[Convincing John]

Where am I?