Geoff Courtnall to return to Canucks?

[canuck73_3]

1 hour ago, Fred65 said:

I wonder about the Gillis drafting era. There's no doubt it wasn't great!! however a couple of things happened during his time that most seem to forget. 

 

Hodgson should have been a good pick but injuries and an overbearing father combined to kill his career. As I recall he was MVP in the last year of junior at the WJC. He was a good pick but for circumstances.

 

Schroeder was drafted, after... after Bettemman declared the days of clutching and grabbing were over in the NHL and small skilled  players should be allowed to show their skills without being mugged every shift. That lasted for about half a season. Gillis's problem was he believed Betteman and drafted Schroeder. I don't think Schroeder would have shone regardless but I think he might of survived.

 

Gillis drafted Horvat with a pick he got from Schneider ... and certainly got the best of that transaction.

 

The problem with comparing drafting it excludes every thing outside of drafting ie the FA signing of NCAA defenseman Christ Tanev and under very difficult circumstances ( Mrs Loungo needing to have him home where she and her piazza loving family could keep an eye on him) Gillis aquired Markstrom. So some times drafting in isloation paints the bad picture, 2+2 is not always = 4. I'm no fan of thee Gillis drafting era but there were some bright spots to. Where would Vcr be without Horvat might be a question to ask yourself

Gillis drafting was awful. Period. 

[24K PureCool]

1 hour ago, aGENT said:

First, what the hell HAS been normal about this season?

 

It's less common but not completely unheard of to see an extension at/past this point.

 

I don't need to 'admit' to anything. Until there's some actual facts like Green getting a contract elsewhere/us hiring another coach etc, this is all the same, usual, hyperbole and conjecture that our trash media always peddles 

 

This has not been normal partly because of Aqua's own making. Other organizations didn't become dumpster fires with Covid. The only unusual circumstance is the Covid outbreak and that is why I am not judging management with the on ice product and standing. 

 

Thinning the front office and letting Green's situation become a circus, it all boils down to Aqua. Yes he can do whatever he wants with the team but remeber there is a new shiny toy right down the road.

[Fred65]

35 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

Horvat was obtained by trading Schneider, a Nonis pick. I think an equally interesting question would be what would happen if Horvat didn't pan out, considering how poor the drafting/development period was.

 

Hutton and Horvat are practically the only pieces from a time period - one of which was obtained through trading an established player from another regime. So yes, Gillis was really bad at drafting/developing, and this has played a role in our current roster.

I guess it's the same as saying what happens if Pettersson didn't work and if pigs do fly I recommend we all get bigger  hats. You can't base a question with "what if." Gillis traded an asset much like GM's throughout the NHL do for what was a great prospect, selected by who ??? don't diminish the facts. I agreed Gillis was not good at the draft table. Hodgson if you remember was a good pick his back gave out and his career ended, but he was a good pick. and Tanev was a great FA pick up. Markstrom turned out to be a good trade, maybe one of the best we've made. Credit where it's due and ban BS

[Dazzle]

22 minutes ago, Fred65 said:

I guess it's the same as saying what happens if Pettersson didn't work and if pigs do fly I recommend we all get bigger  hats. You can't base a question with "what if." Gillis traded an asset much like GM's throughout the NHL do for what was a great prospect, selected by who ??? don't diminish the facts. I agreed Gillis was not good at the draft table. Hodgson if you remember was a good pick his back gave out and his career ended, but he was a good pick. and Tanev was a great FA pick up. Markstrom turned out to be a good trade, maybe one of the best we've made. Credit where it's due and ban BS

I agree. But you asked a question along the lines of Where would Vancouver be without Horvat? So your question is equal to a 'what if' question. Without Horvat, Gillis would have an even worse legacy at drafting. One of the biggest problems during this current roster is the lack of players from the Gillis era. These players ultimately would have filled in important roles today.

Edler is a relic from the past that precedes Gillis, for example.

[HockeyHarry]

6 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

 

I don't know where you get this from. I think most people have wanted higher picks and were pretty patient on some bad years here waiting for the actual rebuild to occur. 

 

really? Are you Sure About That

 

i think most Canucks fans are whiners that just want quick candy bandaid fixes. Just look at post game threads after any loss.

Edited May 18, 2021 by HockeyHarry

[JM_]

7 minutes ago, HockeyHarry said:

really? Are you Sure About That

 

i think most Canucks fans are whiners that just want quick candy bandaid fixes. Just look at post game threads after any loss.

slow day in Edmonton? 

[48MPHSlapShot]

15 minutes ago, HockeyHarry said:

Just look at post game threads after any loss.

Is using a postgame comments section one this one forum after an emotional loss when people are at their angriest and quickest to post without thinking really the best way to gauge the collective mindset of an entire fandom?

[morrissex95]

11 hours ago, tas said:

except that by all reports he was a poor fit in the room, which matters more than the fit on the ice. 

I can accept that, but why did we have to get Gudbranson for him? Especially when we traded a player that we needed. Maybe the McCann situation here and then in Florida was akin to Tony DeAngelo in New York. I still really like McCann and I'm disappointed we had to move him. He's a strong top nine forward. 

[tas]

1 minute ago, morrissex95 said:

I can accept that, but why did we have to get Gudbranson for him? Especially when we traded a player that we needed. Maybe the McCann situation here and then in Florida was akin to Tony DeAngelo in New York. I still really like McCann and I'm disappointed we had to move him. He's a strong top nine forward. 

because the canucks desperately needed a player of gudbrabson's type and he was coming off a strong year, has great intangibles and unquestionable pedigree.  

[morrissex95]

Just now, tas said:

because the canucks desperately needed a player of gudbrabson's type and he was coming off a strong year, has great intangibles and unquestionable pedigree.  

They could've gone with an alternative option like Luke Schenn. Schenn is just as good as Gudbranson and costs 20% what Guddy costs. It's a no brainer. Then we could've gotten something tangible for McCann. I know everyone here will say "Well, we got Pearson for Gudbranson" but we also lost Rasmus Asplund and Jonathan Ang with McCann in exchange for getting Gudbranson. We lost a 1st, 2nd and 4th for a player that ended up playing a depth role. I don't see how that's a good move at all. 

 

Also, Asplund was picked ahead of Kyrou, DeBrincat, Hart, Clague, Hronek and Gambrell who could all play serviceable roles in the organization and who could've made a big difference to our team this year. Ang, meanwhile, was picked ahead of Victor Mete. So not a big loss with the 4th rounder but trading that 2nd WITH McCann was a doozy. That's the bottom line for me, you might have a different opinion. 

[tas]

6 minutes ago, morrissex95 said:

They could've gone with an alternative option like Luke Schenn. Schenn is just as good as Gudbranson and costs 20% what Guddy costs. It's a no brainer. Then we could've gotten something tangible for McCann. I know everyone here will say "Well, we got Pearson for Gudbranson" but we also lost Rasmus Asplund and Jonathan Ang with McCann in exchange for getting Gudbranson. We lost a 1st, 2nd and 4th for a player that ended up playing a depth role. I don't see how that's a good move at all. 

 

Also, Asplund was picked ahead of Kyrou, DeBrincat, Hart, Clague, Hronek and Gambrell who could all play serviceable roles in the organization and who could've made a big difference to our team this year. Ang, meanwhile, was picked ahead of Victor Mete. So not a big loss with the 4th rounder but trading that 2nd WITH McCann was a doozy. That's the bottom line for me, you might have a different opinion. 

luke schenn was ufa and the canucks wanted certainty. moreover, benning has always been the type to target a player he likes and pay what's necessary to acquire him, not shop around for a certain set of attributes looking for the best bargain. 

[morrissex95]

1 minute ago, tas said:

luke schenn was ufa and the canucks wanted certainty. moreover, benning has always been the type to target a player he likes and pay what's necessary to acquire him, not shop around for a certain set of attributes looking for the best bargain. 

It was a dumb move IMO. Schenn would've been better, he's got experience playing with some risk-taking defenders in Toronto and Philadelphia and his career would've experience a renaissance here. While waiting for Woo to develop, Schenn might be an option this year instead of Hamonic. Schenn would be cheaper than Hamonic but not as mobile. However, if he comes here and sticks to what he does best I think he could compliment QH43 very well like he did during his first stint here. Plus, Travis Hamonic will cost between $1 Million and $3 Million and we just don't have the cap room for it. 

 

There are lots of options to ruminate about. 

[tas]

21 minutes ago, morrissex95 said:

It was a dumb move IMO. Schenn would've been better, he's got experience playing with some risk-taking defenders in Toronto and Philadelphia and his career would've experience a renaissance here. While waiting for Woo to develop, Schenn might be an option this year instead of Hamonic. Schenn would be cheaper than Hamonic but not as mobile. However, if he comes here and sticks to what he does best I think he could compliment QH43 very well like he did during his first stint here. Plus, Travis Hamonic will cost between $1 Million and $3 Million and we just don't have the cap room for it. 

 

There are lots of options to ruminate about. 

... oook, but you can't just reach out and take the players you want. gudbrabson was available, schenn may not have been attainable.

[morrissex95]

1 hour ago, tas said:

... oook, but you can't just reach out and take the players you want. gudbrabson was available, schenn may not have been attainable.

He is now if we give him more than Tampa can. Either way, he'll still be cheaper than Hamonic and we'll still be rebuilding. 

[TNucks1]

12 minutes ago, morrissex95 said:

He is now if we give him more than Tampa can. Either way, he'll still be cheaper than Hamonic and we'll still be rebuilding. 

didnt we try too re-sign schenn and he said no and opted out for tampa which was probably the smarter move since they won the cup.

[morrissex95]

3 hours ago, TNucks1 said:

didnt we try too re-sign schenn and he said no and opted out for tampa which was probably the smarter move since they won the cup.

Yeah, he did but I'm just saying as a comparison. Schenn should probably stay in Tampa and if they give him a favorable contract (think Borowiecki with Nashville). I don't think Hamonic can blossom with our team though, he was good for what we were paying him but I don't think he fits with our group. Maybe if we bring him back he'll be better next year. 

 

[combover]

Like any self respecting person he Should would stay away from the Aquas and this circus until the nhls biggest clown is gone 

He was saved by money owed not good drafting 

[canuck73_3]

22 hours ago, canuck73_3 said:

Gillis drafting was awful. Period. 

Use your words @combover in what way was Gillis drafting as a whole not awful.