Connor Lockhart | C

[VegasCanuck]

On 1/5/2022 at 8:21 AM, Boudrias said:

Mallet was a tough kid who was producing points. Again, I think Van coaching was looking for some toughness to counter the way the team was being manhandled. 

Mallet would have still been there in the 5th or 6th round. We didn't need to try for him that early in the draft.

 

He was passed over the season before, there was a LOT of better guys on the board. 

[VegasCanuck]

16 hours ago, filthycanuck said:

Unfortunately the gamble failed, but who can blame him? Everything Gillis did turned to gold, nutritionists, sleep doctors, travel schedules, all that stuff was, at that time, cutting edge which a lot of teams since copied. Put Gillis management and JB's scouting, you'd have one hell of a GM which I hope Aquaman and Rutherford will be able to find. The management team as a whole needed to be overhauled, which is being done with Rutherford stating he wanted new, diverse and more voices in the decision making, rather than the 2 man $hit show that Jim and John were running. That Stan Smyl presser was pretty damning, you can almost feel how his beloved Canucks have turned into a massive embarrasment

My take on Gillis is, he would have been fine as a team president, but was way over his head as a GM.

 

The core number on the team that went to the final in 2011 are, (and you can verify this, I have) 78% of all minutes and production throughout that run came from guys who were drafted or added by Dave Nonis and Brian Burke. 

 

Gillis added some reasonable fillers, but that was what he did. The core talent that took us to game 7 that year, came from guys that were on the team, long before Gillis stepped up and said, this team isn't close to winning a cup.

 

Well, 78% of effective minutes played, to me, that says we just needed the right fillers. When you consider that Ehrhoff was the main thing that Gillis added and if you subtract him, it bounces up to about 90% of minutes played in those playoffs were from Nonis and Burke.

 

[Dazzle]

16 hours ago, filthycanuck said:

Im not giving him all the credit, lets be clear here, but Gillis obviously did something right with the same core, hell with the same COACH, added a few more pieces, change in philisophy and success happened. No doubt Nonis deserved some praise and so did Burke, but you can do that in every regime. Its not like a GM inherits a team and its all his boys all over the roster. But whats factual is the results, why didn't Nonis teams get far in the playoffs, but Gillis did? Whats also fact that as much as Benning has gotten us some pieces, he's also had more failures in his era than the previous 3 regimes combined. In the end, whats the point of having a bunch of young players if we arent even making it to the playoffs, let alone trying to win the cup. The Canucks are in the business of winning, not selling hope every year, we might as well be the Sabres or the Coyotes if thats the route we are heading

 

JR has done a good job so far, but im sure he's going to be tinkering with the roster. The Boudreau hire was a great start, as long as the team keeps churning out wins

Let's be clear here - JR has done nothing so far.

 

And the fact that you're tooting on Gillis' successes, while minimizing the successes from the VERY GMs that Gillis inherited from... lol. wow. Too funny.

[Smashian Kassian]

On 1/4/2022 at 4:16 PM, Dazzle said:

It didn't work so well for Gillis when he took the great Alexandre Mallet. An overager who was producing PPG at the time who was not even ranked in the 2nd round by well-known scouts, but Gillis did it.

Sometimes, you feel like he's trying to re-invent the wheel, only to see that he was just spinning tires and failing miserably at that.

 

On 1/4/2022 at 10:07 PM, ShawnAntoski said:

I actually remembered an interview, were Gillis admitted to experimenting, in the draft based on the idea, that drafting overages - a team can skip alot of developmental time/cost and have NHL ready players to add.   Gillis ego, was his downfall and with JB it is [mostly] his inexperienced - imo.   

 

Aquaman has gone through, the Gillis & JB era and hopefully, he has learned some valuable lesson(s), on how to build a winning hockey franchise.

 

That pick was crazy. Remember thinking BEST CASE scenario was a Max Lappierre type 4th liner.

 

In 5th/6th round sure, but tough to pass on Severson there.

[ShawnAntoski]

4 hours ago, Smashian Kassian said:

 

 

That pick was crazy. Remember thinking BEST CASE scenario was a Max Lappierre type 4th liner.

 

In 5th/6th round sure, but tough to pass on Severson there.

Gillis, did alot of good things (mainly, acquiring a farm team) but he also, seems to had outsmarted himself a few times - especially. In the draft.

[Fred65]

On 1/10/2022 at 11:02 PM, Dazzle said:

Most of those players didn't work out at all. Lapierre and Rome, yes, but the rest, nah.

Your suggesting that Kassian after his struggles with drug has been a consistent NHL still pllaying in todays game is some how a "nah"  is nothing short of 

[Dazzle]

7 hours ago, Fred65 said:

Your suggesting that Kassian after his struggles with drug has been a consistent NHL still pllaying in todays game is some how a "nah"  is nothing short of 

Kassian clearly doesn't live up to his first round pick - who are you kidding?

[filthycanuck]

On 1/11/2022 at 6:58 PM, Dazzle said:

Let's be clear here - JR has done nothing so far.

 

And the fact that you're tooting on Gillis' successes, while minimizing the successes from the VERY GMs that Gillis inherited from... lol. wow. Too funny.

Yeah you know whats funny too? The supposed success that youve seen with Benning, half of the years of Bennings tenure, who were the best players with the Canucks? Oh thats right, Horvat, best D-man? Tanev. Best player? MARKSTROM. Those are Gillis' boys. Take those guys away and Benning really only made it to one playoff. We can do this debate all day long, who did what, who inherited what, all you have is excuses. Who won the most?, Who won the least? Don't trip on the mic out the door

 

You haven't answered the question. How has Benning been successful? You seem to be just spewing out excuses on how this team managed to be terrible for the most part of 8 years.

[filthycanuck]

1 hour ago, Dazzle said:

Kassian clearly doesn't live up to his first round pick - who are you kidding?

He's playing in the NHL up to now, and a good player at that. Did you think every 1st round picks are going to be 50 goal scorers?

 

I can tell you right now, every team in the league would want Kassian on their 4th, maybe even the 3rd line.

 

 

 

[filthycanuck]

9 hours ago, Fred65 said:

Your suggesting that Kassian after his struggles with drug has been a consistent NHL still pllaying in todays game is some how a "nah"  is nothing short of 

Dazzle is providing some great entertainment with his delusional takes. Hardly call a guy thats still playing in the NHL after what? 8-10 years, gone through a personal crisis and remade himself into a player that many teams would want in their lineup as a "nah" player

[filthycanuck]

On 1/11/2022 at 6:40 PM, VegasCanuck said:

My take on Gillis is, he would have been fine as a team president, but was way over his head as a GM.

 

The core number on the team that went to the final in 2011 are, (and you can verify this, I have) 78% of all minutes and production throughout that run came from guys who were drafted or added by Dave Nonis and Brian Burke. 

 

Gillis added some reasonable fillers, but that was what he did. The core talent that took us to game 7 that year, came from guys that were on the team, long before Gillis stepped up and said, this team isn't close to winning a cup.

 

Well, 78% of effective minutes played, to me, that says we just needed the right fillers. When you consider that Ehrhoff was the main thing that Gillis added and if you subtract him, it bounces up to about 90% of minutes played in those playoffs were from Nonis and Burke.

 

Why didn't they have the same success then under Nonis? Every regime are going to have leftovers from the previous one. Nonis inherited, the Sedins, Naslund, Bieksa, Salo, Kesler. Burke inherited, Naslund, Bertuzzi, ,McCabe (who turned to one of the twins)etc, and I think Morrison . See what Im getting at? This can go on and on, some success of the GM is going to get credit. What were the results in that era? Each of those era's had almost distinct cores and players were added to take that core to the next level. Burke and Nonis had pretty good tenures here, don't get that twisted. They added guys like Geoff Sanderson, Taylor Pyatt, Jan Bulis, Keith Carney, hell, Marc Bergevin LOL, etc., many others, NONE of them took the Canucks far in the playoffs, some didn't even get them to squeek them in. Part of a GMs job is take the exisiting core, and try to add players for success. Thats nothing new in the league. The key word is success, ie wins. Gillis mustve done something right if he's managed to get the same core players and somehow ended up being the greatest canuck era of all time. Thats not debatable

 

LOL Erhoff was the only main thing they added? You forgetting Dan Hamhuis? Did you think Hammer was just sitting in the pressbox every other game during the playoffs?

 

I highly doubt that 78% is accurate if your pretaining to just the skaters. Torres, Lapierre, Hamhuis, Erhoff, Higgins all player regular shifts, and Hodgson, Alberts, Tambellini, Malhotra played minor bits.

 

If you thought Erhoff was the only player that did anything, then clearly you didn't even WATCH the 2011 run. Lapierre Torres Hansen was practically the most consistent line, tip to tail, AV trotted them out there every chance he got on matchups. Hamhuis was in the shutdown pairing, and Higgins never left Keslers wing. Torres and Lapierre played HUGE in the final. But then again, you're stat muncher and probably didn't watch the games. Gawd how easy it is these days for you youtubers to act smart

Edited January 13, 2022 by filthycanuck

[filthycanuck]

On 1/11/2022 at 6:58 PM, Dazzle said:

Let's be clear here - JR has done nothing so far.

 

And the fact that you're tooting on Gillis' successes, while minimizing the successes from the VERY GMs that Gillis inherited from... lol. wow. Too funny.

Benning had 8 years here. Gillis, Burke, and Nonis were a combined what? 16 years approximately, and yet the Benning regime has had more failures than all those 3 combined, in half the years. You can even consider Benning being more a failure than the Keenan era. Keenan only had what? 2 seasons? Jim Bennings era was the absolute worst because he had 8 seasons to turn the ship around, hell even make them respectable and managed to turn the franchise into an embarassment. Fans chanting firing the GM, jerseys thrown on the ice, leaders of the team questioning management handling on ice and off ice decisions (covid, ie. JT Miller, Horvat). Yeah, we've had it roses these past few years

[filthycanuck]

22 hours ago, ShawnAntoski said:

Gillis, did alot of good things (mainly, acquiring a farm team) but he also, seems to had outsmarted himself a few times - especially. In the draft.

Oh yeah, Gillis was absolutely atrocious in the draft table. He was trying to reinvent the wheel with Mallet, and some other off the board picks they had. But in the end, I'll take a bare cupboard with numerous playoff appearances, than a full prospect pool hoping to build that one shot at the cup. A lot of people in this city would rather see hockey being played in April and May rather than sitting around, watching the other teams in the playoffs, talking about how we have some goof prospect of ours in college scoring points.

Edited January 13, 2022 by filthycanuck

[VegasCanuck]

5 hours ago, filthycanuck said:

Why didn't they have the same success then under Nonis? Every regime are going to have leftovers from the previous one. Nonis inherited, the Sedins, Naslund, Bieksa, Salo, Kesler. Burke inherited, Naslund, Bertuzzi, ,McCabe (who turned to one of the twins)etc, and I think Morrison . See what Im getting at? This can go on and on, some success of the GM is going to get credit. What were the results in that era? Each of those era's had almost distinct cores and players were added to take that core to the next level. Burke and Nonis had pretty good tenures here, don't get that twisted. They added guys like Geoff Sanderson, Taylor Pyatt, Jan Bulis, Keith Carney, hell, Marc Bergevin LOL, etc., many others, NONE of them took the Canucks far in the playoffs, some didn't even get them to squeek them in. Part of a GMs job is take the exisiting core, and try to add players for success. Thats nothing new in the league. The key word is success, ie wins. Gillis mustve done something right if he's managed to get the same core players and somehow ended up being the greatest canuck era of all time. Thats not debatable

 

LOL Erhoff was the only main thing they added? You forgetting Dan Hamhuis? Did you think Hammer was just sitting in the pressbox every other game during the playoffs?

 

I highly doubt that 78% is accurate if your pretaining to just the skaters. Torres, Lapierre, Hamhuis, Erhoff, Higgins all player regular shifts, and Hodgson, Alberts, Tambellini, Malhotra played minor bits.

 

If you thought Erhoff was the only player that did anything, then clearly you didn't even WATCH the 2011 run. Lapierre Torres Hansen was practically the most consistent line, tip to tail, AV trotted them out there every chance he got on matchups. Hamhuis was in the shutdown pairing, and Higgins never left Keslers wing. Torres and Lapierre played HUGE in the final. But then again, you're stat muncher and probably didn't watch the games. Gawd how easy it is these days for you youtubers to act smart

#1, they were still maturing as a team. By your statement, it implies that all kids should instantly hit their maximum production as soon as they enter the league.

#2, check the 78% yourself. It's not hard, just search the team that went to the finals in 2011 and compare minutes played etc.

[WeneedLumme]

22 minutes ago, VegasCanuck said:

#1, they were still maturing as a team. By your statement, it implies that all kids should instantly hit their maximum production as soon as they enter the league.

#2, check the 78% yourself. It's not hard, just search the team that went to the finals in 2011 and compare minutes played etc.

Facts won't get you very far debating with posters like Filth. The ignore button would be more useful.

[Dazzle]

7 hours ago, filthycanuck said:

Yeah you know whats funny too? The supposed success that youve seen with Benning, half of the years of Bennings tenure, who were the best players with the Canucks? Oh thats right, Horvat, best D-man? Tanev. Best player? MARKSTROM. Those are Gillis' boys. Take those guys away and Benning really only made it to one playoff. We can do this debate all day long, who did what, who inherited what, all you have is excuses. Who won the most?, Who won the least? Don't trip on the mic out the door

 

You haven't answered the question. How has Benning been successful? You seem to be just spewing out excuses on how this team managed to be terrible for the most part of 8 years.

We can cherrypick the same thing. Take away all the players that Gillis inherited: Luongo, Kesler, Sedins, etc etc, in their prime, and you'll see just how bad Gillis was post 2012.

 

Gillis outspent the franchise' assets, and brought almost nothing back as part of his core.

 

You won't analyze anything useful by "taking away" anything. It's total nonsense. If you're ok with Gillis inheriting players, it should be fair game for Benning to 'inherit' Gillis' players too, which really wasn't much, if you're being honest. What we do see is that Gillis sucked royally with drafting, and the fact that you're trying to minimize it, or not mention it at all, is pretty sad. Drafting/development was a huge failure under Gillis.

 

I don't suppose you'll care about being honest though.

Edited January 13, 2022 by Dazzle

[Dazzle]

5 hours ago, filthycanuck said:

Oh yeah, Gillis was absolutely atrocious in the draft table. He was trying to reinvent the wheel with Mallet, and some other off the board picks they had. But in the end, I'll take a bare cupboard with numerous playoff appearances, than a full prospect pool hoping to build that one shot at the cup. A lot of people in this city would rather see hockey being played in April and May rather than sitting around, watching the other teams in the playoffs, talking about how we have some goof prospect of ours in college scoring points.

Wait, Gillis inherited players, didn't he? What did Gillis give back to the next GM?

A garbage prospect pool, which you admit, stale roster players, and a poor selection of a coach. Great GMing there, bud.

Edited January 13, 2022 by Dazzle

[ShawnAntoski]

6 hours ago, filthycanuck said:

Oh yeah, Gillis was absolutely atrocious in the draft table. He was trying to reinvent the wheel with Mallet, and some other off the board picks they had. But in the end, I'll take a bare cupboard with numerous playoff appearances, than a full prospect pool hoping to build that one shot at the cup. A lot of people in this city would rather see hockey being played in April and May rather than sitting around, watching the other teams in the playoffs, talking about how we have some goof prospect of ours in college scoring points.

I get it but it took some lean years and good roster decisions by Burke & Nonis, to lay the foundation for Gillis. 

 

Gillis didn't have a background, in drafting & development cause he was an agent by trade, hence, he did what he taught was [best].  Secondly, he taught he can overcome the cycles that all sports team go through by drafting overagers and building his roster through trades & FA's; and his gamble, would [probably] had worked, if he had hit on a few more roster players with his picks - but he didn’t.  Perhaps, a simple solution would had been to hire another AGM, that had a background in drafting & player development.   Ofcourse, the context of Aquamans'  first few years, as the sole owner of the Canucks had to be considered when discussing Gillis cause he also, had to learn from both Gillis & Benning that it takes patience & the right group of decision makers, to make a championship team - spending to the cap, on the ice while cutting cost off it - is a only a recipe, for mediocrity.  

 

Anyways, JR seems to had realized in his tenures that a GM or any executive is only, as good as, the people he surrounds himself with.   

[Guest]

When's Connor playing again? 

[filthycanuck]

4 hours ago, VegasCanuck said:

#1, they were still maturing as a team. By your statement, it implies that all kids should instantly hit their maximum production as soon as they enter the league.

#2, check the 78% yourself. It's not hard, just search the team that went to the finals in 2011 and compare minutes played etc.

Maturing as a team? During Burke and Nonis time, their teams were trying to win the cup, not just make it to the playoffs. Youre acting as if they all had kids and just had a steady build to one magical ride. Nonis and Burke mortaged a lot of picks during the tail end of their tenures to keep it going but didnt work out. Thats how it is, theres going to be a drop off. Its the next gms job to work with what he had. Nonis added luongo and drafted edler, schneider etc., Gillis added a couple of top 4 dmen and good support players. They werent the Oilers who just sucked year in and year out getting high picks and collecting prospects setting up Gillis for success