A Rudderless Ship

Welcome to the main forum of our site. Anything and everything to do with the Vancouver Canucks is dicussed and debated here.

Moderator: Referees

Re: A Rudderless Ship

Postby Topper » Sat Mar 22, 2014 8:18 am

Vader wrote:Immediately after dealing for Ballard, Gillis was seen down on the draft floor speaking to other GM's about Bieksa. Ballard was brought in to replace Bieksa. Gillis doesn't get a deal he likes and decides to try and move Bieksa at a later date.

The previous year was the Burke leaked offer of Bieksa and Burrows for the chance to draft Hedman.
Over the Internet, you can pretend to be anyone or anything.

I'm amazed that so many people choose to be complete twats.
User avatar
Topper
CC Legend
 
Posts: 4675
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 8:11 pm
Location: Earth, most days.

Re: A Rudderless Ship

Postby mathonwy » Sat Mar 22, 2014 11:11 am

Sorry... tough couple days at work.. not been able to get back to this.

Thanks everyone for their feedback.

I don't want to get everyone riled up again so I'll just end it with this.

Mike Gillis's record when it comes to dealing with his colleagues is pretty shoddy in my opinion. He doesn't seem like a very strategic leader and based on the circumstances of how two recent major Canucks assets left the organization, he's not very good at keeping his own house in order.

All of his major trades looked good at the time but what's more important, good intentions or results? After awhile, good intentions aren't good enough for me. Maybe it is for you and that's your choice.

If the Canuck's path back to redemption is through a major trade(s), then I don't support Gillis being at the helm. If this year is indeed one of the anomalous cluster fucks then ... well... it doesn't matter whether Gillis is GM or not going forward.
User avatar
mathonwy
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1980
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 1:53 pm

Re: A Rudderless Ship

Postby mathonwy » Sat Mar 22, 2014 11:15 am

dbr wrote:
(But OMG, dude, the pictures of text thing..)

I am having a hard time figuring out if you just didn't understand what I was saying (and are under the impression this is all relevant to it), or if you were just really excited to rehash six years worth of trades and this wasn't even really a response to my post? :?


Well dbr,

Copying and pasting the blocks of texts saved me a crap load of formatting and typing. It also ensures accuracy of my data. End of story.
User avatar
mathonwy
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1980
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 1:53 pm

Re: A Rudderless Ship

Postby Island Nucklehead » Sat Mar 22, 2014 11:57 am

mathonwy wrote:All of his major trades looked good at the time but what's more important, good intentions or results? After awhile, good intentions aren't good enough for me. Maybe it is for you and that's your choice.


So Gillis is supposed to own a crystal ball? I don't buy it.

The team hasn't been successful, and Gillis needs his share of blame for that. But so do the players, and the coaching staff,ownership etc. etc.

If you acknowledge "ALL of his major trades looked good at the time" how can you consider him a poor trader?

If Gillis doesn't make any moves, folks say he doesn't have the balls to make a big move. When he makes a big move, folks say he's a piss poor trader. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
User avatar
Island Nucklehead
CC Legend
 
Posts: 4045
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 2:27 pm

Re: A Rudderless Ship

Postby mathonwy » Sat Mar 22, 2014 12:14 pm

Island Nucklehead wrote:
mathonwy wrote:All of his major trades looked good at the time but what's more important, good intentions or results? After awhile, good intentions aren't good enough for me. Maybe it is for you and that's your choice.


So Gillis is supposed to own a crystal ball? I don't buy it.

The team hasn't been successful, and Gillis needs his share of blame for that. But so do the players, and the coaching staff,ownership etc. etc.

If you acknowledge "ALL of his major trades looked good at the time" how can you consider him a poor trader?

If Gillis doesn't make any moves, folks say he doesn't have the balls to make a big move. When he makes a big move, folks say he's a piss poor trader. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.


Gillis is supposed to a general manager and have more information and resources than you or I. When I say they looked good at the time, I mean they look good from a fan perspective. Neither you nor I was down in Florida scouting and gathering intel on Ballard.

And Derek Roy, and Pahlsson, and Booth. Gillis is paid a lot of money to ensure he has the right people in the right places to make the right decisions. Just like any top level executive of a successful company. It's all about making those right decisions.

Burke made the right decision when he was able to trade for the draft picks to draft the Sedins. Nonis made the right decision when was able to trade Bert for Luo. Gillis has made a lot of right decisions when it comes to picking up bargain players such as Stanton and Santo. Just not on the trade front. He has made a lot of wrong decisions on the trade front that has cost the organization assets (not to mention creating a major question mark in the blue paint).
User avatar
mathonwy
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1980
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 1:53 pm

Re: A Rudderless Ship

Postby Island Nucklehead » Sat Mar 22, 2014 12:21 pm

Vader wrote:
Island Nucklehead wrote:Steve Bernier was regarded highly enough to be offer-sheeted by St Louis.

Oh for crying out loud!

That's got to be one of the silliest things I've ever read here


You don't read much here, do you?


Bernier was offer sheeted in retaliation to Gillis taking a run at Backes.


So? Are you saying the Blues didn't want Bernier at all? Just because Davidson threw an offer sheet in retaliation for Backes doesn't mean he didn't value Bernier.

“Steve is a good young player who would play a big part in our youth movement,” said Davidson. “Our coaches and scouting staff are extremely positive about him.”
User avatar
Island Nucklehead
CC Legend
 
Posts: 4045
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 2:27 pm

Re: A Rudderless Ship

Postby mathonwy » Sat Mar 22, 2014 12:31 pm

Boston Canucker wrote:
Island Nucklehead wrote:
I don't understand this argument. Because Pittsburgh won a cup in 2009 that excuses trading for Morrow last year? Bad trades are bad trades, are they not? Would you be critical of the Roy trade if Vancouver won the cup in 2011? This line of thinking is why Kevin Lowe still has a job...


If the Canucks won the Cup in 2011 I wouldn't be critical of any subsequent trades simply because I'd still be drunk, wandering the streets half naked screaming "we won the Cup!" :)


Pretty much this.

If we had won a cup in 2011 any bad trades or signings can be a lot more easily forgiven. It doesn't make the bad trade less bad, I'd just be drunk all the time with BC trolling any Boston fans that I could find.

Instead, riot this, and diver that and now, not making the playoffs. It's ... a lot of angst to bear.
User avatar
mathonwy
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1980
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 1:53 pm

Re: A Rudderless Ship

Postby Vader » Sat Mar 22, 2014 1:57 pm

Island Nucklehead wrote:
Vader wrote:
Island Nucklehead wrote:Steve Bernier was regarded highly enough to be offer-sheeted by St Louis.

Oh for crying out loud!

That's got to be one of the silliest things I've ever read here


You don't read much here, do you?


Bernier was offer sheeted in retaliation to Gillis taking a run at Backes.


So? Are you saying the Blues didn't want Bernier at all? Just because Davidson threw an offer sheet in retaliation for Backes doesn't mean he didn't value Bernier.

“Steve is a good young player who would play a big part in our youth movement,” said Davidson. “Our coaches and scouting staff are extremely positive about him.”


:roll:

What do you expect Davidson to say? "We did this to fuck the Canucks over?"

If Davidson wanted Bernier, he would've offer sheeted Buffalo on July 1st....and his offer would've been for 3 years, not one year. Or he would've traded his draft picks, which were better than Gillis' to Buffalo.

Davdison was unhappy to pay Backes $2.5M so there's no way he had legitimate interest in Steve Bernier at $2.5M
cheerleader.jpg
cheerleader.jpg (46.74 KiB) Viewed 57 times

But keep on cheerleading
Vader
CC 2nd Team All-Star
 
Posts: 260
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 10:37 pm

Re: A Rudderless Ship

Postby Strangelove » Sat Mar 22, 2014 3:40 pm

Vader wrote:
Jovocop wrote:
Do you really know what you are talking about?? If MG knew Hamhuis was 100% not going to sign with Philly or Pittsburgh and committed to sign in Vancouver, he most likely would not have traded for Ballard. It was not hard to figure out that Ballard was a backup plan.


Nope.

Gillis had three pending UFA defensemen Erhoff, Bieksa and Salo.

Immediately after dealing for Ballard, Gillis was seen down on the draft floor speaking to other GM's about Bieksa. Ballard was brought in to replace Bieksa. Gillis doesn't get a deal he likes and decides to try and move Bieksa at a later date.

Hamhuis signs on July 1st

Salo ruptures achilles heal on July 22 and Bieksa is retained as he is the only RH shot. Why Gillis would think having just one RH shot made sense in his top 6 is another head scratcher.

It's clear the plan was to bring 2 new defensemen in and ship out Bieksa.

It's dumb luck that Gillis retained Bieksa, who was the teams best defenseman in the Canucks getting to the SCF.

He's lucky that Ballard deal didn't hurt the team worse than it did.

Why do poster's feel the need to defend every move Gillis makes?


Are you confusing the summer of 2010 with the summer of 2011?

Erhoff, Bieksa and Salo were not "pending UFAs" in the summer of 2010

(summer of 2010 is when Ballard and Hamhuis were acquired).

The contracts of Erhoff, Bieksa and Salo were due to expire on July 1 2011.

So yeah, your narrative is screwy....

No one knows if Gillis ever tried to trade Bieksa (he vehemently denied the rumour from Burke).

Personally I don't buy the Bieksa trade rumours.

Yes, going into 2010-11 Canucks only had RH-shots Bieksa and Salo, but don't forget Ehrhoff played on the RS.

Yes, Salo was injured on July 22 2010, but the original estimate was only 3-6 months.

Depth defenseman Rome was decent on the right side as well.

But yeah, most of us were complaining about the lack of RH-shots as the season wore on

... and Salo took longer than hoped to return.

Disagree that "the plan was to bring 2 new defensemen in and ship out Bieksa".

Bieksa still had a year left on his contract, he was not a "pending UFA".

Anyhoo, I agree with Jovocop when he said:

"If MG knew Hamhuis was 100% not going to sign with Philly or Pittsburgh and committed to sign in Vancouver, he most likely would not have traded for Ballard."
____
"I like to think that this team can get its mojo back" - Ryan Miller
User avatar
Strangelove
CC Legend
 
Posts: 7174
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:13 pm

Re: A Rudderless Ship

Postby Vader » Sat Mar 22, 2014 4:09 pm

Strangelove wrote:Are you confusing the summer of 2010 with the summer of 2011?

Erhoff, Bieksa and Salo were not "pending UFAs" in the summer of 2010

(summer of 2010 is when Ballard and Hamhuis were acquired).

The contracts of Erhoff, Bieksa and Salo were due to expire on July 1 2011.

So yeah, your narrative is screwy....

No one knows if Gillis ever tried to trade Bieksa (he vehemently denied the rumour from Burke).

Personally I don't buy the Bieksa trade rumours.

Yes, going into 2010-11 Canucks only had RH-shots Bieksa and Salo, but don't forget Ehrhoff played on the RS.

Yes, Salo was injured on July 22 2010, but the original estimate was only 3-6 months.
"


yes - pending in the sense all 3 were heading into their last year of their contracts

Bieksa knew he was being shopped

http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2010/07/1 ... -together/

Canuck defenceman Kevin Bieksa appeared on TSN’s Off The Record program Tuesday, marking the first time he has spoken publicly since the team acquired Dan Hamhuis and Keith Ballard and pushed him two notches down the depth chart. 'I can put two and two together'. Bieksa conceded he understands he’s a candidate to be traded away. “I’m not an idiot,” Bieksa told host Michael Landsberg. “I can put two and two together. Anything could happen right now.”

GM Mike Gillis has nine defencemen signed to one-way contracts and Bieksa is the third highest paid – at $3.75 million – after Hamhuis and Ballard. The Canucks won’t carry nine into the season and perhaps not even eight depending on salary cap considerations. The Canucks are already over the $59.4 million cap but are allowed to exceed it by 10 per cent until Oct. 8, the day prior to their regular-season opener. “We have a lot of depth on defence now and it will be fun to see how it unfolds,” Bieksa told Landsberg. Christian Ehrhoff, Sami Salo, Alex Edler, Shane O’Brien, Andrew Alberts and Aaron Rome comprise the rest of the blueline corps.


Note - this was nine days BEFORE Salo got injured.

FWIW
http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2010/07/0 ... al-bieksa/
Kevin Bieksa is considered the Canucks defenseman most likely on the move.


http://www.torontosun.com/sports/hockey ... 33511.html

Vancouver GM Mike Gillis has been trying to deal D Kevin Bieksa for a while (insert denial here) and will sooner or later.


http://espn.go.com/nhl/blog/_/name/lebr ... ng-flyers-
The Canucks now take five years of term on Ballard's deal, but $4.2 million a season is not bad for a top-four blueliner that can move the puck and play a sound defensive game. Vancouver has made it a priority to upgrade its blue line. And despite the acquisition of Ballard, the Canucks aren't done trying to add another defenseman.


Now none of this is conclusive proof that Gillis was trying to deal Bieksa, but someone was moving on to get under the cap....
Vader
CC 2nd Team All-Star
 
Posts: 260
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 10:37 pm

Re: A Rudderless Ship

Postby Island Nucklehead » Sat Mar 22, 2014 4:22 pm

Vader wrote:What do you expect Davidson to say? "We did this to fuck the Canucks over?"

If Davidson wanted Bernier, he would've offer sheeted Buffalo on July 1st....and his offer would've been for 3 years, not one year. Or he would've traded his draft picks, which were better than Gillis' to Buffalo.

Davdison was unhappy to pay Backes $2.5M so there's no way he had legitimate interest in Steve Bernier at $2.5M

But keep on cheerleading


That's interesting... considering Bernier was the better player to that point.

Until July 2008:

Bernier had 90 points (45 goals) in 177 games (.51 PPG) since being drafted 16th overall in 2003.
Backes had 54 points (23 goals) in 121 games (.45 PPG) since being drafted 62nd overall in 2003.

Sure, the offer sheet was retaliatory, but Davidson would have gladly taken Bernier off the Canucks hands for less than Vancouver paid for him via trade.

Anyways, I'm not sure what you're arguing here. Gillis' offer sheet of Backes would have been great for the Cancuks, and paying Bernier $2.5M wasn't an exorbitant amount for a young player for a team that had enough money lying around to offer Sundin $10M per. Bernier didn't work out, was paid less in his next contract, and was later traded. Interestingly enough, just like Grabner, people tend to forget that both Bernier and Grabner weren't good enough for Florida. Grabner was almost immediately lost on Waivers, just as he would have been in Vancouver, and Bernier wasn't even offered a QO after his season in Florida.

Kinda like I said originally, a whole lot of MEH. If you're trying to find a major fault in Gillis' history, there are far better examples than Steve Bernier.
User avatar
Island Nucklehead
CC Legend
 
Posts: 4045
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 2:27 pm

Re: A Rudderless Ship

Postby Strangelove » Sat Mar 22, 2014 4:58 pm

Vader wrote:yes - pending in the sense all 3 were heading into their last year of their contracts

Bieksa knew he was being shopped

http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2010/07/1 ... -together/


I don't get how the fact they could have become UFAs after more than a full year comes into play here.

And I don't get how... based on rumours (of which there are always plenty) you can conclude:

"It's clear the plan was to bring 2 new defensemen in and ship out Bieksa".

If that was clearly the plan, Bieksa would have been clearly shipped out. :look:

O'Brien was the one to go, couldn't THAT have been the plan all along?

From your article:

Told the TSN panel figured he would be involved in trade talks after the Canucks’ July 1 moves, Bieksa quipped: “Yeah, well, you guys have been drawing blanks for three years now with the rumours so we’ll see if you’re right this time.”


Not sure why you are reaching so much to make your case against Gillis.

Are there not enough established facts with which to criticize the man? :roll:

I choose to believe Ballard was acquired in part... in case they couldn't sign Hamhuis

... but I don't say things like "Clearly acquiring Ballard was the backup plan to signing Hamhuis". :hmmm:
____
"I like to think that this team can get its mojo back" - Ryan Miller
User avatar
Strangelove
CC Legend
 
Posts: 7174
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:13 pm

Re: A Rudderless Ship

Postby Vader » Sat Mar 22, 2014 5:09 pm

Island Nucklehead wrote:
Vader wrote:Sure, the offer sheet was retaliatory, but Davidson would have gladly taken Bernier off the Canucks hands for less than Vancouver paid for him via trade.

Anyways, I'm not sure what you're arguing here. Gillis' offer sheet of Backes would have been great for the Cancuks, and paying Bernier $2.5M wasn't an exorbitant amount for a young player for a team that had enough money lying around to offer Sundin $10M per. Bernier didn't work out, was paid less in his next contract, and was later traded. Interestingly enough, just like Grabner, people tend to forget that both Bernier and Grabner weren't good enough for Florida. Grabner was almost immediately lost on Waivers, just as he would have been in Vancouver, and Bernier wasn't even offered a QO after his season in Florida.

Kinda like I said originally, a whole lot of MEH. If you're trying to find a major fault in Gillis' history, there are far better examples than Steve Bernier.


:bang:

YOU said Bernier was an example of a highly regarded player worthy of an offer sheet and now you're saying it wasn't a legitimate offer sheet, but rather a retaliatory offer sheet. You're doing the exact opposite of what RD does - You're being a cheerleader of every move the guy makes even though the trade was clearly a bust.

I, on the other hand, saw a trade that had some potential to be a win, only to see the GM completely mismanage getting the player under contract and then badly overpay the guy to the point they had to throw him away in a deal. The point of the deal was to get a young player, with potential, under contract for a number of years at a good cap hit before he brokeout. Instead Gillis wound up paying him like an established top six winger only to see him be a bust, while throwing away some high picks after 1 month earlier saying he wasn't going to toss around picks like the last GM. FAIL

AND, the ONLY reason they had cap space to throw $10M at Sundin, and overpay Bernier is that the previous GM set him up nicely with so many top young players under good contracts ready to breakout. But to you it's justification for Gillis to be a moron and not figure out how to get an RFA under contract before trading for him knowing a retaliatory offer sheet had to be coming.

Geez, I swear to God Gillis could deal Horvat tomorrow for a 3rd rounder you guys would be raving about how Gillis raped the other GM in that deal
Vader
CC 2nd Team All-Star
 
Posts: 260
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 10:37 pm

Re: A Rudderless Ship

Postby Vader » Sat Mar 22, 2014 5:19 pm

Strangelove wrote:
I don't get how the fact they could have become UFAs after more than a full year comes into play here.

And I don't get how... based on rumours (of which there are always plenty) you can conclude:

"It's clear the plan was to bring 2 new defensemen in and ship out Bieksa".

If that was clearly the plan, Bieksa would have been clearly shipped out. :look:


Gillis was trying to hedge his bets against potentially losing Salo and Erhoff the following summer while wanting to move Bieksa. That's why it is relevant - he stood to be down 3 defensemen.

And shipping out O'Brien was not going to be enough get them under the cap. They were juggling the cap all season that year (Burrows out for the first 10 games, Edler going on the LTR, waiting as long as possible to activate Salo etc)

There was so much talk around Bieksa being dealt that it's generally considered true, much like the scuttlebut around Kesler these days. But, hey, you can chose to believe what you want to believe.

Even if it's completely illogical
Vader
CC 2nd Team All-Star
 
Posts: 260
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 10:37 pm

Re: A Rudderless Ship

Postby Vader » Sat Mar 22, 2014 5:31 pm

Strangelove wrote:Not sure why you are reaching so much to make your case against Gillis.


Because the vast majority of the posters here jump and down with glee over every move Gillis makes (Tantalum, IN) no matter how bad the move winds up being - at the time or in retrospect.

Let's have some objective discussion here, not just cherleading :cheers:

I mean, I'm not going to shit every day on the Ballard trade, but how come no one here wants to admit Gillis was very fortunate to not have thrown away Bieksa that summer? Bieksa and Hamhuis were the best shutdown pair in the western conference that year and his GM actively was trying to get rid of Bieksa! And everybody outside of Vancouver knew Gillis was trying to move Bieksa

Even if you chose to believe otherwise...
Vader
CC 2nd Team All-Star
 
Posts: 260
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 10:37 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Canucks Corner Chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Island Nucklehead and 5 guests