And So The Axe Falls

[mathonwy]

I have to laugh at the notion that the old boys are not weasels and MG is. I mean really? The old boys are as weasely as it gets. Integrity, really? BB, Sather and their kind will fuck you over any chance they get. But when they dislike another GM or think another GM has wronged them, like the Oilers and Penner, look out. The wrath of the old boys freezing you out or making your life difficult because they think they set the rules for the game, come banging down.

Most fraternities are the same. Thin blue line and all of that. The unwritten rules club.

Fair statement. Unfortunate for us, Mike burnt too many bridges as an agent and was shut out of the weasel brotherhood.

And since when did MG screw the cap? He went out and hired one of the best in the business to be our capologist. Together they did a terrific job managing the cap for us and getting us through some tricky situations. You may hate the trades he made or disliked some of his moves and non moves but he massaged the cap very well. Calgary, now there is a team that made some real cap blunders, so much so there were games one season they could not ice a full roster.

Hell Chicago made a serious blunder in not qualifying players by the deadline that put them in cap hell but even they managed to trade their way out of it, even if it did cost Tallon his job.

By the end I was with most, MG had to go. But let's not re-write history to go along with some lame ass narrative that MG was the worst thing since tofu was introduced to North America. I mean really...

Sorry you feel that my post was a "lame ass" narrative and I'm not sure what you are referring to when you state that I am re-writing history. If you could please elaborate, it would be much appreciated as your constructive criticism is always welcome.

I disagree with your statement of MG doing a terrific job managing the cap. Mike did good and Mike did bad. Mike did good in his early years and pretty badly in his latter years.

His good:
- Extending Burr 4Y/8M in 08/09
- Extending Edler 4Y/13M in 08/09
- Extending the Sedins 5Y/30.5M in 09/10
- Extending Kes 6Y/30M in 09/10
- Signing Sammy to a 3Y/7.5 contract in 09/10

His bad:
- Trading for Ballard in 10/11 with Ballard having 5 more years of 4.2M on his contract (resulting in a buy out)
- Trading for David Booth in 11/12 with Booth having 4 more years of 4.25 also resulting in a buy out
- Extending Burr 4Y/18M + NTC in 12/13
- Extending Edler 6M/30M + NTC in 12/13

His Meh:

- Extending Luo 12Y/64M in 09/10 resulting in a recapture penalty situation.
- Extending the Sedins 4Y/28M in 13/14.

--

Did Mike do more bad than good? I think a case could be made for that.

[Hockey Widow]

I wasn't referring to your narrative as lame ass. I was referring the generalized notion that he was the devil incarnate.

[Strangelove]

His good:

You've changed Mathonwy.

[Topper]

And finally, back to Friedmann suggesting that the rules won't be the same when and if Luongo retires before the end of his contract....

Glen Sather, "Amazing how rules change sometimes. It's not something I can comment on. That's something you'd have to ask Mr. Bettman"

Well that quote has nothing to do with Friedman... ... but whatever.

Sather quote, earlier this summer, in proper context:

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/why- ... h-parties/

What this is more than anything is a pound of flesh for league executives who came to loathe contracts like Richards’ because they were designed to circumvent the salary cap. That is why they dreamed up the cap recapture rule, which would have seen the Rangers penalized by more than $16-million over four years if they held on to Richards and he retired in 2016.

Gary Bettman and Bill Daly sternly warned GMs to stop signing back-diving deals under the last CBA. Then they made sure everyone knew they were serious, much to the chagrin of those that didn’t follow orders. The most frustrating part of the cap recapture rule for people like Sather is that the league approved the contracts that are now being affected by it.

“We could have a long debate about that one,” Sather said at the outset of the Stanley Cup Final. “Amazing how rules change sometimes. It’s not something I can comment on. That’s something you’d have to ask Mr. Bettman."

Sather is complaining about the grandfatherless Recapture penalty being brought in.

He's complaining about how contracts (Richards) that were once approved by the league now are penalized.

Hold it, just the other day Sather was part of the Burke old boys club out to screw MG???????????

[Chef Boi RD]

I think HW likes Mike Gillis and is drumming up excuses like how a mean bunch of other GMs were why the Players Agent got fired.

Mi

[Hockey Widow]

I think HW likes Mike Gillis and is drumming up excuses like how a mean bunch of other GMs were why the Players Agent got fired.

Mi

Ya that's it. Caught out again by sleuth dog dude.

[mathonwy]

His good:

You've changed Mathonwy.

[dbr]

Okay Dave, I'll give you Briere.

Would you agree that those other players "were bought out at least in part to avoid recapture penalties"?

You could reasonably speculate as much, sure. I don't really think it was a major consideration with most of them (other than Ehrhoff as I mentioned).

Buying out Lecavalier, Bryzgalov and to a lesser extent Richards made their respective (former) teams better immediately, and in the case of Lecavalier saved the Lightning cash even with the buy out taken into account.

But obviously having the potential recapture floating around as a possibility was probably not a plus for any of these players.

[mathonwy]

I wasn't referring to your narrative as lame ass. I was referring the generalized notion that he was the devil incarnate.

I apologize that I came across that way. Looking back at my post I can see how it could have been construed as such.

I have never been of the opinion that Mike Gillis was the devil incarnate. However, I AM of the opinion that your Vancouver Canuck's post cup run failures is directly a result of Mike Gillis's incompetence.

In a nutshell, he spent a lot of our future on a whole lot of nothing and more importantly, he wasted the prime years of the Sedins.

In the 11/12 season, there was no way we should have gone out in the first round against the Kings. Unfortunately Gillis shat the bed pretty bad that season with a series of bad moves.

1. Gillis signed a lame duck by the name of Marco Sturm for 2.25M in the off season. And then subsequently was forced to trade him (along with Sammy) for 4 more years of David Booth. This was a 4.25M garbage-for-garbage transaction in what was possibly the highest fanbase expectation season ever. (To be fair, David had an ok season that year).

2. Gillis had 4.2M tied up in Ballard and that 4.2M netted us a grand total of 47 games, 1 goal and 6 assists.

3. Due to the lack of cap space, the only move Gillis could make at the trade deadline was Sammy Pahlsson for Taylor Ellington.

4. Also on our roster taking up cap space that season was Byron Bitz at 450K, Andrew Ebbett at 525K, Bill Sweatt at 39K, Mark Mancari at 37K and Mike Duco at 35K. Not exactly your stellar cast of depth players but Gillis has only himself to blame for shitty drafting.

Shitty drafting, Ballard, Sturm, Pahlsson, all of this ultimately led to the Gillis built Vancouver Canuck house of cards losing and not being able to replace a major foundation piece when Duncan Keith elbowed Dank in the kisser and then to the penalty killing clusterfuck that was the Kings series (IE, the Drew Doughty show).

It really is sad story considering that we were still able to win the President's Cup trophy that year sans Ehrhoff, a 100% Malholtra and a 100% Kesler.

edit. Hmmm, after writing this, maybe Gillis IS the devil incarnate.

[ESQ]

1. Gillis signed a lame duck by the name of Marco Sturm for 2.25M in the off season. And then subsequently was forced to trade him (along with Sammy) for 4 more years of David Booth. This was a 4.25M garbage-for-garbage transaction in what was possibly the highest fanbase expectation season ever. (To be fair, David had an ok season that year).

I agree with your overall point, but the Booth trade was an excellent one - flipping old, injured players for a young former 30-goal scorer. One of the best on paper trades in recent memory.

I don't deny that it ended up being a disaster, but had Booth even performed as a 15-20-goal scorer (instead of a one-goal scorer in 2012-13) it would have been a good trade. Booth's decline was one of the most precipitous in NHL history, no one could have foreseen the depths to which he'd fall.

One other move (or non-move) that I raised following 2011 was the decision to keep Kesler following 2011. At that point, his value was at an all-time high following the Nashville series, he had numerous injuries to overcome that off-season, and his NTC didn't kick in until 2012-13.

Kesler's locker room dickishness is becoming more openly acknowledged, but I'm sure it was there back in 2011. Plus he contributed to the negative perception of the Canucks as divers and whiners.

However, with HW's insights I have more sympathy for Gillis' failure to make the moves we'd have liked. Kesler is one guy that even Sather would have come hat in hand for.

(Ah, I love armchair GM-ing!)

[Strangelove]

Hold it, just the other day Sather was part of the Burke old boys club out to screw MG???????????

With so much crap floating in our pool, you'd think we were Saskatoon Swingers!

[Strangelove]

Okay Dave, I'll give you Briere.

Would you agree that those other players "were bought out at least in part to avoid recapture penalties"?

You could reasonably speculate as much, sure. I don't really think it was a major consideration with most of them (other than Ehrhoff as I mentioned).

Buying out Lecavalier, Bryzgalov and to a lesser extent Richards made their respective (former) teams better immediately, and in the case of Lecavalier saved the Lightning cash even with the buy out taken into account.

But obviously having the potential recapture floating around as a possibility was probably not a plus for any of these players.

Well the GMs in question need to be very careful about criticizing the CBA

... but I do have some links somewhere of a few of them doing exactly that in regards to the Recapture clause.

No need to speculate on this matter Dave, I'll post them soon.

Do you trust me Dave?

[Meds]

1. Gillis signed a lame duck by the name of Marco Sturm for 2.25M in the off season. And then subsequently was forced to trade him (along with Sammy) for 4 more years of David Booth. This was a 4.25M garbage-for-garbage transaction in what was possibly the highest fanbase expectation season ever. (To be fair, David had an ok season that year).

I agree with your overall point, but the Booth trade was an excellent one - flipping old, injured players for a young former 30-goal scorer. One of the best on paper trades in recent memory.

Both the Booth and Ballard trades can fall into this category. Good trades on paper.....initially.

Ballard was a bit steep, but who the hell is Quinton Howden anyways?

I don't think anyone can fault Gillis for making these deals in the first place. But GMMG should have dealt Ballard after the first year. At that point he could have at least gotten something in return.

Hanging on to Booth was the right move when you consider the type of game Booth plays. When finally healthy he was a much better asset than Hansen or Higgins. If his cap hit was $1M less, then he should have been retained and Higgins bought out.

[ClamRussel]

Ya but maybe we draft Kuznetsov, Coyle, Etem or Nelson instead.

Trading for Ballard ultimately it's us Ehrhoff the following year as we were up against the cap. At the time I questioned the trade because our top4 was already set w/ Hamhuis-Bieksa and Edler-Ehrhoff. Where exactly did Gillis see Ballard slotting in. Yes, that's a steep price to pay for a 3rd pairing blueliner.

I also questioned Booth as a winger for Kesler. I called it outright, no way are too players who carry the puck going to gel together. You can't always jump on 'good deals', you need to find the right fit. Kesler needed a player like Hemsky or Whitney...wingers who can distribute the puck.

[Strangelove]

Trading for Ballard ultimately it's us Ehrhoff the following year as we were up against the cap. At the time I questioned the trade because our top4 was already set w/ Hamhuis-Bieksa and Edler-Ehrhoff. Where exactly did Gillis see Ballard slotting in. Yes, that's a steep price to pay for a 3rd pairing blueliner.

"At the time" we didn't have Hamhuis.

Hamhuis signed a week later.

It was said Gillis wanted Ballard as insurance in case he couldn't sign UFA Hamhuis to a contract.

I also questioned Booth as a winger for Kesler. I called it outright, no way are too players who carry the puck going to gel together. You can't always jump on 'good deals', you need to find the right fit. Kesler needed a player like Hemsky or Whitney...wingers who can distribute the puck.

At the time, virtually everyone was screaming Canucks needed a physical top-6 forward.

At the time, Kesler wasn't a puck-hog (he was top-20 in assists over the previous 3 seasons).

(might have been top-10, but not sure so covering my butt)

Some have suggested Kess turned puck-hog due to the general crappiness of his wingers over the years.

(Booth included)