Page 36 of 43

Re: Shane Doan

Posted: Fri Sep 14, 2012 5:22 pm
by wienerdog
Mr.Miyagi wrote:I for one am quite satisfied with Gillis this offseason. Chasing Doan was exciting but like others have said I am not surprised we didn't land him. Personally I would rather have not signed him for the money that was being reported and what Phoenix ended up paying for him.

I like Doan but financially right now, and looking into the future it didn't make perfect sense for this team to sign him. Our prospect pool is slim and we have enough veterans IMO. By the time the NHl resumes all of our core players will have matured that much more.
I'll reserve my judgment re: Gillis post-Luongo.

Not thrilled that we lost out on Doan, but wasn't thrilled at the prospect of the offer either.

This one was beyond Gillis' control, IMO. I'm more pissed about Schultz. They totally blew that one.

Re: Shane Doan

Posted: Fri Sep 14, 2012 5:34 pm
by Boston Canucker
wienerdog wrote:
Mr.Miyagi wrote: ....

This one was beyond Gillis' control, IMO. I'm more pissed about Schultz. They totally blew that one.
How did they blow it? By that I mean was there something they should have done that they didn't do to obtain him?

Re: Shane Doan

Posted: Fri Sep 14, 2012 7:54 pm
by FAN
wienerdog wrote: Not thrilled that we lost out on Doan, but wasn't thrilled at the prospect of the offer either.
That reflect my feelings as well. I was excited about the possibility of the Canucks adding Doan, but really wasn't sure about the offer and fit.
wienerdog wrote: This one was beyond Gillis' control, IMO. I'm more pissed about Schultz. They totally blew that one.
I don't understand how the Doan decision was beyond Gillis' control but Schultz's decision wasn't. With Doan, at least Gillis could adjust his offer to make it more attractive, and by virtue of offering 4 years and staying patient, Gillis made Vancouver a possible destination for Doan. With Schultz, there wasn't anything Gillis could do except make promises of playing time. It's hard to argue that Edmonton wasn't the best situation for Schultz if he wanted to make the NHL as soon as possible and be given prime offensive opportunities. What could Gillis have done to convince Schultz to sign here? The kid chose opportunity over being able to play in front of his parents.

Re: Shane Doan

Posted: Fri Sep 14, 2012 7:59 pm
by the Dogsalmon
way she goes boys...way she fuckin' goes...

Re: Shane Doan

Posted: Fri Sep 14, 2012 8:10 pm
by Fred
Schultz wanted to play ? so he went to Edmonton! wants he going to do now ? he's signed an NHL contract

Re: Shane Doan

Posted: Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:20 pm
by Topper
Clearly Gillis should have gone to the you know wot family of owners and had Jamison whacked. Bobby Clarke would have handled it all by himself if he were GM.

Re: Shane Doan

Posted: Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:23 pm
by ClamRussel
Todd Bersnoozi wrote:Oh well, @ least Gillis got Garrison I guess. Bit of an unknown and had 1 great year, hopefully he'll be a solid player for us for a few years.
I don't see it that way, he had one good year. From what I gather, most of his goals came in the first half then he kind of dried up in the home stretch....and didn't have many assists despite playing the PP w/ Campbell. I figure he'll do ok here w/ Hank setting up his cannon on the PP....but he'd have to have more than doubled his meagre assist total to be "great". I'm glad we got him and all, big body...pretty solid in his own end....but 33pts...we'll see if he can improve on that here. There are still some question marks.

Re: Shane Doan

Posted: Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:33 pm
by RoyalDude
I see Garrison as another Adrien Aucoin. Anybody else on board with me with that comparison?

Back to Doan. Damn glad the old man hit pay dirt somewhere else. The old man experiment doesn't work here, see Sundin, and Messier.

Anyhow, a real successful off-season for Mike Gillis. I shouldn't be to dower about it. The Burrows extension is good for this organization. I mean Gillis is a real pro at re-signing previous managements players, I just wish he was better at making his own mark here instead of riding on the coat-tails of Nonis and Burke.

I dohope that the Garrison signing doesn't prove that making deals for Florida Panther players end up being shite acquisitions for us.

Re: Shane Doan

Posted: Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:37 pm
by Todd Bersnoozi
If Garrison can be an Aucoin type player for us for a few years, that'd be sweet (solid in both ends, logs lot of minutes and scores some goals with the bomb shot once in awhile). :D

RoyalDude wrote:I see Garrison as another Adrien Aucoin. Anybody on board with me with that comparison?

Re: Shane Doan

Posted: Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:39 pm
by RoyalDude
Todd Bersnoozi wrote:If Garrison can be an Aucoin type player for us for a few years, that'd be sweet (solid in both ends, logs lot of minutes and scores some goals with the bomb shot once in awhile). :D

RoyalDude wrote:I see Garrison as another Adrien Aucoin. Anybody on board with me with that comparison?
Your retort makes it sound like I ain't to hip to Aucoin's game, in which I am.

Re: Shane Doan

Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2012 12:20 am
by ClamRussel
RoyalDude wrote:I see Garrison as another Adrien Aucoin. Anybody else on board with me with that comparison?
...perhaps a bit more physical but ya I always saw him that way...rocket from the point but not much in the way of setting up the play. Certainly not a QB.

Re: Shane Doan

Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2012 12:37 am
by Todd Bersnoozi
Kewl, I didn't think u were dissing him. I was an Oakie fan too. :D

RoyalDude wrote:Your retort makes it sound like I ain't to hip to Aucoin's game, in which I am.

Re: Shane Doan

Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2012 2:32 am
by FAN
RoyalDude wrote:I see Garrison as another Adrien Aucoin. Anybody else on board with me with that comparison?
I say they definitely share similarities. I think Aucoin in his prime was better at moving around and finding open ice whereas Garrison is careful not to get caught up ice and just waits for an opportunity to unleash a hard low shot on net.
ClamRussel wrote: I don't see it that way, he had one good year. From what I gather, most of his goals came in the first half then he kind of dried up in the home stretch....and didn't have many assists despite playing the PP w/ Campbell. I figure he'll do ok here w/ Hank setting up his cannon on the PP....but he'd have to have more than doubled his meagre assist total to be "great".
He had one good offensive year, but he's been good defensively since he broke into the league. If he can log top 4 minutes alongside Edler, he should be worth the money.

As far as Garrison's assists totals, it's all relative. Garrison had 17 assists on one of the worst offensive teams in the league. Shea Weber had 30 assists last year. 3 Canucks defensemen had more assists than Weber. What does it prove? I'm not sure it even matters. Garrison didn't get a whole lot of assists on the PP, but he was clearly the triggerman whereas Campbell was the distributor. I would expect Garrison to improve on his assists totals if the Canucks remain a strong offensive team, but to expect him or require him to double his assists totals in order to be "great" is just unfair.

I think Garrison will be a great fit on the PP. His shot is of the hard, accurate, and low variety, which fits the Canucks PP like a glove. It's easy to see that it can become predictable if Kesler doesn't manage to tip it in, but looking at the goals that Garrison scored, I look forward to seeing what Garrison does in a Canucks jersey. I think the whole notion that Garrison only scored because "Campbell set him up" is exaggerated. If you look at the goals Garrison scored, most of those goals weren't scored off beautiful feeds. It was simply Garrison waiting to T up for a shot. Maybe Newell Brown should look into designing a PP around the Sedins and Garrison's shot. Usually, the Canucks like to have two point men who can shoot. Maybe the Canucks should look into having a pointman who acts more as a setup man for Garrison.

Re: Shane Doan

Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2012 4:54 am
by CrzyCanuck
Excited about this signing...

for the Coyotes :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


Thank god the Canucks didn't get this old fart for 6m per for the next 4 years


You know why he didn't sign with us?

I bet Messier called him. :P


You know it's a good offseason when even an extremist like the Dude says it's a nice offseason


Now onto shipping Luongo's luggage to Florida

Re: Shane Doan

Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2012 5:16 am
by Mr.Miyagi
CrzyCanuck wrote:Excited about this signing...

for the Coyotes :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


Thank god the Canucks didn't get this old fart for 6m per for the next 4 years
I agree completely. He would have been a nice addition but not for the money that was being suggested by the media earlier.

I don't understand the frustration with Gillis. I really don't. This was the thinnest free agent market in recent years. I was not expecting him to over pay for a star. (Doan, Parise, Suter, etc). Garrison surely could have gotten more elsewhere but he chose the Canucks.

I hope the new CBA limits contract lengths in the future because I think the free agent market needs to be a little more attractive. No offense to Doan or any thing but this summer was boring!